Sitting of 26 January 1998

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

    State Pension
    Mr. Keith Simpson: What plans she has to link state pensions to whichever of prices or earnings is rising faster. [23052]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): The future uprating of the basic pension is being considered by the pensions review. In the meantime, we have met our manifesto commitment to uprate it at least in line with prices.
    Mr. Simpson: Many of my hon. Friends will recall that during the general election campaign, we often sat with Labour candidates who made all kinds of promises on pensions. Does not the Minister feel humbled in the face of the fact that the Government have been unable to live
    2
    up to the promises made on many platforms? Once again, pensioners and future pensioners realise that their pensions are not safe with a Labour Government.
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I am immensely proud of the Government's unprecedented action to deliver £200 million of winter fuel payments to all pensioner households.
    Mr. Hutton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government need to prioritise the case of the 1 million pensioners who are entitled to receive income support but who, for one reason or another, do not claim? What measures will the Government take to provide additional assistance to that vulnerable and important group?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The Government have made it clear that the poorest pensioners, including those who do not receive the income support to which they are entitled, will be our priority. That is why we have already initiated research into why pensioners do not claim that support. From April, we shall initiate a series of pilots to determine the best ways in which to get help to those pensioners.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Is the Minister aware that there is unprecedented anxiety among millions of old-age pensioners and those who are looking forward to receiving their pensions in a few years' time on the basis of their many years of national insurance contributions? Will he address that great concern and give us an unqualified assurance that the Government will not means-test the basic old-age pension and will continue to index it?
    Mr. Denham: There is no question of the Government's not honouring our manifesto commitment to uprate the basic state pension at least in line with prices. We have already met that commitment.

    Pensions Review
    Mr. Rammell: If she will make a statement on the progress of the review of pensions. [23053]
    Mr. Don Foster: When she expects to announce the outcome of the pensions review. [23066]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): On 1 July, I announced the pensions review that we promised in our manifesto. We have already received more than 2,000 submissions. The next stage will be the publication of our proposals, which will be in the first half of this year, and consultations will follow.
    Mr. Rammell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that the biggest challenge facing the Government on pensions is the need to provide decent second-tier pensions for the 12 million people who are in work yet not in a company pension scheme? Does she further agree that we face that challenge because of the lamentable record of 18 years of Conservative Governments who, unbelievably, chose to try to encourage people to opt out of good company pension schemes in favour of fundamentally flawed private pension plans?
    Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We face two challenges relating to pensions: one is the situation of today's pensioners, and we have said that the poorest of them must be our priority; but we are also determined—this is why we have our pensions review—to ensure that today's people at work, the next generation of pensioners, retire not on the basic state pension and means-tested benefits, but on the basic state pension and a good second pension. For many people who do not have access to occupational schemes, the only alternative has been private pensions, which have eaten up too much of their savings in administrative costs. That is why we issued our consultation document on stakeholder pensions.
    Mr. Foster: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as a result of a change in the computer system, many new pensioners have their pensions incorrectly assessed and often get less than the full allowance to which they are entitled? Will she take urgent action to resolve that situation and publicise her plans for the future? As part of the review, will she take action to ensure that such things do not happen again?
    Ms Harman: Of course, we are concerned that pensions are paid accurately and promptly. We are always concerned that the system delivers that. I shall look further into the matter and perhaps write to the hon. Gentleman or find some other way of reporting on it to the House. There are a number of problems with the administration and delivery of pensions. The system needs to be modernised so that it gets it right first time, and all pensioners receive the income to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Hope: Is my right hon. Friend aware that pension inequality has widened dramatically over the past 18 years and that if things carry on as they did under the previous Administration's policies, inequalities will continue to
    4
    widen, with the poorest pensioners suffering the most? With the cut in VAT on fuel, the zero rating of the gas levy and the winter fuel payments, have not the Labour Government done more for pensioners in the past six months than the Tories did in the past 18 years?
    Ms Harman: My hon. Friend is right. Overall, the average income of pensioners has increased, but that masks the fact that the incomes of pensioners at the bottom of the income scale have increased by less than half as much as the incomes of those at the top. There is a widening divide in pensioner income inequality. We are determined to address that, which is why we have said that our priority will be the poorest pensioners. We have already taken steps to address that inequality, and we shall look further at those issues in the pensions review.
    Mr. Butterfill: Have not the right hon. Lady and the Government done all that they can to create a shambles on pensions? The Chancellor of the Exchequer plundered pensions through his changes in advance corporation tax, much to the dismay of the Minister for Welfare Reform. Everyone has had to switch back into the state earnings-related pension scheme, which the Minister for Welfare Reform has said that he wants to abolish in the long term. What is the Government's policy? Are they going to sustain SERPS, encourage private pension provision or carry on with the present muddle?
    Ms Harman: We have said that, in addition to the basic state pension, we want to improve second-tier pensions and make them accessible to all. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts in his allegations against the Government. The shambles on pensions came not from us but from the previous Government, who presided over growing inequality in which the poorest pensioners were left behind. They instigated the policy of mis-selling personal pensions and left hundreds of thousands of people uncompensated. We are acting on that. They left many working people with no opportunity to pay into a good-value second-tier pension. We are addressing all those issues. What is more, instead of doing it on the back of an envelope like the previous Government, we are having a proper consultation through our pensions review to build a consensus for the long term. That is the way to do it.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that among the poorest pensioners are those who lost their health working in industries such as coal mining and slate quarrying and their widows? Will she join me in welcoming last week's court announcement that compensation will be paid to coal miners and their widows for emphysema and chronic bronchitis? Will she give an assurance that this time, the needs of slate quarrymen and their widows will be taken into account?
    Ms Harman: Everyone in the House will welcome the fact that, at long last, justice will be done to those whose health suffered through working in coal mining. Many people will wonder how it was that so many people ignored for so long the warnings about how working in coal mines can seriously damage health. It is a timely warning to us to ensure that workplaces are safe from

    5
    accident and disease. I shall draw the attention of my ministerial colleagues to the right hon. Gentleman's point about slate quarry employees.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: In answer to an earlier question, the right hon. Lady said that she was a great supporter of occupational pensions and accepted her party's manifesto pledge to support them. Last week, however, the Government did a U-turn on pensions because they announced that they had increased the national insurance rebate after having said that it had no effect. They did so because people were having to opt back into SERPS as a result of the chaos caused by the Budget and the announcement of the abolition of ACT dividend credit.
    Will the right hon. Lady therefore now accept that the Government have done a U-turn, and will she apologise to pensioners who have been messed around? Most of all, will she now say why, when the Government made that change, they did not include occupational pensions? Will she explain why those with occupational pensions will have to pay out extra money for the next five years, so that they stay in line with the pensions that they wish to receive? Why were occupational pensions ruled out?
    Ms Harman: We have done no U-turn. No pensioner has been mistreated by the Government. We sought and considered the advice of the Government Actuary, who, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is there to advise on such matters. We took his advice, which was—as reported in a written answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)—that there was some risk that some people might be advised to opt back into SERPS. We considered the Government Actuary's advice and we changed the rebates. That action was a normal part of the process, and we acted promptly and correctly. It is important not only to make an immediate and appropriate response but to address the long-term problem, and ensure that we have a strong economy and a high level of investments. Thus we can ensure a good return on people' s second-tier pensions in the future. Our approach has been based on that aim.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The right hon. Lady has failed to answer the question that I asked her. As a result of the mess that the Government got into at the Budget, is it not a fact that the change to the national insurance rebates will cost the Government £500 million over the next five years? Does she accept that? Will she answer that Question, and apologise?
    Ms Harman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his second question. He will know that the Government Actuary's responsibility is to advise the Government when, from time to time, it is necessary to adjust rebates. We sought that advice and acted properly on it. The important thing is to ensure that in the longer term we have the right level of investment to sustain the growth of second pentions. We have taken the right action.

    Family Credit (Wales)
    Mr. Edwards: How many families are in receipt of family credit in (a) Monmouthshire and (b) Wales. [23054]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): Figures for Monmouthshire are not available. The latest available figures for the Benefits Agency offices in Newport and Cwmbran reveal that there were approximately 4,000 families receiving family credit.
    The latest figures for Wales show that there were approximately 43,000 families receiving family credit.
    Mr. Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that family credit is equivalent to the taxpayer subsidising bad employers, especially in Wales, the land of low pay? Does he further agree that the introduction of a national minimum wage will reduce expenditure on family credit and reduce the incidence of poverty pay, as well as the inequality between men and women in the labour market?
    Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why the Government's proposals on a national minimum wage are so welcome throughout the nation. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the immense amount of work that he did on behalf of low-paid workers before he entered the House. The national minimum wage will address that issue.
    Mr. Letwin: Will the Minister tell us whether the earned income tax credit, which we understand is to replace family credit, will be subject to an affluence test?
    Madam Speaker: In Wales?
    Mr. Letwin: In Wales.
    Mr. Bradley: As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his pre-Budget statement that the Government propose an integrated tax and benefits system, of which that is part. It would not be appropriate for me to comment at this stage on his final plans.

    Pensioners (Income Inequality)
    Mr. Purchase: What estimate she has made of future income inequality rates among pensioners. [23055]
    Mr. Denham: We want today's and tomorrow's pensioners to enjoy security in retirement. Estimates show that the gap between the best-off and worst-off pensioners will be even wider in the future than it is today under current policies, so a key objective of the pensions review is to ensure that pensioners have an adequate income in retirement and that they share fairly in rising national prosperity.
    Mr. Purchase: Is it not the case that most people will rely on the state earnings-related pension scheme right through to the early part of the next century? There appears to be some doubt in people's minds about the future value of such pensions. Does my hon. Friend accept that, the more people go into private pensions, the more share churning goes on, the more fees go up and the more arrangement costs increase? In fact, through the rebate, taxpayers' money is going directly into the pockets of the

    7
    richest people in the country. In the pensions review, should we not reinforce our commitment to SERPS on a proper basis of related-to-earnings income in retirement?
    Mr. Denham: We said in our manifesto that we shall retain SERPS as an option for those who wish to remain in it; and the pensions review is looking at a wide range of issues relating to the future of pension provision. Many people who enjoy security in retirement have a pension whose income comes from investments. It is possible to create a framework for value-for-money, flexible and secure stakeholder pensions, based on investment income, which can assist those with a basic state pension to enjoy security in retirement.
    Mr. Flight: On the Government's own figures in the November consultative document, I recollect that there are about 40.5 million people with pension provision and 7.5 million without. Will the Minister give an undertaking that improving the position of those without pension provision outside the state will not come at the expense of those who have made provision, by the tax deductibility of pension contributions being reduced? That applies particularly to the over-40s who have made plans and who will find those plans all awry if there is yet another retrospective change in such taxation.
    Mr. Denham: Taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we wish to encourage people to save for their retirement.

    National Insurance Numbers
    Ms Moran: What plans she has to take action to reduce the numbers of false national insurance numbers in circulation. [23056]
    The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): The Government attach the highest importance to safeguarding the integrity of the national insurance system and its numbers system. There is a programme under way that is looking at the validity of each number: 750,000 numbers have been checked so far and the programme continues.
    Ms Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful reply and ask that he investigates an issue raised with me by members of the Luton jobcentre and Benefits Agency, with whom I recently worked for a day. They expressed concern about the estimated 14 million to 17 million national insurance numbers in circulation, which might be subject to abuse. I am sure that he will want to address that issue, so that we can start to modernise our benefits system, get rid of the shambles that we inherited from the previous Tory Government and ensure that benefits are targeted on the most needy.
    Mr. Field: To the three points that my hon. Friend raises, the answers are yes, yes and yes. In addition, section 19 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997. which is coming into operation over time, ensures that claims to benefit are made dependent on the
    8
    production of a valid national insurance number and that checks on each number will be made at the point of benefit claim.
    Mr. Sayeed: The Prime Minister said that benefit fraud cost this country £4 billion to £5 billion a year. Does the Minister agree?
    Mr. Field: The Government have always been careful about giving estimates of the amount of benefit fraud. It is sensible for the whole House to accept that we have a duty to be ever vigilant on behalf of taxpayers. That is the approach taken by the Government.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to tell us how many of the national insurance numbers already examined are false?
    Mr. Field: Of the more than three quarters of a million national insurance numbers that have been checked, there have been 133,000 plus duplicate accounts. A number of them are being studied for further investigation. I shall be happy to report progress to the House and to my hon. Friend on that basis.

    Lone-parent Benefits (Yorkshire)
    Mr. Allan: What estimate she has made of the number of new applicants for lone-parent benefits from Yorkshire in the year beginning April 1998. [23057]
    Mr. Keith Bradley: It is estimated that around 25,000 new awards of income support will be made to lone parents in Yorkshire in 1998–99. Similar estimates cannot be made for new awards of the lone-parent rate of child benefit.
    Mr. Allan: While any measures that help lone parents who are looking for paid work are welcome, does the Minister acknowledge that a proportion of those new claimants will wish to work full time at home, bringing up their young children? Does he accept that they do so with the best possible motive, of lone parents having to provide the parental contact of two parents? Will the Minister consider reinstating extra benefit for lone parents with children under five?
    Mr. Bradley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. All families will now receive the same rates of child benefit and family premium, but existing lone parents will continue to receive the higher rates—there will be no cash losers. We have brought forward the new deal for lone parents, and an extra £25 million has been made available under the new deal, to lone parents who wish to work and whose youngest child is under five.
    Ms Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many parts of the country, including Yorkshire, lone parents are attempting to improve their education by going to university to study and are finding it increasingly difficult to pay their mortgage, study full time and raise their children? Will my hon. Friend consider providing extra support for those lone parents and making a statement to the House at a future date?
    Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments. I encountered a similar constituency case just

    9
    this weekend, involving exactly the same point. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall consider the matter urgently, to see what assistance may be available.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the Minister been able to make an estimate for Yorkshire—or if he does not have that exact figure, for the rest of the United Kingdom—of the proportion of lone mothers who will come off benefit because of changes in circumstances in the first full year, such as going to work or finding a new partner? What proportion of existing lone mothers on premiums will come off benefit in the first year?
    Mr. Bradley: I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments. I do not have those estimates, but I shall write to him with an evaluation of the point that he raised.

    Maternity Grant (Crewe and Nantwich)
    Mrs. Dunwoody: What was the average payment of maternity grant to mothers in the Crewe and Nantwich constituency in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1994–95; and how many received sums of £15,000 to £20,000. [23058]
    Mr. Denham: Approximately 50,000 pregnant working women do not qualify for maternity pay because their earnings are below £62 per week. We want to help all women balance their careers and family responsibilities and ensure that the system is fair to all women.
    I regret to say that the figures requested for Crewe and Nantwich are not available.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: That was a rather long way of saying no; I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting reply. If we are to talk seriously about maternity payments, and the women who do not qualify as well as those who do, might it not be useful to do so on the basis of fact? To raise fears before all the replies are detailed is to cause enormous harm and considerable worry and to place needless pressure on people who do not need it.
    Mr. Denham: It is important to set out the problem. The system is complex; it is hard to understand and difficult for employers to administer. It excludes 50,000 low-paid women from benefit each year, while others receive substantial amounts. The system is not seen to be fair, which is why we need to consider a coherent package of measures.

    Pension Entitlement (Women)
    Ms Dari Taylor: What plans she has to increase the pension entitlement of women. [23059]
    Mr. Denham: One of the major challenges facing the pensions review announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in July 1997 is to narrow the pensions gap between men and women, to give women more security in retirement. Many pensions are simply not flexible enough to cope with women's working patterns and the fact that they earn less on average than men and are more likely to have caring responsibilities. We are committed to introducing pension sharing for divorcing
    10
    couples from April 2000. Our proposals for citizenship and stakeholder pensions will be of particular benefit to women.
    Ms Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that low pay and the earnings limit on contributory benefits have a serious impact on pensions? Does he therefore agree that the introduction of a statutory minimum wage will be very beneficial? Would he consider studying the idea of relaxing or abolishing the earnings limit on contributory benefits?
    Mr. Denham: Measures such as the minimum wage, which enable women to earn more, will obviously help them to develop better pension rights, as will measures such as our proposed stakeholder pensions, which will bring within their reach value-for-money, flexible and secure pensions. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor indicated some of the areas that he was studying in relation to national insurance and contributions limits, and will make proposals in due course.
    Miss McIntosh: May I say how nice it is to see the Minister for Women in the House today and, through you, Madam Speaker, ask her whether she has had a chance to consider the impact of the reforms that the Government wish to make, by abolishing the independent taxation of women, on women's pension entitlement?
    Mr. Denham: I believe that I am answering the question, Madam Speaker. I think the answer to that is—[Interruption.] The pensions review is considering a wide range of issues. One of the challenges that we set ourselves in establishing the pensions review was the much-needed one of narrowing the pensions gap between men and women, so we shall be considering many of the obstacles that currently prevent women from developing good pension rights.
    Mr. Wicks: Perhaps I could ask the Minister for men a question. Given that many women in their working lives become carers of elderly relatives or perhaps of a frail husband, and as a consequence suffer the penalty of poverty in old age because of loss of pension entitlements, will the Government make provision in their plans to ensure that we have decent and generous credits for those in the community who, by doing vital work—although not in the waged economy—save the country billions of pounds?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Although we obviously want to encourage as many people as possible to develop a value-for-money, funded, invested second pension, obviously some people are unable to do so as they are exercising caring responsibilities and are not in a position to contribute. In the pensions review, we are examining proposals for a citizenship pension, with the aim of ensuring that people who spend a large part of their lifetime caring do not end up in retirement on means-tested benefits, which is a poor reward for the service that they have given to their families and the wider community.

    Actors (National Insurance)
    Mr. Key: What plans she has to change the status of actors with respect to national insurance contributions. [23060]
    Mr. Denham: We are reviewing the position of performers for national insurance purposes and are working closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We have also met Equity. No decision has yet been made. An announcement will be made in due course.
    Mr. Key: I wonder whether the Minister knows of many actors, dancers and musicians who really, really want to be unemployed. May we encourage him, in his negotiations with the Treasury, to persuade it that nurturing artistic talent is more important than administrative convenience? Until the Treasury sees sense, would he put his daughter on the stage?
    Mr. Denham: I am sure that the House does not want to know about the forthcoming performance of a certain amateur ballet company in Southampton.
    In considering this important issue and in trying to remove the uncertainty that has existed and to find a sustainable way to proceed, of course we shall take into account all considerations, including the importance of the performing arts to the economy and to the culture of this country.
    Mr. Caplin: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that this is yet another mess that we have been left, after 18 years, because of the inaction of Conservative Governments?
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right: the issue has been around for some time. It is important that everyone involved in the industry and the performing professions knows what the future will be. Therefore, we are reviewing the position, taking all factors into account. We shall make an announcement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: When the Government were pushing through their proposals to cut benefit paid to lone parents, the Prime Minister was having a champagne reception at No. 10 Downing street with various glitterati from stage and screen. Did he tell them that they would have to foot the bill for that party because the Government were withdrawing that element of benefit?
    Mr. Denham: I find it hard to believe that that is the most serious question that the hon. Gentleman can ask.

    Pensioners (Fuel Bills)
    Mrs. Ellman: If she will make a statement on her plans to help pensioners with their fuel bills. [23061]
    Mr. Barry Jones: How much extra money will be provided for payments to pensioners for heating in the current financial year; and if she will make a statement. [23065]
    Mr. Swinney: How many pensioners have received the additional payments for winter fuel bills announced
    12
    by the Chancellor in the Budget; when he expects that all pensioners eligible will have received this payment; and if he will make a statement. [23067]
    Ms Harman: I am making a winter fuel payment of £50 to all the 1.5 million pensioners on income support. I can today announce to the House that payments have already been sent this week to 1,117,000 pensioners on income support. All other pensioners on income support will be sent their £50 payment by the end of the week, and they do not, of course, need to claim it. For pensioner households not on income support, I am making a £20 payment. We are making the payments as swiftly as possible and we expect to make the vast majority of them by the end of March.
    Mrs. Ellman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which demonstrates what a real difference a Labour Government have made. Is she aware that the legacy of the past 18 years is that the health of my constituents is the sixth worst in the United Kingdom? Does she accept that keeping warm is essential to the health of pensioners, and that the steps that the Government have already taken will improve pensioners' health? Will she work with other Departments, so that pensioners in my constituency and elsewhere can have good, warm housing, a better income and assistance with their fuel bills?
    Ms Harman: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Of course poverty and inequality in income are closely linked to inequality in health. She will know that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Health have been working on the matter and will shortly publish a Green Paper on the health of the nation, which will make explicit the relationship between the problems of the poorest in the country and issues of income inequality and health.
    Mr. Jones: Can my right hon. Friend say whether constituents on disability living allowance and attendance allowance will have access to that money, how much new money is being pumped in over two years, and what sum is available to pensioners in Wales—perhaps as much as £30 million? Does she accept that pensioners greatly appreciate what the Government are doing for them, bearing in mind the record of the previous Government?
    Ms Harman: I can assure my hon. Friend that all pensioners will receive a winter fuel payment—all pensioners, irrespective of whether they are on additional benefits or simply on the basic state pension. A sum of £400 million has been allocated to help pensioners with their winter fuel bills which, as I said, means an extra payment to those on income support. I thank my hon. Friend for the warm welcome that he has given from pensioners in his constituency to the extra help that the Government are giving to pensioners.
    Mr. Swinney: Having travelled from Scotland to London today, I can confirm that it is very cold in Scotland. Does not the delay in payments of winter fuel compensation to pensioners prove the case for a properly designed and resourced cold climate allowance which takes account of the wind chill factor, which is a vital issue in many communities throughout the country?
    Ms Harman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been no delay in paying out winter fuel payments.

    13
    We have made the payments to those on income support a priority, which we shall have concluded by the end of this week. We will start the payments to those who are not on income support right away thereafter. We are doing it as fast as we can, within the limits of the machinery that we inherited from the previous Government. I can promise the hon. Gentleman that, next year, we shall have got the system sorted out, so we shall be able to make the payments more promptly.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to wind chill. The wind chill factor would have been added to a cold weather payment system, which itself was already complex. It was feared that a complex system would have been made incomprehensible. Therefore, we made a decision that, in the first instance, our way in which to help pensioners with their winter fuel bills would be to make payments differentially to those on income support, but to ensure that all pensioners, irrespective of the temperature or wind chill factor, received their payments this year. We shall, of course, keep the issue of wind chill under review. There has been no delay in making the payments. We are making them as fast as we can because we regard them as a priority.
    Mr. Rendel: The Secretary of State has told us that some of the £20 payments will not be made until March. Does she realise that many of the pensioners who will be receive their extra payments as late as that—even if they are not claiming income support now, they could be doing so then—are among the poorest in the country? Many of those people have pre-payment meters. What help will it be to them if they receive their extra money just in time for what, in effect, will be their summer fuel payments?
    Ms Harman: We are concerned that all pensioners should receive their payment. We raised the issue when we were in opposition—it continues to be a priority now that we are in government—that 1 million pensioners who were entitled to income support did not claim it. They do not get their income support and so lose out, on average, by £14 a week. In addition, they do not receive cold weather payments and all the other benefits that are passported in.
    Make no mistake, we are concerned about the estimated 1 million pensioners who are entitled to income support and who do not claim it. That is why, from April, we are setting up a programme that is designed to try to identify ways in which to bring more automatic help to the poorest pensioners. When we put it to the previous Government that 1 million pensioners did not receive the income support to which they were entitled, they said, "They do not choose to claim. Clearly they do not need the money." We do not take that approach. That is why we are investing to try to find ways in which to get to the poorest pensioners.
    In the meantime, these pensioners will at least receive £20, although they should be receiving £50. It is to be hoped that we shall have tracked down many more of them by next year. That having happened, they will receive the uprated payment.
    Mr. Beard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest inequalities in pensions is that between
    14
    men and women, and that the Government's winter payments, which go disproportionately to women, will do much to overcome that inequality?
    Ms Harman: Two thirds of the £50 payments will go to women pensioners. One of the challenges that we have set for the pensions review is to narrow the pension gap between men and women. Women are less likely to make full national insurance contributions because they are likely to be below the lower earnings limit. They are less likely to be in well-paid work and have the opportunity of an occupational pension. They are more likely to be living on their own in retirement with no savings, no state earnings-related pension schemes, no occupational pensions and possibly no basic state pension. We are concerned to narrow the pension gap between men and women, which grew so alarmingly wide under the previous Tory Government.
    Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State talks about Green Papers. Personally, I am sick and tired of hearing about Green Papers and reviews, and so are pensioners.
    The right hon. Lady and her Government had an opportunity on Friday to help the poorest pensioners in the coldest parts of the country by accepting my Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill. What is the major difference between now and 12 months ago, when 176 Members—most of them Labour Members, including the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley)—took the view that it was necessary to take into account the wind chill factor so as to help the poorest and coldest pensioners? Their position now is a betrayal of everything that they talked about before the general election.
    Ms Harman: One of the major differences between myself and the hon. Gentleman is that he voted for VAT on gas and electricity in pensioners' fuel bills to be 17.5 per cent., whereas the Government cut it to 5 per cent. and are giving extra payments to help with fuel bills. Perhaps he will spare us his bleeding-heart concern about pensioners, who did so badly under the Conservative Government.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend consider extending this very welcome measure to other groups on state benefits whose health can be adversely affected if they are unable to afford to keep warm, especially families with young children, including lone-parent families?
    Ms Harman: All families on low incomes will particularly welcome the fact that we have cut VAT on gas and electricity, and that we will press ahead, through our environmental task force, with help for people to insulate their homes. The most important thing for people of working age on low incomes is to enable them to improve their incomes—by far more than they ever could on any rate of benefit—by helping them into work. That is why we are investing £3 billion in a welfare-to-work programme to ensure that people of working age can have opportunities for high-quality training and worthwhile jobs.
    Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Lady kindly tell the House, first, why the Government are using taxpayers' money on an advertising campaign for a scheme that is

    15
    being given automatically to every pensioner in the country? Secondly, how much is it costing? Thirdly, why—against the advice of civil servants, who recommended to Ministers that this was a party political advertising campaign and should not have taxpayers' money—are the Government pressing ahead? Will the right hon. Lady be kind enough not to give a spurious answer, to avoid the sound bite and to answer the question for once?
    Ms Harman: I shall seek to answer all the hon. Gentleman's questions. For a start, there was no recommendation that we should not go ahead with the advertising campaign because it was political. We have gone ahead with it because this is a wholly new payment which has never been paid before.
    Hon. Members have raised the issue of pensioners and giving them their entitlement. Pensioners throughout the country, who will get a £50 giro on their mats, need to know that they are entitled to cash it, that it is not an overpayment, that it is not a mistake and that it is to help with their fuel bills. We also have to ensure—
    Mr. Burns: How much?
    Ms Harman: I will answer the hon. Gentleman; I promised to answer all his questions. I am explaining why we are going ahead with the advertising campaign, if he will let me finish.
    There are many pensioners on income support who might be concerned that this money was an overpayment or mistake and simply leave the giro uncashed. We know that there is a problem of pensioners not claiming benefits. They are entitled to know that this payment is coming, that it is for them and that they can safely cash it and use the money.
    On pensioners who are not on income support, hon. Members have raised the issue about our not being able to pay the money as fast as we should like. We want pensioners to know that this money will be coming to them, that they are entitled to it and that they can use £20-worth more fuel than they would otherwise have been able to do. That is why we are proceeding with the advertising campaign. We are spending £400 million over two years on extra winter fuel payments for pensioners. We are spending £1.7 million on information about entitlement. We have to ensure that pensioners know what they are entitled to and what they are getting. That is not only appropriate, but necessary.

    Landlord Benefit Fraud
    Helen Jones: What proposals she has to tackle organised landlord benefit fraud. [23062]
    Mr. Field: The initiatives include new powers for local authorities to collect information, a new criminal offence, and a new power for local authorities and central Government to share information when they attempt to crack down on fraud.
    Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I used to prosecute Department of Social Security fraud and I am reluctant to deprive my ex-colleagues of a chance to follow up cases in the courts. However,
    16
    does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way in which to tackle fraud is to prevent it from happening in the first place? What plans does he have to identify areas where fraud is most likely to occur and to target resources at those areas?
    Mr. Field: As my hon. Friend suggests, our plans are to ensure that counter-fraud measures are built in at the start of any benefit claim. May I stress that, while the Government attach enormous importance to countering benefit fraud, we attach equal importance to seeking out diligently those who are eligible for benefit but not claiming it. We run both those policies in tandem, which is one of the many factors that distinguish us from the Opposition.

    Child Benefit
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: If she will make a statement on the future of child benefit. [23063]
    Mr. Field: I remind the right hon. Lady of the two commitments made in our manifesto.
    Mrs. Bottomley: When I worked for the right hon. Gentleman 27 years ago, we campaigned to protect children from the Chancellor's threats. Will he give an undertaking to work as hard and to fight with as much determination today to protect children from the Chancellor's menaces? I have not changed my mind about the importance of recognising the extra costs and needs of children at every income level. Has the right hon. Gentleman changed his mind?
    Mr. Field: I have not changed my mind, but when the right hon. Lady and I worked at the Child Poverty Action Group, we were both trying to protect family allowance—it is now called child benefit—from a Tory Chancellor.
    Mr. David Heath: In view of the Secretary of State's well-publicised concerns, how many women who are millionaires draw child benefit?
    Mr. Field: If the hon. Gentleman would like to table a question on that specific point, I shall try to find the answer.
    Mrs. Gillan: Does the Minister realise that working mothers throughout the country have been seriously alarmed at the recent report in The Times of 15 January that, in order to tax child benefit and cap maternity benefit, the Chancellor may end the independent taxation of women? Does he agree that abandoning separate taxation would further undermine the institution of marriage and make it more tax advantageous to cohabit? Will he now rule that out completely to set working mothers' minds at rest?
    Mr. Field: Traditionally, taxation issues are the province of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Disability Benefits
    Mr. Winnick: If she will make a statement on proposed changes to disability benefits. [23064]
    Ms Christine Russell: If she will report progress on welfare reform with particular reference to disability benefits. [23070]
    Ms Harman: Benefits for people with sickness and disabilities are part of our review of the social security system. We shall come forward with proposals later in the year and they will be followed by full consultation.
    Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to reassure disabled people that their position will not be worsened?
    Ms Harman: I do agree with my hon. Friend. It is very important to reassure disabled people that their position will not be worsened—far from it. Two principles drive our social security review in respect of people with health problems or disabilities. The first is to ensure that those who cannot work have the right support, whether it is cash or services, or a combination of the two. The second is to ensure that we do not follow the path of the previous Government, who told people with health problems and disabilities that, even though they might have some capacity to work and might want to work, they would be written off to a life on benefits. Our approach is to extend opportunities to people with ill health or disabilities. We are backing that with £195 million of investment in innovative schemes so that the minority—it is, however, a significant minority—of those who are long-term sick or disabled can have attention paid to their needs and can be supported in getting into, and staying in, work.
    Ms Russell: Before I was elected to the House, I worked with people, most of whom had learning disabilities. I am still in close touch with them and, last week, I had a meeting with representatives of DIAL house in Chester. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is familiar with that organisation. Given the concern fuelled by all the scaremongering in the media, will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that, before any key decisions are finally taken, there will be full consultation with organisations such as the Disability Benefits Consortium and the DIAL network?
    Ms Harman: I am happy to give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance that the organisations that she mentioned and many others will be fully consulted. I want to allay her concerns. She raised the important issue of the prospects in adult life of people with learning disabilities, which is of particular concern to them and to their carers. Although we provide a proper framework and many opportunities for people with learning difficulties while they are of school age, many of them are written off when they reach school-leaving age. They feel that they cannot continue to develop, and their parents feel a sense of desperation and worry about whether there will be any framework for the lives of their sons or daughters when they are not around to care for them. We must ensure that we take account of people's abilities and capacities as well as their disabilities and incapacities, and we must
    18
    provide opportunities for all. The days when people were told, "You've got an incapacity. You've got a disability. You're written off. Here's some money"—
    Madam Speaker: Order. All the right hon. Lady was asked for was a categorical assurance. I have to take two more questions on this subject.
    Mr. Amess: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, judging by the number of telephone calls and letters that 1 have received, my constituents in Southend, West already believe that this rotten Labour Government are cutting disability benefit? Will she explain to the House why, since 1 May, many of my severely disabled constituents have been called in by doctors for further examination and have had their benefits taken away? If they have gone to appeal, their cases have taken an awfully long time to be heard.
    Ms Harman: That is another first-rate example of—I do not want to use an unparliamentary word—synthetic concern. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the benefit integrity project, which was crafted, fashioned and consulted on by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) when he was Secretary of State for Social Security. If the hon. Gentleman wants to get into a lather about this issue, he has missed the boat. Our approach is to keep a careful eye on the benefit integrity project to ensure that people on disability living allowance receive the right amount of that benefit under the current conditions of entitlement. However, that has nothing to do with our review of benefits for the long-term sick and disabled, so the hon. Gentleman's argument does not wash.
    Mr. Collins: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the purpose of her review is to reduce spending on people with disabilities?
    Ms Harman: The purpose of our review is to ensure the right level of care and support for those who cannot work, and to ensure maximum opportunities for those who can work. The exercise is driven by principle, not by cuts.

    Status of Women (Commission)
    Siobhain McDonagh: If she will make a statement on the planned meeting of the commission on the status of women in March. [23068]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Ms Joan Ruddock): As part of our focus on women during our presidency of the European Union, I am pleased to announce that I will be heading the EU delegation at the next annual meeting of the United Nations commission on the status of women, which will be held in New York in March. I will be working with women's organisations and our EU partners to ensure that we represent the views of European women.
    Siobhain McDonagh: I thank the Minister for that reply. The commission will consider violence against women. Today is the launch of domestic violence week in my borough of Merton. Although services are available, women who suffer from domestic violence, and the doctors, nurses and health visitors, who may be the first people with whom those women come into contact,

    19
    often do not know what help is provided. Will my hon. Friend ensure that consideration is given to finding ways in which to inform everyone, across the board and not on a departmental basis, about what services are available?
    Ms Ruddock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I can assure her not only that action to prevent violence against women is one of the major priorities of the Ministers for Women, but that it is part of the United Nations platform for action on women.
    By raising the issues in an international forum, we can ensure that we contribute to the dialogue, and make it possible for women throughout the world to understand
    20
    that we are all concerned about the violence that is inflicted on them and will tackle it. In this country we, as Ministers for Women, are already working across Government with our colleagues to ensure that we deliver better services, and that every woman who is subjected to violence is confident that she can come forward, be treated with respect and gain the support that she needs if she has to go to court—and, indeed, after court.
    Unlike the previous Administration, we have put the perspectives of women at the heart of our Government. Already, £30,000 has been allocated to the women's aid helpline in England.

Iraq
3.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: [by private notice]: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current relations with Iraq.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): With permission, I shall make a statement on the present crisis with Iraq over the United Nations Special Commission weapons inspections.
The present regime of weapons inspections was put in place in Iraq following the Gulf war, as part of the ceasefire agreement. Its objectives are to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and to prevent Iraq from reviving the capacity to develop, produce, stockpile and deploy such weapons of mass destruction.
Despite repeated obstruction from the Iraqi regime, UNSCOM's achievements have been significant. Since its inception, it has destroyed 38,000 weapons with the capability to deliver chemical and biological agents; it has also destroyed significant quantities of production equipment and associated facilities. But serious gaps remain in Iraq's full, final and complete declarations, particularly in regard to biological weapons.
If UNSCOM's work were halted now, Iraq would be able to generate biological weapons within a matter of weeks, and could achieve a chemical capability within months. It is vital for the continuing security of the region and more widely that UNSCOM be allowed full and unrestricted access to all sites that it wishes to inspect, and as much time as it needs to complete its task.
On 12 January, UNSCOM began a new inspection aimed at uncovering concealed activities. The Iraqi regime blocked the inspection on the specious grounds of an alleged US bias on inspection teams. This inspection, led by Mr. Scott Ritter, a United States citizen with a distinguished record of work for UNSCOM, consisted of 44 personnel from 17 different countries.
UNSCOM's executive chairman, Richard Butler, was in Baghdad last week for talks with Tariq Aziz aimed at resolving the crisis. The results were disappointing. Ambassador Butler's briefing to the Security Council on 23 January, immediately after his visit, made it clear that the Iraqis were determined to persist with their policy of obstruction.
Iraq's attempt to impose a moratorium on inspections of so-called presidential sites, pending the outcome of technical evaluation meetings—announced during Ambassador Butler's visit—is unacceptable, as is the deadline given by Saddam Hussein for UNSCOM to complete its work. It is not for Iraq to dictate terms and conditions to the Security Council. Unrestricted access to all sites is essential for UNSCOM's work, both now and for longer-term monitoring. The technical evaluation meetings, which will look at Iraq's declarations on its past programmes, are an entirely separate issue.
We are actively pursuing a diplomatic solution to Iraq's latest attempts to obstruct the vital work of UNSCOM. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others are in regular contact with colleagues on the Security Council in an effort to defuse the situation, but we cannot rule out
22
military action if the diplomatic approach fails to shift Saddam Hussein's stance. As a precautionary measure, HMS Invincible arrived in the Gulf on 25 January, and is engaged in work-up training with allied naval forces off the coast of Bahrain. We are keeping the situation under close review, and have not ruled out further deployments should the crisis continue. There are no immediate plans to deploy extra forces, but HMS Illustrious, which is at present in Gibraltar, will embark a detachment of RAF Harriers tomorrow, and will then commence work-up training in the Mediterranean.
Iraq is fully aware of its international obligations, and of what it needs to do for the process of relaxing sanctions to begin. Relevant Security Council resolutions make that perfectly clear. The Security Council is united in its demand for Iraqi compliance. There is no question of entering into negotiations with Iraq; Security Council resolutions are non-negotiable.
The Government remain very conscious of the sufferings of the Iraqi people, with whom we have no quarrel. The UK has provided some £94 million in aid to the Iraqi people since 1991. Much of that money has been used to fund projects by United Kingdom nongovernmental organisations, including the Mines Advisory Group, which is involved in a major mine clearing operation, and the Save The Children Fund, which is focusing on water and sanitation projects aimed at helping children.
The United Kingdom has also co-sponsored successive Security Council resolutions, allowing Iraq to export oil in exchange for humanitarian aid. For several years, Saddam chose not to avail himself of the opportunity to provide for his people under that scheme. Since its implementation in 1996, oil-for-food has faced a number of cynical obstructive tactics by the Iraqi regime. For the sake of the people of Iraq, we remain prepared to discuss with Iraq ways of improving the scheme's effectiveness.
Mr. Dalyell: What does Mr. Primakov have to say about military action?
What do the Chinese say about military action?
What do the French say about it?
My hon. Friend the Minister refers to Scott Ritter's distinguished record, but is it really necessary to have a former captain of the US Marine Corps as the leader of this very delicate operation in the Arab world?
How can there be United Nations military action without the unambiguous support of the Security Council?
Can the Minister name just one Arab country that is in favour of military action? As one who went on holiday in October to Iran, I can say that even the Iranians, who had casualties of first world war proportions—more than 1 million—as a result of that awful Iran-Iraq war and Saddam Hussein's aggression, do not think that an American attack, inevitably on the Iraqi people, would be a sensible proposition.
Three years after the Gulf war, I visited the Amariya and was taken, as is every first-day visitor to Baghdad, to see the impregnated bodies carbonated against the concrete of a destroyed shelter. I suggest that an Exocet attack without massive numbers of ground troops will simply strengthen the position of Saddam Hussein rather than weaken it.

23
What is the precise purpose of military action? Would not it be sensible to try serious, dignified dialogue of a kind that, to many of us, seems not properly to have been tried?
Finally, as a former member of the executive of the British-American parliamentary group and a friend of the United States, may I ask whether, before military action is taken, there is concern that in the present febrile atmosphere in Washington we shall not slide into what was somewhat indelicately called in the Arab press
"the war of Clinton's penis"?
Mr. Lloyd: The composition of the UNSCOM inspection teams will and must remain a matter for Richard Butler who heads that organisation. The composition of those teams is not negotiable and their members are picked on merit, not on nationality. That will continue to be Richard Butler's aim. As head of UNSCOM, Richard Butler was in Baghdad last week and engaged in patient negotiations with the Iraqis. He conducted the negotiations in good faith, but Tariq Aziz and the Iraqi regime did not respond.
I should like to establish that it is most certainly the case that this country is looking to every diplomatic avenue to end the present situation, consistent with our achieving our objectives, which are unrestricted access to all sites in Iraq; a recognition that there can be no time constraint on the operations of the inspections teams; and no restriction on the personnel in those teams. To achieve that through diplomatic mechanisms is most certainly the intention of the British Government, and should be the intention of us all. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that if that does not have the required impact, we—like the whole world, recognising Saddam Hussein's outrageous history—would not be in a position, at this stage or any other, to rule out a military option.
Mr. Michael Howard: The Minister is right to emphasise the importance of exploring every diplomatic option, but what progress has been made in enforcing the will of the United Nations and the international community since the Minister for the Armed Forces answered a private notice question from me on this subject on 14 November? Is it not the case that Saddam Hussein has continued to cock a snook at the United Nations and continued to ignore the welfare of his people?
Can the Minister confirm that Security Council resolution 687 provides sufficient authority for military action to be taken if necessary, without any further resolution from the Security Council? Can he give us an assurance that Britain's aircraft carrier capability—he referred earlier to both HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious—which is clearly regarded as an important element in the present situation, will not be in any way diminished after the strategic defence review?
Mr. Lloyd: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his initial remarks. He was absolutely right to say that since the parliamentary exchange in November, Saddam Hussein has not modified his behaviour in any material sense; rather the opposite: he has continued to find specious reasons for blocking UNSCOM's progress
24
in a way that is not only unacceptable, but is threatening for his near neighbours, perhaps for his own people, and for the world.
We believe that Saddam Hussein continues to have the capacity to fill two missiles with anthrax every week. That capacity is well documented. I do not need to tell the House how potentially dangerous that is. Within that framework, of course we will continue to pursue every diplomatic avenue, but I repeat that we will not rule out the military option. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was right to point out that Security Council backing for that already exists.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if, during a period when concentration inevitably must be on the use of aircraft carriers for purposes to do with Iraq, I do not respond to his question about the strategic defence review. I am sure that he understands that there will be an opportunity to raise that question on another occasion.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Minister aware that the bombing raids during the Gulf war equalled in force seven Hiroshimas, yet failed to bring down Iraq? Is he aware that the United Nations has confirmed that 1 million children in Iraq are starving and that 500,000 have died? Is he aware that 54 Catholic bishops in the United States have appealed to President Clinton to end the sanctions? Did he note, over the weekend, that the anthrax in Iraq was supplied by the United States and that the leader of the biological research department in Baghdad had attended a seminar on anthrax in 1988?
Is the Minister aware that, despite the fact that the United Nations Security Council has demanded compliance by Iraq, there is absolutely no United Nations authority for military action by the United States or Britain; nor is there in the Arab world? Is it not time that Britain stood up to the United States and spoke for Europe during the period of the British presidency, instead of going along with a war that might be convenient for the present American Administration for quite different reasons?
Mr. Lloyd: No. It is most certainly time that this Government stood up for the people of Iraq who are not represented by Saddam Hussein and who have experienced being attacked by Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons. It is about time that this Government continued to stand up for the rights of the people in the region who are threatened by Saddam Hussein and for the rights of the world, which has every reason to take tough and consistent action against a dictator who wants to create weapons of mass destruction, both biological and chemical, and thereby jeopardise the peace not only of Iraq's people but of people throughout the world.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister remember that, after the invasion of Kuwait but before the outbreak of the Gulf war, we had six months of serious dialogue with Saddam Hussein during which he proved himself to be as intransigent and obstructive as he has since? Will the Minister confirm that there are no sanctions against imports into Iraq of either food or medicine, and that the Iraqi Government are entitled and able to import as much food and medicine as they choose? In that unpredictable set of circumstances, is not the one thing that we can be clear about that, if the military option

25
were to be withdrawn, immediate efforts would be restored in Iraq to achieve weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam Hussein undertook to destroy as part of the peace settlement?
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right that, as part of the peace settlement, Saddam Hussein undertook to destroy precisely those weapons of mass destruction. It has been his failure to complete that undertaking which has led us to the current situation. The hon. and learned Gentleman is equally right to say that both food and medicine are outside any Security Council restriction. It is therefore up to Saddam Hussein not to play with the system, as he has done in the past, but to use that opportunity to feed and to care for the needs of his own population. The fact that he chooses not to do so will be judged not only by the House but by the world as a measure of the man and as a measure of his brutality against his own people. Such considerations count significantly in this type of exchange.
The position of the British Government, who were sponsors of the original oil-for-food deal, is that, of course, we will examine carefully any suggestion of relaxation, specifically in ensuring that food and medicine are available for the suffering people of Iraq. In turn, we call on Saddam Hussein to show the same consideration for his own people.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the voices of appeasement of Saddam Hussein—which are still to be heard—had prevailed seven years ago, Saddam Hussein would still be in occupation of Kuwait and probably also of wide tracts of the middle east? Does he agree that, seven years or more after Saddam was driven from Kuwait, it is utterly intolerable that there should still be any question of his having the ability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction? Is it not obvious to all but the purblind that that man is the greatest menace to world peace and world equilibrium since Adolf Hitler?
Is my hon. Friend aware that the House will certainly support the Government's and the United Nations' efforts to achieve a peaceful diplomatic solution, but that if the necessity arises to take military action, the Government will have the overwhelming support not only of the House but of Labour Members?
Mr. Lloyd: I strongly welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks. He is right to say that Saddam Hussein would have shown no voluntary willingness to move himself from Kuwait had it not been for the actions of the United Nations. Equally, since then, Saddam has been prevented from committing the type of excesses to which he was attracted before the UN action only because of the regime that has been maintained. Saddam' s ability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction threatens both the region and the world, and the world expects the United Nations to act decisively to put a stop to it.
Mr. John Wilkinson: For the sake of the peace of the region, and because of the dire precedent that it would set for the international world order were the United Kingdom and the United States of America to back down in the face of the flagrant challenge to the United Nations posed by Saddam Hussein, the hon. Gentleman and his policy deserve support.
26
However, although the United Kingdom has the presidency of the European Union, where is the much-vaunted common foreign and security policy? Is it not more true that, as ever, we stand shoulder to shoulder with our American allies in defence of peace and liberty than that our European friends are rallying to the cause of those virtues?
Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks in which he gave his support for the Government's position and for the UN. That is very welcome. I repeat that the UN will search for every possible diplomatic solution, but there can be no question of backing down. That is the position of the UN which, I must say to him, involves the whole world. Our opposition to Saddam Hussein must continue on that basis.
Ann Clwyd: Is it not the case—as my hon. Friend the Minister has suggested—that we are not dealing with a rational human being; that Saddam Hussein is not a man with whom one can negotiate; and that, 10 years ago this March, he practised genocide against his own people when 5,000 died at Halabja? Anyone who wants to see bodies, or people injured by Saddam Hussein rather than by the Americans and the allies, should look at the survivors and the graves at Halabja.
Is it not the case that not only has the resolution allowing UNSCOM access to sites in Iraq been flouted, but Saddam Hussein is still practising ethnic cleansing against his own people? In the past few months, thousands of refugees have been forced into northern Iraq because Saddam Hussein has thrown them out of their own homes. Recently—through a prison cleansing system—he has executed hundreds upon hundreds of prisoners, including Kuwaiti prisoners, in Iraqi gaols. My hon. Friend the Minister would have my full support for any action he took to get rid of this terrible war criminal who ought to be hounded out of existence.
Mr. Lloyd: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. She knows as well as most about the intolerable burden faced by Iraqi people of all backgrounds who have suffered under Saddam Hussein, and she referred to the destruction of Halabja. Since then—and certainly since the end of the Gulf war—Saddam Hussein has continued to persecute significant parts of Iraq's population indiscriminately and brutally. The recent report from the UN representative, Mr. van der Stoel, indicated that the humanitarian situation at the moment was horrendous. None of that can take away from the responsibility of Saddam Hussein and the indifferent, callous and brutal way in which he chooses to treat his own people.
Mr. Tim Collins: Given what the Minister has said, does he accept that there will be a widespread welcome for his proposition that the option of military force cannot be ruled out because it is imperative that Saddam Hussein should be denied access to weapons of mass destruction? Accordingly, may I ask him to reflect further on his reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Foreign Secretary, on the importance of the British aircraft carrier fleet? Once this

27
incident is over, will he make representations to the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury on the usefulness of that aircraft carrier capability for our foreign policy?
Mr. Lloyd: The fact that the aircraft carriers have been deployed demonstrates their value in these circumstances. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is sitting beside me. He will have registered the hon. Gentleman's remarks and will reflect on them in days to come.
Mr. Bernie Grant: I find it amazing that hon. Members can, quite rightly, condemn Saddam Hussein for his atrocities but say nothing about Israel and its atrocities against the Palestinians and others. Will my hon. Friend the Minister answer a straight question with a straight answer? Who supports Britain and the United States in the Security Council? Does France, China or any other member support Britain and the US? Or is this yet another occasion on which Britain trails behind the coat tails of the United States of America and does not have the courage to stand on its own two feet?
Mr. Lloyd: I am very disappointed with my hon. Friend. We can hardly compare the issue of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a dictator such as Saddam Hussein with almost any other issue. Britain stands firmly behind the United Nations Security Council resolutions that make it clear to Saddam Hussein that he must destroy his weapons of mass destruction. We shall make every diplomatic effort to secure a peaceful resolution, but it is vital for the world's future that the United Nations stands firm on the issue and insists that those weapons are destroyed.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it not important that two things should be made clear? The first is that the difficulties, crisis, or whatever, in Washington will not in any way deter Britain and the United States from taking the necessary action. Secondly, the Cabinet should know that if military action is necessary—I and many other hon. Members incline increasingly to the view that there is no longer an alternative—it will have the overwhelming support of hon. Members of all parties and, perhaps even more important, of the public.
Those who are calling for no action are precisely those who did not want Kuwait to be liberated: the appeasers who, time and again, have pleaded for no sanctions and no military action. They do not speak in any way whatever for the British people, except perhaps for a tiny minority: the same percentage that they now represent in the House of Commons.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend asks, in essence, about Britain's motives for contemplating the actions of which I have spoken. Let me repeat, again and again, that we will make every effort to find diplomatic solutions to the present impasse. That is right and proper, as long as those solutions involve the destruction of the weapons of mass destruction and no restriction of UNSCOM's right to carry out inspections as the United Nations has charged it to do.
Talk of a possible military option inevitably involves any British Government and Parliament in the most serious debate. We are talking about putting our own
28
people's lives at risk, and no one should talk about that frivolously or lightly. Let me earnestly impress on the House the fact that to begin to divert the issue into a matter of internal politics elsewhere is to deprive ourselves of the opportunity to make a rational decision of the most profound importance to our people in the British armed forces.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Could this military action be undertaken without the direct approval, by a vote, of the United Nations? What incentive has Saddam Hussein to comply when the United States has said categorically that, come what may, sanctions will not be lifted in any significant form for as long as he remains in power? Will not the victims of any military actions, like the victims of the sanctions, be innocent Iraqi people, not the regime?
Mr. Lloyd: Let me make it quite clear that the resolution of the present impasse lies firmly in Baghdad and in the hands of Saddam Hussein. The House, the country and the whole world must understand and acknowledge that fact. Saddam Hussein can, if he so chooses, resolve that the situation should come to an end. The sanctions regime can come to an end if he undertakes to destroy the weapons of mass destruction, as he has already agreed to do. No one in the Government or in the House should talk up the possibility of military action, but if it were to come to that, responsibility would lie firmly with Saddam Hussein and people in Baghdad.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Does not the gravity of the mounting crisis demand the greatest possible unity of purpose in the House, among the wider public and among the Gulf war coalition, to face down the Iraqi dictator, who is using his people for his own ends? Is it not sad that the Gulf war coalition is having difficulty re-establishing itself because of Arab hostility to the Israeli Government's views and because of the policies of some of our allies? Does my hon. Friend fear that the personal difficulties of the US President may impede the unity of purpose and direction that is necessary in this conflict?
Mr. Lloyd: I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that the motivation of the British Government and the United Nations must be confined solely to the situation in Iraq and the debate about the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. Of course, we are bound to seek to build the widest coalition for diplomatic or any other form of action against Saddam Hussein. It is right and proper that we do that, and we will continue to do so. Our motivation, our preoccupation, is the insistence that Saddam Hussein destroys the weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Ernie Ross: My hon. Friend has the overwhelming support of the majority of hon. Members. Saddam Hussein deals in wishful thinking rather than analysis. Anyone who thinks that it is possible to have a reasonable conversation with the man needs only to meet him to understand that. It is obvious that when there is a hiatus in the middle east peace process, no one in the Arab world is going to make clear publicly their feelings. However I can say, as one with some knowledge of the matter, that all his neighbours are concerned that he may be allowed to regain the power that he had before we gained the ability to remove some of it through UNSCOM and other mechanisms.

29
There have been recent reports from the UN Secretary-General and his special envoy in Baghdad suggesting that the oil-for-aid resolution that we promoted is not meeting the requirements of the people of Iraq. If Kofi Annan brings to the UN Security Council proposals to increase oil for aid from $2 billion to $3 billion so that humanitarian aid can be given to the Iraqi people, will we support them?
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is as knowledgeable about support in the Arab world as anyone in the House. I am grateful for his observations. I have no doubt that the situation is as he described it, and that there is considerable support in the Arab world for restraining Saddam Hussein and for a solution that ensures that he cannot offer threats to his neighbours in the middle and long term.
On humanitarian aid, I repeat that we have no doubt that responsibility for the suffering of the Iraqi people lies firmly with Saddam. He chooses not to make food available to his own people or to allow the oil-for-food programme to work properly. Nevertheless, Benon Sevan, the head of the UN sanctions implementations unit, is working on a report for the Secretary-General. We would inevitably look sympathetically at any practical steps on the oil-for-food programme that would ease the plight of ordinary people. However, that would of course still depend on the so far unforthcoming assistance of Saddam.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not wish to be one of those who seek to appease Saddam Hussein, but my hon. Friend said that one of our objectives should be to liberate the Iraqi people from his clutches. The Gulf war seven years ago failed to do that; sanctions since have failed. Why should we have any confidence in further military action leading to that desirable objective?
Mr. Lloyd: I must remind the House that it was military action which threw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, which was not insignificant in its own right. Since then, it has been the continuation of military and other activities which have prevented Saddam from terrorising his neighbours, even if they have not, sadly, prevented him from terrorising his own people. Within that context, the fact that Saddam has continued to flout both UN and world opinion by the production of weapons of mass destruction is something which we must deal with now. We choose to do so through diplomatic mechanisms, but we do not rule out the military option.
Dr. George Turner: May I assure my hon. Friend that the vast majority of British people will recognise that nothing would undermine the possibility of a successful diplomatic solution more than to rule out the possibility of the use of military force? Does he also accept that the numbers involved in the coalition who are willing to say that they will not rule out military force is equally important to strengthening the diplomatic efforts? If we act, is there not a need to ensure that we do so in conjunction with the largest possible number of allies? Are there any conditions that the Government would set on our direct involvement in military action?
Mr. Lloyd: I repeat that Britain and the United Nations are still engaged in active diplomacy on this matter.
30
Richard Butler visited Baghdad last week on behalf of the UN, but I am afraid that his report back to the Security Council was not a happy one. Nevertheless, he was engaged precisely in the process of trying to bring Saddam to his senses without the inevitable consequences that would come from military activity. No one ought to talk up the possibility of the military option at this stage, and no one wants to. We are seeking to ensure that world opinion is firmly of the view that the possession of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam, an unstable dictator, is a threat to the region and the world. That threat must be dealt with by a coalition of public opinion on a worldwide scale. We will keep in touch with that opinion without ruling out any of the options that we have discussed today.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Does the Minister agree with me that it is somewhat unfortunate that comment across the House today appears to be polarising, and that references to immediate military action and appeasement are both equally inappropriate at this stage while there is still scope for diplomacy? Does he further agree that if we are to move the diplomatic effort forward, we need to show the same sort of willingness to take risks as the Government have shown with regard to Northern Ireland? Will he assure me that we will give that type of leadership to the diplomatic effort on Iraq?
Can my hon. Friend further assure me that he has remembered, as others in the House seem to have forgotten, that Saddam Hussein acquired such weapons of mass destruction under the current regime of inspections? Does he agree that even when such inspections have gone ahead unfettered, that inspections regime has proved to be ineffective? The outcomes of diplomacy must include not only avoiding military action but putting in place a system of inspection and weapon destruction that gets rid of those weapons and does not allow Saddam Hussein to continue to build them up.
Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that no one should talk up the possibility of military action beyond its current standing, which is that the military option exists and will not be discounted or discarded. That will remain the case until the situation is resolved.
Flexibility in negotiations and a willingness to take risks were displayed last week in Baghdad by Richard Butler, the head of UNSCOM, but that was not reciprocated by any willingness on the part of Tariq Aziz and the Iraqi Government to take risks. They are to be deplored all the more for the fact that they are not showing any signs of wishing to seek a proper solution.
I must correct my hon. Friend on one point: he says that UNSCOM has not been successful, but during the period in which UNSCOM has been in operation some 38,000 weapons have been destroyed as a direct result of its activities. UNSCOM has been a success and we should say so clearly. It has not been the complete success we want, but that is because of Saddam Hussein's intransigence. That is why we insist that UNSCOM should be allowed to do the job in the way it needs to do it and should finish the job, which means the destruction of all the weapons of mass destruction.

Points of Order
4.10 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you give guidance to a new Member on how the House can intervene to protect a former civil servant, Anne Bullen? She has apparently been made subject to a gagging order—or rather, a gagging agreement—in order to protect the Foreign Secretary against grave embarrassment; and we understand that the Whitehall publicity machine is now engaging in a programme of vilification against her.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Do not we in the House rely totally on the integrity and independence of civil servants throughout government to give us answers to the questions we ask of the Executive? What assurances can the House be given that civil servants will be protected from the casual and gratuitous sackings by Ministers that are apparently now going on in Government Departments? Surely the House and you, Madam Speaker, should be extremely concerned about this matter. I seek your guidance on what we can do to protect civil servants from Ministers.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps when you do your research, you will ask Clive Ponting to comment.
Madam Speaker: I have been in the House long enough—some 25 years—to have had a number of experiences. Both the Opposition Members who raised this matter know full well the use of the Order Paper. There are parliamentary questions, Adjournment debates and numerous other ways in which hon. Members on both sides of the House can raise these matters, and it is up to them to do so, if they think it necessary.

Orders of the Day

  Government of Wales Bill
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 21 January].
  [MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair.]

  Government of Wales Bill
    Clause 22

      TRANSFER OF MINISTERIAL FUNCTIONS
      4.11 pm
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 152, page 12, line 41, after 'Wales', insert 'or'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 145, page 13, line 2, leave out from 'Crown' to end of line 6.
      Government amendment No. 136.
      No. 147, in clause 23, page 13, leave out lines 22 to 32.
      Government amendment No. 137.
      No. 244, in page 14, line 5, at end insert
      'but a Minister of the Crown shall not exercise a power by virtue of this subsection unless he has consulted the Assembly.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 138 and 139.
      Mr. Davies: The amendment is being discussed with a number of other amendments, two of which, like amendment No. 152, stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I hasten to say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that these are probing amendments and that I am not wedded absolutely to the word "or". On the other hand, I want it to be clear that, although Ministers have to keep their eye on the big picture, Back Benchers have to try to scrutinise legislation and we on the Back Benches should be delighted if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to accept the amendment.
      The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): Before my right hon. Friend puts his case, I should tell him at the outset that if I am minded to reject the amendment, it will not be on the basis of its defective wording.
      Mr. Davies: I am not sure whether that gives me encouragement. A piece of paper is floating around—I do not know whether it is the special notes for Ministers or whether the notes are available to all Back Benchers or only to certain Government Back Benchers. I see the parliamentary private secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger), nodding, but I am not sure which assertion he is nodding in response to. "Resist" is written large against the little word "or"; I suspect that I shall be told that it is not necessary and I shall not spend too much time on it. Whether or not the "or" appears, I should like

      33
      some clarification from Ministers about what clause 22(1)(a) means and what circumstances will be dealt with by the concurrent functions described in it.
      As there is an "or" between paragraphs (b) and (c), I thought that perhaps there should be an "or" between paragraphs (a) and (b). Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will tell me that (b) and (c) are slightly different from (a) because (a) mentions "provide", whereas (b) and (c) start with the word "direct", so it is not necessary to have an "or". Subsection (1) is clearly complicated.
      Amendment No. 145 seeks to leave out paragraph (c). I notice that my right hon. Friend has also tabled some amendments to paragraph (c). I do not know whether they tend to ameliorate the rather harsh effect on Ministers of paragraph (c), but clearly people have had second thoughts about the heavy-handedness of the paragraph as drafted.
      May we be given some examples of the functions that will apparently be exercisable now only by Ministers and, if and when the Bill becomes law, with the concurrence or—if my right hon. Friend's amendment is accepted—with the agreement of the assembly? Before we consider the subsection may we be told what sort of functions are we talking about?
      The next question that I have for my right hon. Friend involves a subject that may come up again under the next set of amendments. Paragraph (c) contains the words "in relation to Wales"; those words cause me—and perhaps nobody else—some difficulty. I do not do crosswords, but people who do tell me that they often have a certain empathy with the person who has drawn them up; after a certain time, the person drawing up the crossword for a particular newspaper is changed and the empathy disappears. I do not know whether it is recovered.
      I do not say this as a criticism of the draftsman, but I find it difficult to empathise with him. Clearly, I was wrong about clause 21. My right hon. Friend made it clear that clause 21 was a sort of declaratory clause. I now find myself having difficulty with the words "in relation to Wales". I should have thought that, with the exception of a few subsidiary matters, the only Minister of the Crown who carries out functions exercisable in relation to Wales is the Secretary of State for Wales. Perhaps that proposition is wrong. I thought that the Bill related mainly to the powers of the Secretary of State for Wales, which will be transferred to the assembly; there will also be a block grant.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Might not Ministers of the Crown such as Ministers in the Home Office exercise powers in relation to Wales? Would that not answer the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making?
      Mr. Davies: They might well or might well not, but our amendment stands, so let us not pursue that too far. I should not have thought that United Kingdom Ministers exercised functions in general—although there may be aspects in which they do so—in relation to Wales, just as they do not exercise functions in relation to England and Scotland. Indeed, there is no such thing as Wales, really. Before the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) jumps up, I shall say, to keep him happy, that there is no such thing as England either, because there is only the United Kingdom, and Ministers exercise functions in relation to the United Kingdom.
      34
      It may be that the parts make up the whole and that, if one exercises functions in relation to the whole, one must exercise functions in relation to the parts. I do not go along with that—but then I do not have the empathy with the draftsman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State obviously does. He will tell me that I am wrong—that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs exercises functions in relation to Wales, as does the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Well maybe, but perhaps as we develop these arguments we can return to the strange phrase that has been used. Why is the phrase necessary? Why not just say, functions
      "exercisable by a Minister of the Crown"
      and drop the words "in relation to Wales"? I am sure that I am wrong because I do not have the empathy with the draftsman that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon obviously has, in view of the empathy that he has with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Therefore, I should be grateful to my right hon. Friend if he would try to explain that phrase to me.
      Amendment No. 147 relates to clause 23, which is entitled, "Transfers: supplementary". I find clause 23(1)(b) incomprehensible—I am sure that it is my fault. It reads:
      "if an Order in Council under that section directs that the function shall be exercisable by the Assembly concurrently with the Minister of the Crown by whom it is exercisable"—
      so it will be exercisable concurrently—
      "the Order in Council may provide that it shall be exercisable by the Assembly free from that requirement."
      Are we therefore envisaging two orders—one that says that it shall be exercised concurrently and a subsequent one that says that it shall be exercised free from that requirement? I am sure that there is a clear, precise explanation and I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State if he will kindly provide me with examples.
      Amendment No. 152 is a probing amendment. The first amendment in the group leads to the others. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would clear up some of my difficulties.
      Mr. Wigley: I shall speak to amendment No. 244, which was tabled by me and my hon. Friends. I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) did not get involved with that amendment, for the simple reason that it deals with European aspects of the assembly—a subject which is very close to the right hon. Gentleman's heart.
      The amendment refers to clause 23(4)(b):
      "dealing with matters arising out of or related to any such obligation or rights or the operation of section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972."
      The amendment is a probing amendment to ascertain what rights the Government have in mind and whether in some areas there might be a clash between the wishes of the assembly and those of the Minister who is responsible for the implementation of section 2(1) of the 1972 Act.
      Obviously, there will be areas of common interest. In a host of areas, such as agriculture, some treaty obligations and other obligations will be exercised in Wales by the assembly. If the Minister has a reserved power regarding implementation of the 1972 Act, might conflict arise in such areas? Amendment No. 244 is merely a probing amendment to obtain clarification.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As I understand it, the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) would prevent the Minister by Order in Council granting the assembly a veto over powers for which he might have responsibility. That seems to be the nub of it. The complication arises from the danger of confusion about the meaning of clause 23, because of the problem that the right hon. Gentleman highlighted: apart from the rather vague limitation "in relation to Wales" to which he referred, there is little constraint on the functions that can be handed over by Order in Council.
      Our most fundamental concern about the Bill is that, apart from the preliminary order that grants powers to the assembly before the first ordinary election, as set out in subsection (2), schedule 2 applies no restraints on the functions that can be handed over.
      In principle, we are sympathetic to the objective of the three amendments, and to the right hon. Gentleman sticking his oar into the Bill, which he does with great dexterity. Our concern is that clause 23 is too wide in its potential. Deleting the first part of the clause would considerably reduce the scope for Ministers to transfer powers over which they might subsequently require independent jurisdiction.
      The most interesting question that the right hon. Gentleman asked was about the functions. Anyone reading the Bill is struck by the fact that the word "any" regularly appears before the word "function". The unlimited and undefined nature of the transfer of functions is the primary concern. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could give examples of the functions he envisages, which he is incapable of defining in the Bill. If those functions were defined in the Bill, it would considerably reduce the scope for misunderstanding and dispute between Westminster and the Welsh assembly later.
      I am happy to comment on amendment No. 244 tabled by Plaid Cymru—[Laughter.]—which underlines the longer-term agenda of the Welsh nationalists. They envisage the Welsh assembly becoming increasingly involved with the exercise of responsibilities that are necessarily the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government, because the UK Government, not the Welsh assembly, are the signatory to the European treaties.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: If the hon. Gentleman is planning to speak on the Scotland Bill, may I warn him about the correct pronunciation of the name of the Dundee football ground—Tannadice?
      Mr. Jenkin: I promise not to tease hon. Members about their Welsh or Scottish accents, if I am not teased for my English accent. That would be a sensible United Kingdom truce.
      Mr. Ted Rowlands: It is proposed to delete paragraph (c) of clause 22(1). The subsection takes up the relationship between Ministers and the assembly in future. I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the paragraph reads that by Order in Council Her Majesty may
      "direct that any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales shall be exercisable by the Minister only with the concurrence of or subject to the consent or approval of, or after consultation with, the assembly."
      36
      That is what all the concordats were supposed to illuminate. Will they illuminate the way in which the relationship will work? It seems that there will be a relationship between Ministers of the Crown and the assembly, but we do not quite know on what basis that relationship will be founded. I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will advise us further.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) asked about the meaning of clause (22)(1)(c), and raised an interesting question about concordats. We are talking about the powers that will be transferred to the assembly by order of the House of Commons. They will be powers that are given to the assembly. The concordats will differ from Department to Department, but they will set out in great detail how the assembly and the Whitehall Department will act on matters where they have a joint statutory responsibility, and on other matters where it will be necessary to have a working relationship.
      The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) asked about the use of "any". I shall take up the hon. Gentleman's questions before dealing with the matters raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). The problem is that the hon. Gentleman is opposed to devolution, and does not like the way in which the Bill has been constructed. Of course the Bill provides for a substantial devolution of power to the Welsh assembly. I do not want—it is not the Government's intention at this stage—to try to circumscribe the extent to which powers may be transferred by orders from Ministers to the assembly. The hon. Gentleman may not like that, but that is the answer to his question.
      The hon. Gentleman claims that the Government are incapable of defining the powers that we are considering. That is not the position. As I have said, the hon. Gentleman does not like the way in which the Bill is constructed. He knows that there will be a transfer order, which will spell out in full detail, in about 12 or 15 months' time, the powers that will be transferred by means of the main transfer order. It is the Government's intention—I have argued this ever since I became responsible for the Bill—that there will be an opportunity in future, if the Government wish, to use such powers to transfer further functions to the assembly.
      That is the purpose behind the Bill. We are constructing a new democratic settlement, and the Welsh assembly will have considerable powers devolved to it. I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not like that, but that is the explanation that is relevant to his questions.
      I move on to amendments Nos. 152 and 145, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. The purpose behind them is to prevent a transfer order under clause 22 that provides for Ministers to exercise functions in respect of Wales, subject to the agreement of, or following consultation with, the assembly.
      My right hon. Friend asked what is meant by the expression "in relation to Wales". As the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, the words mean what they say. I am not the only Minister who exercises functions "in relation to Wales". My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary exercises functions with respect, for example, to the police, the fire service and the

      37
      Prison Service. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor exercises functions with respect to the court system in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is responsible for the operation of the social security system throughout the United Kingdom, including Wales. Those are a few examples.
      Clause 23(6) provides that certain functions that extend beyond Wales may nevertheless be regarded as exercisable "in relation to Wales". We shall debate that provision more fully when we come to amendment No. 233 on clause 23.
      Government amendments Nos. 136 to 139 are technical, and are designed to improve the clarity of the Bill. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli for his observations about the clarity of the Bill, and the obvious empathy that I have with the parliamentary draftsmen. The amendments clarify the purpose of the Bill, and bring it into line with drafting in the Scotland Bill.
      Clauses 22 and 23 use four times the expression "concurrence, consent or approval", which are three ways of saying the same thing. That is why the amendments substitute the word "agreement", which is the term used in clause 59 of the Scotland Bill.
      The other benefit of the Government amendments is that, by replacing the word "concurrence" with "agreement" in clause 22(1)(c), we avoid any possibility of confusion with the word "concurrently", which has an entirely different meaning, in clause 22(1)(b).
      For the benefit of the Committee, I should explain that a concurrent function is one that two or more people may exercise. An example that we have identified in the draft transfer order—a question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli raised—is section 5 of the Science and Technology Act 1965, which is a power to fund scientific research. Such a power needs to remain concurrent, because, as now, the United Kingdom Government would fund scientific research projects that affect all parts of the United Kingdom. The assembly needs to be able to use that power, too, so far as it relates to Wales, which is why we are considering making it a function that is exercisable concurrently.
      A function that is exercised subject to a person's concurrence is very different, because that person has to give his agreement before the function can be exercised either generally or in a particular way.
      On amendments No. 152 and the other amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, I am grateful to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney for seeking to explore this matter by means of a gently probing amendment. I will, of course, try to give an explanation that is acceptable to them of clause 22(1)(c) and clause 23(1).
      Mr. DalyellBoth my right hon. Friend and I have an interest in agricultural research and agricultural matters. Will he clarify—I genuinely do not know the answer to this—who makes a decision in this concurrence in relation to research if there is a disagreement between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Davies: It depends on whether the power is being exercised concurrently—in other words, jointly between the assembly and the Minister of Agriculture—or the powers have been devolved in full to the assembly or
      38
      retained by the Ministry of Agriculture. If the powers have been retained by the Minister of Agriculture, there will be no need to seek agreement. If the powers have been devolved to the assembly, there will be no need to seek agreement, because the powers are split.
      It is the Government's desire to ensure as far as possible that power, and therefore accountability, rests one or the other. If, however, powers are exercised concurrently, agreement will have to be sought between the Minister and the assembly, and that is the purpose of the concordats, which will then be necessary, to decide precisely how those powers can be exercised jointly. It is preferable, and therefore it is the Government's desire, to avoid as far as possible the concurrent exercise of powers.
      On amendments Nos. 152 and 145, I regret that, in one respect, my right hon. and hon. Friends have introduced this debate a little too early. I say that because the Government's discussions on the transfer order have not reached a point where I can give a concrete example—although I shall try to give illustrations—of how the power in clause 22(1)(c) would be used. I expect, however, that the final version transfer order will identify a number of examples where Ministers will continue to exercise functions with respect to Wales but under a requirement to obtain first the agreement of, or to consult, the assembly.
      Clause 23(1) was promised in part by paragraph D.16 of the White Paper, on which we all fought such a hard campaign to get the consent of people of Wales, which says:
      "Various Acts of Parliament require the Secretary of State … to obtain the Treasury's consent before"
      he
      "may take certain actions. The Bill will make provision to remove most legal requirements for the assembly itself to obtain the Treasury's consent."
      Subsection (1) gives effect to that White Paper commitment, although it casts the net wider and covers any ministerial consent or consultation mechanism. However, it gives flexibility to the transfer order to preserve requirements for consent or consultation where appropriate.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon and the hon. Member for North Essex pressed me to give examples. I stress that the fine detail of the provision can be given only once we have the final draft of the transfer order.
      May I give the following example? The assembly will appoint and fund the Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997. Section 5(6) provides for me to determine board members' travel and other allowances with the Treasury's approval. We intend that that power should pass to the assembly, as the cost of those decisions would in future fall to the assembly. There is therefore no case for a Department in Whitehall to have a right of veto. The assembly should take that decision, because it will face the consequences.
      Conversely, section 18(1)(b) provides for me to direct the form of the board's accounts with the Treasury's approval. To ensure consistency of approach to the accounts of public bodies, the Government are considering retaining the requirement for the assembly to obtain the Treasury's approval of accounts, if it so wishes. I hope that that explanation will persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends not to press their amendment to a vote.

      39
      Amendment No. 24, tabled by Plaid Cymru, requires a Minister of the Crown to consult the assembly before using any of the concurrent powers to implement Community obligations in Wales. Where the assembly has the power to implement such obligations, I expect that the normal position would be for it to take the necessary action. In that sense, the amendment is perfectly reasonable. Clause 106 confirms that
      "A Community obligation of the United Kingdom is also an obligation of the Assembly … to the extent that the obligation could be implemented … by the Assembly".
      Some of those matters will be the assembly's responsibility, while others, perhaps concurrently, will be the UK Department's responsibility.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Secretary of State gave an interesting example concerning midwives' allowances, and said that previously the responsibility was shared concurrently between the Welsh Office and the Treasury. He said that, in future, it would be the sole responsibility of the assembly, because the cost would fall to it. Is that correct? Would there not be a knock-on effect, because expenditure granted by the assembly in that context would ultimately fall to UK taxpayers generally? Why should the Treasury's approval no longer be needed? I may have misunderstood the position, but I should be grateful for clarification.
      Mr. Davies: I say as gently as I can that the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The position is as I stated: the expenditure will come from the block grant, and it will be for the assembly to decide its spending priorities. If it wishes to increase allowances in a particular area, it must find the resources from the funds allocated to it. I have consistently made that position clear.
      Mr. Jenkin: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Davies: I have already dealt with that point. May I finish dealing with amendment No. 244 and the points raised by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon? If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene subsequently, that would be a more orderly way of proceeding. I try to accommodate the hon. Gentleman as far as possible.
      As I was saying, amendment No. 244 is reasonable. I accept that, to ensure that the assembly knows whether it is to act or whether a Minister of the Crown is to do so in its place, the Minister should at least inform the assembly of that. The question we must decide—the question that the amendment teases out—is whether it should be a statutory requirement or should be a matter of good administrative practice. That takes us back to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I am sure that Ministers would want to consult before using such powers on behalf of the assembly.
      Mr. Wigley: I accept that the wording of amendment No. 244 may be a little too wide, as it would apply not only to matters over which the assembly has powers but to matters over which the Minister alone has powers. We
      40
      would need to curtail the wording of the amendment if it is to apply solely to matters over which the assembly has powers.
      Does the Secretary of State accept that, in dealing with relevant matters, such as agriculture, which arise from areas where the assembly has powers and where a Minister may implement Community obligations under subsection (4)(a), consultation should take place by statutory requirement? For example, if a Conservative Government were in power in Westminster and a non-Conservative Government were in power in Cardiff, the Minister in London might proceed without carrying the assembly with him or her, which could lead to a clash.
      Mr. Davies: I concede that there will have to be a mechanism whereby the Minister responsible discusses the matter with the assembly, so that it knows whether it will be dealt with by the assembly or by the Minister. The question is whether it should be a statutory obligation. I have looked closely at the wording of the amendment, and I see a lot of merit in the idea behind it. However, I wish to reflect further on the matter, because it raises an interesting point. It is relevant to the Scotland Bill, so I must discuss it with my ministerial colleagues.
      I cannot give an undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will table an amendment on this matter, but I hope that my response shows that we agree on the outcome, if not on the best way of achieving that outcome.
      Mr. Jenkin: Further to the Secretary of State's example about nursing and midwifery, will he tell us whether, on the same basis, the Welsh assembly will be responsible for deciding what allowances and expenses local authority councillors should have? Would that be separate from any reference to Treasury Ministers?
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman will know, because he has researched this matter carefully, that it is not my responsibility to act by means of secondary legislation. At least no scheme is currently in place. It is for local authorities to decide on that matter. I understand, however, that there is a residual power, which has never been used by Secretaries of State.
      I remember pressing one of my predecessors, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who is a friend of the hon. Gentleman, on this matter. Anecdotal evidence showed that the schemes were being abused, and I asked him to exercise his power to ensure that there was no abuse. I assert uncharitably that he decided, for party political purposes, to allow the abuses to continue, so that he could use them as a stick with which to beat the Labour party.
      It is a residual power. If the transfer order transfers responsibility to the assembly, it will then be for the assembly to decide whether to use that power. If it decides to impose a scheme, the cost of that scheme will be met by local authorities, as happens now. If the assembly decides that, further to an all-embracing national scheme, it will lay down certain limits, it may decide of its own volition to give local authorities additional resources. It will then have to find those resources from within the block.
      It is clearly a matter of principle that, if the assembly takes any decision on expenditure, it will have to accept the consequences. There is no question, and there never

      41
      has been, of the assembly taking decisions on matters with which it is empowered to deal, and then handing on the bill to another Department or to the Exchequer, without prior agreement. I hope that that satisfies the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Grieve rose—
      Mr. Davies: We are now going wide of the amendment. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was not present at previous debates. The Opposition did not table any amendments that would have enabled us to have the interesting debate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to snare me into, and we had no time to discuss this matter.
      I hope that I have given an adequate explanation of the issues. When pressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, I gave the example of midwifery.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Perhaps I missed it, because it is a small word, but I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend dealt with the "or" in subsection (1). He did not tell me why he will not accept my amendment.
      Mr. Davies: I think I did, so my right hon. Friend must have missed it. Amendments Nos. 152 and 145 would prevent the transfer order under clause 22, which provides for Ministers to exercise functions with respect to Wales subject to the agreement of, or following consultation with, the assembly. For the reasons that I have outlined, I shall resist that amendment. Some functions will continue to be exercisable by Ministers.
      I can give my right hon. Friend another example that will make the matter even clearer. I have to say that, until the transfer order is written, these examples are hypothetical. However, let me see whether I can help. My right hon. Friend should look at section 29 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.
      Mr. Jenkin: I do not have it with me.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has time to rush out and get a copy if he feels desperately deprived.
      Section 29 of the 1993 Act gives the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport the power to alter the shares of the national lottery distribution fund paid to the Arts Council of Wales and the Sports Council for Wales. That power will not be transferred to the assembly, as it does not currently rest with the Secretary of State for Wales. However, the assembly will be responsible for those two bodies, so it will have a direct interest in the exercise of the ministerial functions under section 29. It is perfectly sensible for those powers to be exercised by the Whitehall Minister following consultation with the assembly.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for his explanation. The legislation is not easy to explain, and I fully understand that he must cater for many eventualities. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has done better than I have, which is not surprising. I am pleased that the concurrence between the Treasury and Plaid Cymru is still holding, even in this post-referendum period. I congratulate him on getting at least half a promise from the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Ron Davies: The important concurrence is that which existed between my right hon. Friend and me when
      42
      we fought the general election on a clear manifesto. We produced a White Paper in pursuance of our manifesto commitment, and we fought the referendum on our party's policy. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon gave us passing assistance during the referendum, but he fought against us tooth and nail in the general election, whereas my right hon. Friend and I stood side by side and shoulder to shoulder to ensure that this matter was included in our manifesto and that a Labour Government pledged to implement that commitment was elected.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I did not intend to ruffle my right hon. Friend, so I shall not pursue this matter.
      I understand why my right hon. Friend was unable to give examples in relation to clause 23(1)(b). He said that the Government will eventually decide what areas are to be covered by clause 22(1)(c), and I accept that. Parliamentary draftsmen must have been given certain examples: otherwise, despite their brilliance, they would not have been able to come up with subsection (1)(c). Instructions to parliamentary counsel must have specified the areas being considered: a general subsection was then drafted. Of course I accept what my right hon. Friend said.
      I am not happy with the words "in relation to Wales" in clause 22(1)(c). My right hon. Friend said that the Home Secretary has functions in relation to Wales because he looks after prisons and there are prisons in Wales: perhaps I am expanding what he said a little. I shall let that go for the time being. He also said that the Lord Chancellor has powers and functions in relation to Wales because there are courts in Wales. The Lord Chancellor is responsible for the administration of justice in England and in Wales in general. Does it follow that he exercises those functions in relation to Wales separately?
      My right hon. Friend was on more difficult ground when he referred to social security. He shifted his language.
      Mr. Ron Davies: The Lord Chancellor is responsible for justice—my right hon. Friend knows that better than I—but he is also responsible for the administration of the law, such as the distribution of courts. Those administrative matters are separate from the broader responsibility that the Lord Chancellor has for justice.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: All right, let us leave justice out of it for the time being: it is a difficult concept at the best of times.
      My right hon. Friend did not say that the Secretary of State for Social Security is responsible for social security offices in Wales. He said that her functions include Wales, which is not what he said previously. Leaving aside the Secretary of State's responsibility for offices, buildings and gutterings, does she exercise functions in relation to Wales or in relation to Britain? I am not sure what the position is in relation to Northern Ireland. Merely because Wales is part of Britain, does it follow that the Secretary of State exercises functions in relation to Wales?
      Mr. Wigley: It is logical.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I have been in the House a long time, and I have not always been impressed by Plaid

      43
      Cymru's logic, so perhaps we should leave logic out of it. Does the Secretary of State for Social Security exercise functions in relation to Wales or in relation to England?
      Mr. Ron Davies: I have a note of my comments, which may help me to reach agreement with my right hon. Friend on what I actually said. I said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is responsible for the operation of the social security system throughout the United Kingdom, including Wales. The Secretary of State is responsible for the devolved administration within the social security system, and for the wider responsibilities throughout the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend said "throughout the United Kingdom, including Wales", which is not the same as "in relation to Wales." I do not want to pursue this point, but that does not seem the same: otherwise, he would have said that the Secretary of State for Social Security exercises functions in relation to Wales.
      Mr. Wigley: Surely there are functions that may be undertaken by United Kingdom Ministers—the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, for instance, has responsibility for broadcasting—involving specific responsibilities that relate to Wales, although the Minister concerned has a United Kingdom brief. Responsibility for S4C is an example. Similarly, in other subject areas the United Kingdom can decide that the United Kingdom Minister's powers may be exercised in Wales, in a slightly different manner.
      5 pm
      Mr. Denzil Davies: There may be specific functions as well as general functions, but I am concerned with the general functions. I understand that specific functions may be transferred to the assembly, but I understand the argument to be that the general functions of the Secretary of State for Social Security can be transferred to the Welsh assembly because the Secretary of State for Social Security exercises general functions in relation to Wales, and therefore falls within the legislation. I find it difficult to empathise with the draftsmen; I shall leave it at that.
      Let me return to the word "or". My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State bracketed amendment No. 152 with amendment No. 147, and said that, if the two were put together, terrible problems would be caused; but I will allow amendment No. 152 to stand on its own. I cannot imagine that inserting the word "or" at the end of line 41 will destroy the whole basis of the Welsh assembly. There is an "or" between paragraphs (b) and (c); why should there not be one between paragraphs (a) and (b)? I did not follow what my right hon. Friend was saying, but no doubt we shall have a chance to read what was said in Hansard, and I am grateful to him for trying to clarify what are difficult issues.
      I said at the outset that mine was a probing amendment. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 144, in page 12, line 41, at end insert
      'save and except for any functions in the field of social security or home affairs'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 162, in schedule 2, page 73, line 17, at end insert—
      'A1. Administration of justice and the courts system.'.
      No. 165, in page 73, line 19, at end insert—
      '2A. Children's issues and rights.'.
      No. 157, in page 73, line 20, at end insert—
      '3A. Disablement policy.'.
      No. 163, in page 73, line 23, at end insert—
      '6A. Fire service.'.
      No. 161, in page 73, line 28, at end insert—
      '11 A. Policing, prisons and probation services.'.
      Mr. Rowlands: Amendment No. 144 seeks to clarify and develop the argument that began on Wednesday about the way in which functions are transferred to the assembly, particularly functions that lie with certain Ministers. The amendment does not suggest that functions should not be transferred; it seeks to ensure that home affairs and social security functions are transferred only by means of an Act of Parliament. It does not concern itself with the merits of future transfers in relation to specific Departments and ministerial responsibilities, but suggests that a one-and-a-half hour debate on an order providing for the transfer of the functions exercised by the Secretaries of State for Social Security and for the Home Department is not sufficient.
      Other amendments deal with the respective merits of the transfer of various functions, and no doubt we shall discuss those merits later. The simple but important point of our amendments is that responsibility for key areas of major policy involving two major Departments should not be transferred by means of a transfer order.
      Commenting on the previous debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly drew our attention to the White Paper commitments. Those commitments, made to the electorate during the referendum campaign, scrupulously and fairly described the powers for whose transfer the Government sought the Welsh people's consent. It is right and proper that those functions and responsibilities should be transferred by means of an order of the kind envisaged in clause 22.
      I am not saying—I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee agree with me—that there should not be argument and discussion about some aspects of the proposal. I hope that Ministers will not try to stifle every debate on every aspect of the transfer of powers by saying, "This was in the White Paper, and it therefore cannot be questioned." I am preparing the ground for later amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and myself in relation to one or two functions which, I admit, were included in the White Paper, but about whose transfer we have doubts or reservations.
      Even opponents of devolution should not argue that certain functions cannot be sensibly devolved to the assembly once it is up and running although they were

      45
      not included in the White Paper. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for us to have a legislative route for further transfers of existing ministerial responsibilities—legislative responsibilities—at some future date. The bone of contention is which route should be taken in relation to the transfer of certain powers and responsibilities. We became involved in a serious discussion about that on Wednesday, and, inevitably, I want to return to it.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: I understand the logic of my hon. Friend's argument about the two Departments that he has specified, which can be seen in a more British context than those with, in many senses, narrower responsibilities; but why did he not include defence and foreign affairs?
      Mr. Rowlands: The White Paper was very explicit about defence and foreign affairs. It said that the Government did not seek in any way to transfer those functions. I understand from our debate on Wednesday, however, that—although we have identified those two areas of domestic social policy—if the Bill remains unamended, it will be possible to transfer by order even the areas of policy to which my hon. Friend has referred. The amendment—which, incidentally, was tabled before Wednesday's debate—identifies areas of policy about whose possible transfer there is likely to be a certain amount of discussion. The amendment is of a selective nature, but my hon. Friend has raised an interesting issue which needs to be probed.
      Mr. Rogers: Again, I understand my hon. Friend's logic. Surely, however, in relation to such tremendously important matters as defence, foreign affairs and home affairs, it would have been much better to include a clause excluding certain functions—as limited, or de-limited, in the White Paper—than to amend the nature of the Orders in Council that may be made.
      Mr. Rowlands: That is an interesting suggestion, which my hon. Friend may wish to pursue by tabling an amendment.
      Our amendments suggest that the two specific functions involved should be transferred not by order, but by legislation. The argument is not necessarily that some areas should not be transferred; the aim is to provide a safeguard, and to ensure that the transfer process is subject to more scrutiny and debate than is possible in a one-and-a-half hour debate on an unamendable statutory instrument.
      My hon. Friend might make a valuable contribution to our discussion after I have drawn his attention to the exchanges in Committee on Wednesday. We are trying to define the routes by which some functional transfers should take place. I suggest that the transfer of major functions from at least two major Departments should be effected by Acts of Parliament rather than by orders.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I am trying to follow my hon. Friend's argument. May I ask—not in a pejorative way—whether he is trying to rework the argument in terms of exploring the alternatives in clause 21 or is he saying that matters relating to areas such as social security are unsuitable for any form of devolution? Is he concerned about the process or the policy?
      Mr. Rowlands: I have made it clear that I am speaking about the process. Hon. Members have described clause
      46
      21 as declaratory in that it states that future Acts will transfer functions to the assembly. Clause 22 states that functions—the clause does not limit them—can be transferred by any Minister by a transfer of function order. As I said in an intervention to which I shall shortly refer, some major functions ought to be subject to more than a one-and-a-half-hour debate on a transfer order. If my amendment is accepted, a future Government would have to transfer such functions by an Act, and that is the route that I prefer.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am interested in my hon. Friend's last sentence because it made me unsure of his argument. I thought he said that any home affairs or social security function should be transferred to the assembly not by an Order in Council, but by primary legislation. He seemed to rephrase that by saying that if all social security and home affairs functions for Wales were to be transferred to the assembly, as in the Scottish case, that would have to be done by primary legislation. I agree with that, but surely the issue is how restrictive we should be. There are many borderline, minor social security issues, such as who commissions continuing care for the elderly and whether it should be the Department of Social Security as in the past or the social services departments of local authorities. We are debating minor changes. The same could be true of the probation service, which is also a joint funded, co-responsibility area involving local government. I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend about being so restrictive.
      Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend's intervention, which I followed closely, is useful and important. We are trying to find and define a route for the transfer of functions. I suggest that it should be partly dictated by the importance of the function. My hon. Friend is right. I suspect that some minor Department of Social Security and Home Office responsibilities of the kind that my hon. Friend describes could sensibly be transferred by order. An example is the transfer of responsibility for prisons from the Home Secretary to the assembly. I think that that is suggested in an amendment. Should that be done by a one-and-a-half-hour debate on an order or should we use major legislation?
      It might be suggested that responsibility for social security benefits and payments should be transferred. That issue has been discussed in some areas. Should that be done by a transfer of functions order or should the Government of the day do it by primary legislation? I accept the critique of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) of my amendment and my explanation. Under the clause and on my reading of the Secretary of State's clarification of the matter on Wednesday, some functions from the Home Office and the Department of Social Security should not be transferred by a simple order. The absence of a definition of the functions that should be transferred and the choice of route is causing us concern.
      I remind the Committee of an exchange on Wednesday. I said:
      "The notes on clauses say that some modest functions in future may be appropriately devolved by order. That implies that some modesty will attend the order-making power and that substantial transfers of power will be effected by Acts of Parliament. The transfer of prisons from the Home Office involves a fairly substantial power. Would that be done by order or by primary legislation?"

      47
      Those issues were at the heart of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had been saying. He replied:
      "I cannot answer that question; we are not proposing it anyway."
      5.15 pm
      I did not suggest that my right hon. Friend was proposing the transfer of prisons. I was talking not only about the present Government, but about a future Government being given power through the Bill. My right hon. Friend continued:
      "a future Government might consider it. If so, I am sure that the Government of the day and Parliament would say, 'Hang on, you cannot do that by order: it is a substantial shift.'"
      But hang on! The clause does allow a future Government to make such a transfer by order. It does not say that an Act of Parliament is required, and that is the fundamental point of my amendment. We are saying that some responsibilities and functions of two major Departments should be transferred only by an Act of Parliament.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said that such a transfer was provided for in the Bill and the Secretary of State replied:
      "Of course it is, but legislation must be acted on in the light of political common sense."—[Official Report, 21 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 1106–07.]
      I would like to believe that, but such common sense does not always fully determine Government decisions. We are asking, "What does the legislation say and do we agree with it?" My fundamental point—I hope that I am not making a meal of it—is that some functions should be transferred by order while others should require Acts of Parliament. Major responsibilities relating to prisons and to social security should be transferred not by order, but by primary legislation.
      Let us look at the way in which the Welsh Office has evolved. I went through all the orders transferring functions to the Welsh Office over the past 34 years. It was interesting to study the sensible, pragmatic and progressive transfer of power to a developing Department. One of the reasons for the success of the Welsh Office is that is grew progressively, absorbing each function and making it work before collecting the next one. That procedure was followed between 1964 and 1978. After a transfer order in April 1978, there was not another one until 29 January 1991. That is a huge gap and I was curious to discover the reason for it. The answer—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West takes a conspiratorial view.
      Between 1978 and the solitary order on radioactive substances in 1991, the powers to be delegated to the Secretary of State for Wales were written into successive Acts. The Secretary of State collected responsibilities from other Departments over time. As new legislation was introduced, his responsibilities were written into it. I have not had an opportunity to look through the legislation from 1978 to 1991, but, during that time, the Secretary of State's responsibilities grew with each Act.
      Until now, it has not been the wish of Parliament or Government to delegate serious additional major functions to the Secretary of State for Wales from other
      48
      Departments. Therefore, if the assembly is to grow and if it is to be given responsibility for those functions, that must be done through primary legislation, not by order.
      Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman is raising an important question and I am following his argument. Is it not the case that the Acts that came into force between 1978 and 1991 used the term, "the Secretary of State", which can be interpreted in different ways in different parts of the United Kingdom? During the debates on those Acts, virtually no time—if any time at all—was spent on discussing the question of which Secretary of State would undertake the various responsibilities.
      Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that in those debates, it would have been made very clear that any functions relating to Wales would be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales. Of course, we all understand that "Secretary of State" is an all-embracing term.
      As I was saying, after 1978, the Secretary of State's responsibilities were written into each and every Act. Surely that is what will happen with the assembly. When new legislation is introduced, the Government of the day will state whether the responsibilities are to be exercised by the Secretary of State or by the assembly. I am concerned about functions and powers that already exist in other Departments and may be transferred to the assembly. We identified two such Departments in our amendment. After 34 years, there must be some powerful reasons why the functions have not been transferred previously. I do not want to go too far into the argument as I am sure that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will want to develop it when he speaks to his amendments.
      Let us take, as an example, the transfer of prison functions to the Welsh Office. Any hon. Member with constituents who, sadly, have gone to prison knows how important an integrated Prison Service across Britain is to the welfare of prisoners. To be honest, I would not want my constituents to go to Welsh prisons because the best prisons are outside Wales. There has been a common-sense view that the Home Office should have responsibility for prisons and that it should run an integrated service across boundaries.
      There is a strong case for the Home Office maintaining and retaining various home affairs functions, especially the management and operation of the Prison Service. It should remain an integrated service and its functions should not be transferred to the assembly. If a future Government wished to transfer those functions, it would be a major change in policy and should not be dealt with through a simple one-and-a-half-hour, unamendable order which could not be scrutinised and debated with the seriousness it deserved.
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 162, 163 and 161. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will deal with the other Plaid Cymru amendments.
      I want briefly to pick up the arguments made by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) about the Prison Service. My experience, both as a solicitor before I was elected to the House and as a Member of Parliament, is the opposite of the hon. Gentleman's. He suggested that his constituents would be

      49
      better off in prisons outside Wales. I have received many letters from constituents and others in prison expressing regret about the fact that there is no prison in north Wales. That has often led to arguments with prison officers and others about the use of Welsh language material within the Prison Service.
      I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. I see no reason why the assembly should not have responsibility for the Prison Service, as referred to in amendment No. 161. The functions of the Prison Service have already been devolved to Scotland, so what is the problem with their being devolved to Wales? Indeed, other home affairs services have also been transferred to the Scottish Office and will become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. There is no reason why those services should not similarly be transferred to the assembly. The hon. Gentleman took the whole argument about social security, especially the social security budget, to an interesting level and we may need to discuss that. However, I see no reason why prison and fire services should not be transferred to the assembly.
      I want to raise an issue about the magistrates courts service in Wales. I have always been mystified by the processes of the magistrates courts committee. It puts forward plans to rationalise—which means to close—local magistrates courts, but the county council or the unitary authority can ask for those plans to be referred to the Lord Chancellor's Department. The unitary authorities in Wales have some locus in these matters—in particular, they can lodge objections to the plans—but the Welsh Office has no responsibility at all. It would be logical—a word used by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)—therefore for the Secretary of State and, ultimately, the assembly to determine such appeals. In the era of closures of magistrates courts, especially in rural areas where many responsibilities are covered by magistrates' clerks—where justice requires people to travel long distances to attend court either as witnesses or as defendants—the assembly should determine such issues. If the assembly has responsibility for those matters, the people of Wales will have the opportunity of deciding on the structure that we want for magistrates courts, for example, in Wales.
      Let us widen the scope of the debate and include civil courts, county courts and high court offices in Wales. Plans are constantly proposed to rationalise, to close and to reduce the funding of those services. However, the national assembly should be responsible for examining proposals affecting those services. Furthermore, historically, those services were among the first to embrace the use of the Welsh language. One of the first pieces of legislation dealing with the Welsh language was the Welsh Courts Act 1942. It has always seemed rather odd to me that responsibility for court services has remained within the remit of the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor; there is no reason why they should not be transferred to the national assembly.
      5.30 pm
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) mentioned the probation service. That service, too, should properly be transferred to the national assembly. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney hinted that transferring it to the assembly should be considered. Although I realise that we shall not be able to take him or other Labour Members with us all the way on all the
      50
      issues, he did say that the probation service might appropriately be dealt with by order rather than by primary legislation.
      The Secretary of State will know that there has been considerable concern in Wales about fire service reorganisation and funding. Moreover, people working in the fire service are particularly concerned about the way in which those matters are being dealt with. The fire service is another matter which should be within the assembly's remit.
      I suggest to Labour Members that those matters could be transferred by order. If that is accepted, the Bill could provide for that transfer, rather than waiting for future legislation. I appreciate that the Secretary of State might feel that proposals for such transfers were not in the White Paper, which was the basis on which the Government fought the referendum. However, I ask him to realise that those matters could be transferred to the Welsh assembly without too much difficulty and that, in a Welsh context, they would be better dealt with in Wales. I believe that he will be seriously thinking about those matters in this debate.
      Mr. Rogers: Part of the problem is that many hon. Members agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that, on some important legislative issues, Orders in Council are not the appropriate vehicle, but that primary legislation should be used to deal with them. I must confess—my hon. Friend knows my position on devolution—that I do not think that the Bill or the White Paper proposals go far enough. So many other functions should go to the assembly, but doing so was never envisaged. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State is now in the difficult position of seeming to have to break faith with the people of Wales, who—on the basis of the White Paper proposals—gave him a majority.
      Mr. Ron Davies: May I assure my hon. Friend that I am not breaking faith with anyone?
      Mr. Rogers: I never said that the Secretary of State was breaking faith.
      Mr. Davies: I am sorry, but that is what I understood my hon. Friend to say. We have a very clear party policy to which he and I subscribe. That policy was reflected in the White Paper proposals—which are faithfully reflected in the Bill.
      Mr. Rogers: The Secretary of State is not listening very carefully. If he were, he would have heard me say that the Secretary of State would not want to break faith with the people of Wales by altering the White Paper proposals. If he checks the record, I am sure that he will find that that is what I said.
      In considering the specific issues, I have much sympathy for the argument that the assembly should deal with certain functions—although not perhaps with defence and foreign affairs. Although there might come a time when, for some particular reason, the assembly wanted to send a gunboat to Blaenau Gwent—perhaps to discipline the people in the hills—I cannot imagine that the people of Wales would want a separate defence force. However, I strongly believe in local policing.

      51
      Hon. Members who participated actively in the miners' strike, for example, and who actively supported our Welsh colleagues on the picket lines will remember the invasion of police from England and from other areas against—
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: No, not in Wales.
      Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) probably never went on a picket line, so I must forgive him.
      Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend is wrong.
      Mr. Rogers: If my hon. Friend will not be rude and will allow me to finish my point, I shall graphically illustrate it for him. Perhaps he had some inside knowledge about what the police were doing. It is a pity that he did not pass that knowledge on to the National Union of Mineworkers; we would have found it very useful.
      Mr. Morgan: What is my hon. Friend talking about?
      Mr. Rogers: If my hon. Friend had information that English police were not used on Welsh picket lines—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the amendment. We cannot have a conversation on the Back Benches.
      Mr. Rogers: Through you, Mr. Martin, I was attempting to argue that perhaps it would be a good thing if the amendments were to transfer the functions of policing and of control of the police to the Welsh assembly—in contrast to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. In attempting to pursue my argument—
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Rogers: I will in a minute.
      In pursuing my argument, I mentioned that, in the miners' strike, English police were used on the picket lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West wants to contradict me. Let him do so. If he wants to look silly, it is up to him.
      Mr. Morgan: No, I was not on any picket lines. However, I remember reading in the press that the chief constable of the South Wales police took a view that was very different from that of the chief constable of the Yorkshire police. He took the view that it would not be appropriate to bring in police from England to assist in whatever duties the police had to undertake in the South Wales police area. The situation might have been different in Gwent or in north Wales, but that was the policy of the South Wales police.
      Mr. Rogers: As I said, perhaps my hon. Friend has an inside line on those matters. I remember very well—it is the example that I wanted to give—the Bedwas coking ovens picket line, which occurred in the Secretary of
      52
      State's constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)—who was standing next to me—and I were told, in a very broad home counties accent, "We know about you Welsh bastard MPs". I did not mind, as I suppose that, back at the beginning of the century, my ancestors were called a lot of things by the Cardies who came in to join the then Glamorgan constabulary. However, the miners very much resented the intrusion of police who were brought in. Part of the reason for that resentment was that members of their own families were policemen who resented having to go on the picket line against the Welsh miners.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney will remember what happened in Merthyr vale. If there were not English police—and perhaps others—on those picket lines, I will eat my constable's helmet.
      Some issues are peculiarly important to people in certain communities. Policing, for example, can be done effectively only with the consent of the community. The idea of a national police force is abhorrent to all hon. Members, and we should like the police to be under the control of effective police committees. As the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) asked, why not give the Welsh assembly the power to organise police forces in Wales?
      I realise that transferring many functions would entail a problem in transferring moneys, and that it would make a mess of the Barnett formula in determining the proportion of finance to be added to deal with different functions. I do not suppose that it would have been possible to prepare a Bill in this time which would have encompassed all the problems and difficulties involved in the transfer of powers. If we are to have devolution in Wales, it must be meaningful. That is why I have argued that the acts of transfer should be done positively by primary legislation. The whole idea that that will be done in a one-and-a-half-hour, unamendable debate by Order in Council is strange.
      Something needs to be said about defence and foreign affairs because if this clause encompasses all Departments, there ought to be some limitation. We ought to be asking whether we believe in a British state per se—or even a state on a federal basis—or whether we believe in complete independence. That decision will have to be made as we progress. However, if changes are to be made, they should be made by primary legislation and not by Order in Council.
      Mr. Wigley: I shall follow some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). I agree with him about the importance of community in matters such as the police force. The community is what gives the police force its strength, and the absence of that dimension undermines what they are doing. There are areas where important co-ordination is necessary between the police force, local government and other functions—such as highways—which are to come under the assembly. There is a lot of sense in looking at that issue.
      The hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned the Barnett formula, which refers to the increase, year-on-year, in available money. Provided that the money for the police is built into the basic block, there is no reason why the Barnett formula should not continue if we feel it to be appropriate in the generality.
      Mr. Rogers: How would the right hon. Gentleman build that into the basic block? We had a problem with

      53
      policing in south Wales at one time, and hon. Members representing that area went to see Lord Ferrers—the Minister responsible for the police at the time—who said that the South Wales constabulary was a rural police force. He did not realise that the area contained a string of urban communities—it just happened that there were some bleak moorlands in between. Obviously, he had looked at a map but had not visited the area to study the problem.
      Mr. Wigley: I well remember that incident, which makes the hon. Gentleman's point.
      Amendment No. 165, which deals with children, and amendment No. 157, which deals with disability, may be probing amendments. Whereas the Home Office functions—which we are talking about transferring—clearly relate to other Departments, there is an overlap between a number of Departments of state with regard to children and to disability. We want to make it clear that responsibility lies with the assembly in a way that allows a specific approach—perhaps within a committee or sub-committee of the assembly—to deal with those matters.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way early in his remarks. He has referred to a fundamental point that we need to explore. The listing of the subjects that must be considered for transfer has no implication for the way in which that service area will be delivered by the assembly. The presence, or otherwise, of a description of "children's issues" would not require the assembly to have a committee to deal with it. The point to which he is referring is a substantive one—that those matters which, together, add up to children's issues will be transferred.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is the Minister responsible for co-ordinating children's issues in the Welsh Office, and he pulls together matters relating to local government, health and social services, which are to be devolved. Those powers, which are currently vested with Welsh Office Ministers, will be transferred.
      Mr. Wigley: I thank the Secretary of State for that clarification, which is helpful. Perhaps I can press the argument a little further to try to see the context within which the powers can be exercised by or within the assembly.
      By way of background, it is worth mentioning the Welsh Office's successes over the years—under successive Administrations—with certain initiatives dealing with particular groups with special needs within Wales. One thinks of the initiative concerning people with learning difficulties, which was undertaken in the 1980s and 1990s. It carried with it people from all political parties, and it did a considerable amount of good in developing policies at a time when Wales probably had a more advanced set of policies on the needs of those with learning difficulties than not only the other parts of these islands, but the whole of Europe. I attended conferences where that was discussed.
      Likewise, there have been initiatives with regard to those with mental illness and the elderly. There is a need for such an approach with regard to children. We should like to see within the assembly the development of a children's commissioner for Wales. I do not know
      54
      whether the terms of the assembly will allow that, but I imagine that they would—provided that the individual functions to come together within the assembly already exist, as has been suggested by the Secretary of State.
      5.45 pm
      If there were a children's and young person's commissioner for Wales to monitor the effectiveness of all services for children and young persons in Wales, to investigate specific complaints about those services and to report annually to the assembly, children's policies could be developed coherently. Likewise, in exercising the functions of the commissioner, it would be possible to specify the need to ensure that the rights and interests of children and young people were at all times taken into proper account by the service providers. We need co-ordination to make sure that this is focused on.
      We must have regard to the principles laid down in the UN convention on the rights of the child; the need to ensure co-ordination between the voluntary and independent sectors—for example, in providing services for children—and statutory bodies; and the need to consult from time to time children and those seeking to promote their interests. That would bring together a package which—if the Secretary of State's response was correct—can be dealt with by the assembly, which has competence within those areas. That is useful, and it is worth putting that on the record as part of the Committee's debates.
      The Secretary of State will be aware of my interest in disability legislation. I have looked carefully at some of the transfer orders that he has made with regard to disability legislation. It is proposed that some measures are to be transferred and some are not. I take it grievously to heart that the Disabled Persons Act 1981—of which I was lucky enough to be the sponsor—is not being transferred. That Act concerns the physical environment in Wales, town and country planning, building regulations and other matters that I thought would automatically have come within the remit of the assembly. The argument goes beyond the question whether the net has taken in all the legislation that is needed to deal with disabled people within the general functions of the assembly, and I take it that social security is outwith that.
      There is also the question of the approach to disability. For example, one of the vexed questions facing the world of disability—hon. Members from all parties have followed this—is the rights of disabled people, and the need to ensure that we have legislation that allows those rights to be pursued in the same way that the rights of women to equal opportunities and the rights of individuals in regard to racial discrimination can be pursued. The Secretary of State will know that that was a major argument during the last Parliament, and it has continued in this one. There was to be a measure on that matter, and perhaps the Department for Education and Employment is working on a change in the legislation.
      A commission in Wales to look after the needs of disabled people, which disabled people could themselves drive, and to make sure that the rights that they should—and, to some extent, do—have in law are implemented would be a major power. I am not certain that it is within the ability of the assembly, as it is proposed, to pursue the rights of disabled people in that way. I have no doubt that organisations of and for disabled people in Wales are

      55
      committed to encouraging the assembly to move the agenda forward. If it were not possible to do so, they would be extremely disappointed. I hope that the Secretary of State will put our minds at rest and reassure us that those powers will rest with the assembly.
      Ms Julie Morgan: I welcome the fact that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) tabled amendments Nos. 165 and 157, because they highlight important issues. We should take into account the effect on children and on disabled people of policies in every area that is covered by the assembly, as listed in schedule 2.
      Children are affected by decisions not only in the traditional areas that we associate with them, such as health, social services and education, but in all the other policy areas that are listed for transfer, such as culture, economic development, sport, and town and country planning.
      For example, we rarely take into account the needs of children—places to play, shopping developments with creches, and so forth—when planning towns. We know also that economic development, as it affects patterns of employment and flexible working hours, is important to parents and children.
      The key point is to have a child care strategy to cover all the policy areas: whenever a policy is discussed in the assembly, the question of how it would affect children should automatically be asked. I welcome the thinking behind the amendments, and I hope that children's voices may also be heard directly in the assembly. For example, the abuse that has occurred in north Wales and the inquiries into children's homes in south Wales show how important it is for children to have that direct access, and be able to voice their concerns, to the assembly.
      I welcome the attention that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon drew to policies on disability. Disabled people in Wales have fewer opportunities, are less likely to be employed and earn only about 67 per cent. of the average earnings of non-disabled people in the United Kingdom. They must have a clear voice and their needs must be high on the assembly's agenda. As with children, they should be a part of every policy area.
      We shall need a strategy for disabled people, with targets for higher employment rates and better access to buildings, and a policy to ensure that they are employed in the assembly itself. I welcome the mention of strategies that have been successful in Wales and have captured people's imagination because they have directly involved disabled people and their carers, such as the strategy for people with learning disabilities.
      A week ago, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), I attended the launch of the independent living scheme for Cardiff and the Vale. That was the first scheme in Wales in which community care grants were given to disabled people in the community to spend as and when they wanted on carers in their own homes. We want to develop such policies, giving disabled people direct control of the services that they need.
      56
      I welcome the spirit behind amendments Nos. 165 and 157, and I hope that children and disabled people will have a strong voice in the assembly and that all its policies will take their needs into account.
      Mr. Jenkin: It is a mistake to suggest that if the assembly does not have responsibility for disability policy or children's issues, it will be pathologically determined to ride roughshod over them. Of course we hope that it will have regard to special interests, such as the disabled and children, as Parliament and local authorities do, but that does not require that the specific responsibilities be transferred to it.
      We need a sensible cohesion between what happens at Westminster and Whitehall and what happens at national level in Wales. The proposals in the amendments could lead to nothing but disagreement and discord, which we want to avoid.
      I want to talk mainly about the exchanges provoked by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who has done the Committee a great service, especially in his exchanges with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). We heard not an intemperate denunciation of the Bill but a level-headed discussion about why its powers should be drawn so wide and whether that is good for the assembly's prospects.
      In response to what the Secretary of State said on the previous group of amendments, I must emphasise that many criticisms are made not simply to oppose the assembly but to consider whether the Bill can be improved. The Welsh people voted for the proposals in the White Paper, paragraph 1.7 of which said:
      "The Assembly will take over the responsibilities that the Secretary of State exercises in Wales."
      Those responsibilities include home affairs, social security, defence and foreign affairs, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers); but those policy areas are not mentioned in the White Paper that was presented to the people of Wales.
      Paragraph 1.9 of the White Paper says:
      "The Government does not propose to transfer to the Assembly responsibility for functions which currently operate on a common basis throughout the United Kingdom."
      One could split hairs and say that home affairs are not run on a UK basis, but the intention, about the transfer of specific responsibilities, is clear.
      Whether the Secretary of State was in a terrible rush and could not decide which functions he wanted to transfer, or whether there is an ulterior motive, we shall probably never know; we shall certainly never be able to tell from any of the utterances of which he is likely to give the Committee the benefit.
      What we are left with is not a conspiracy or a betrayal of the Welsh people but an unholy mess. The Bill is sloppy, and people who read it will have no firm understanding of what it is intended to transfer or to leave on a UK basis. We are handing huge discretionary power to the Secretary of State to transfer responsibilities by order.
      Mr. Ron Davies indicated dissent.
      Mr. Jenkin: The Secretary of State cannot deny it, because he has said as much himself.
      Mr. Davies rose—
      Mr. Jenkin: Let me finish this point.

      57
      The real question is whether the Committee wants to give so much discretionary power to the Secretary of State. The current incumbent may be entirely determined to stick with the undertakings set out in the White Paper, but even he must have the humility to recognise that he will not be Secretary of State for ever and that someone much less wise and charming might one day occupy his shoes and sit behind his desk. Such a person may well seek to use a majority in Parliament to transfer powers whose transfer was never intended. Perhaps that is why the Secretary of State describes the devolution project as a process rather than a settlement. It is not a settlement; we are creating lot of uncertainty about what the Welsh assembly should do. That is evident from the amendments tabled by the Welsh nationalists.
      6 pm
      Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. I sought to intervene on his statement that discretion to transfer such functions would rest with the Secretary of State. It will not; such discretion will always rest with the House of Commons. Ministers will have discretion to put proposals before the House, but, as I have often said, this House is sovereign and will decide whether powers are transferred.
      Mr. Jenkin: The Secretary of State's vision of the United Kingdom Parliament in years to come is that we shall be treated like the French senate. We shall debate unamendable general principles that hand the Executive huge power on the basis, in this case, of 90 minutes' debate. As Labour Members have said, primary legislation should be used if major functions are to be transferred, but there is no limit on the number and scope of functions that could be transferred by order.
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: What provision did the Conservative Government use to run Northern Ireland after Stormont was abolished? Was it not done by order?
      Mr. Jenkin: Of course it was by order, and a highly unsatisfactory situation it is. I cannot remember even the Welsh nationalists arguing for the restoration of normal democratic legislative processes in Northern Ireland because of the exceptional circumstances there. I have always been told that the Welsh people do not like having parallels drawn with Northern Ireland, but the hon. Gentleman is putting Wales in the same position as Northern Ireland by doing all transfers by order without limit on their scope and nature.
      Mr. Jones: I intervened because the hon. Gentleman was arguing that functions should not be transferred by order. I was merely pointing out that Tory Governments used such powers for nearly a quarter of a century. How can he say that that should have been the case in Northern Ireland but should not be in Wales?
      Mr. Jenkin: The fact that the hon. Gentleman does not have the dexterity to understand that the situation in Northern Ireland has been exceptional for the past 25 years—all Opposition Members urgently want normality to resume in Northern Ireland so that we can restore proper democratic processes—explains why the nationalists are destined to remain a small party. Long may they remain so.
      Mr. Lembit Öpik: Leaving Northern Ireland aside, can the hon. Gentleman cite an
      58
      example of where a Secretary of State has persistently over-devolved power to a constitutionally established regional or national body and can he say whether it has been unsuccessful?
      Mr. Jenkin: The Stormont Parliament might be a good example.
      We should ask ourselves when the House has given powers to Ministers to move functions by order and they have recoiled from the use of that route and preferred primary legislation. That is what the Secretary of State is asking us to believe. We are being told not to worry, to trust that if an issue were of sufficient importance, the Secretary of State would use primary legislation rather than the order-making power. That is to put trust in the Executive and in politicians, which we, as politicians, should know better than to do.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: I apologise for the state of my voice. I shall endeavour to make a short contribution. Amendment No. 144 deals with social security and home affairs. Social security is particularly difficult, while some home affairs issues, especially the siting of magistrates courts, should be administered within Wales. The closure of magistrates courts in my constituency has made access to the justice system difficult for many constituents.
      We wish to support Plaid Cymru's amendments No. 165 on children's issues and No. 157 on disabilities. I declare an interest as president of Brecon and District dial-a-ride, which has 650 members and operates a service that covers some 84,000 miles a year. I have experienced at first hand how difficult it is to get sufficient back-up for support for disabilities. There are many advantages in transferring more aspects of disability policy to the assembly.
      The fire service powers, which amendment No. 163 gives to the assembly, are clearly needed. Policing, and especially probation, powers should be transferred to the assembly, as proposed by amendment No. 161. The question of prisons is complex, but the issue of young persons in prison, particularly in Wales, has been campaigned on for a long time. There have been many injustices with young people going away from home into prison in England. That needs further sorting out. I support the amendments.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I shall try to sum up the debate, in which there has not been great disagreement. We agree that we need three grades of legislative change that require three different responses. I think that we agree that if it is clearly stated in the White Paper that something should be transferred, it is permissible that it should be done by Order in Council. At the far extreme, if a transfer is clearly negated by the White Paper, no future Government should be able to do it without another referendum. Taxation, or other principles that stretch the word "devolution" to its extreme, would require that. There is an area in the middle, with matters that might be described as having been hinted at in the White Paper or not clearly ruled out. The question is whether such matters could be transferred only by primary legislation. That is the grey area.
      Is it possible to specify now the matters whose transfer would not require another referendum—because they are not negated by the White Paper—but could reasonably be

      59
      done by a future Parliament by Order in Council or primary legislation? Such transfers could be done later in this Parliament, but are more likely to be done by a future one. Such matters may not necessarily be much thought about now and may not have been much discussed in the referendum. That is the controversy. Should it be written into the Bill or left to the political judgment of the Government and Parliament of the day? Without a written constitution, we normally leave certain matters to the political judgment of the day. The general principle that has always guided the House is that we try never to commitment future Parliaments because it is a waste of time. It is a difficult issue.
      For instance, we might say that a referendum would be required if one were to transfer to the National Assembly powers relating to taxation or, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), to defence or foreign policy. Should home affairs or social security matters be dealt with by Order in Council or through primary legislation? If one proposed to transfer all general responsibilities relating to home affairs or the Lord Chancellor's Department, it would be easy to see that such a decision would require primary legislation. That possibility is bound to come up for discussion in the future simply because it is the only major difference between the transfer of powers to Wales and to Scotland—as far as I know, it is the only difference relating to administrative devolution practice and the contents of the respective White Papers.
      It is natural that people will compare the practice in Wales and that in Scotland. They may argue that the next natural step after the devolution exercise is to give the Welsh assembly equal powers to those available to the Scottish Parliament in relation to home affairs, prisons, the probation service and the Lord Chancellor's Department. That discussion is bound to take place simply because of the administrative contrast between Wales and Scotland, which exists for good historic reasons.
      Should such a transfer of powers be a matter for primary legislation? I am sure that we would agree that the transfer of all functions relating to home affairs and the Lord Chancellor's Department requires primary legislation. However, it is necessary to ask whether certain areas of responsibility in relation to them or social security are so intimately connected with those functions that were discussed in the White Paper that to specify that any transfer would require primary legislation would impose an unreasonable restriction on a future Parliament. There are quite a few such areas because of cost shunting. I am not sure whether it is reasonable to deny a future Secretary of State the right to transfer such powers by Order in Council.
      Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend is quite an expert on most matters so perhaps he can tell us what is the position in relation to the revocation of Orders in Council. Perhaps that is why Conservative Members are looking so smug. Perhaps a future Conservative Secretary of State could revoke an Order in Council. I presume that that is possible, but I am not quite sure. Such an order would not be as binding as primary legislation.
      Mr. Morgan: I am sorry, but I cannot possibly comment on that. My hon. Friend will have to make his
      60
      own speech about that during clause stand part, when he can come back and have another bite at that interesting and juicy cherry.
      Police funding and funding of the fire service are covered by the rate support grant, and are therefore the responsibility of local government, but matters relating to training, standard setting and monitoring are the responsibility of the Home Office. Given that the funding is part of local government administration, it is difficult not to consider such a responsibility as a natural extension of the powers that were subject to a decision at the referendum. The transfer of powers relating to prisons would be an entirely different matter, because such a transfer was never discussed or hinted at during the referendum.
      Perhaps it would be possible to transfer powers according to a three-way classification of functions. One could then decide that the transfer of relevant powers would require a referendum, primary legislation or an Order in Council. That would be a good move, provided that such a classification fitted with an unwritten constitution and the way in which we normally approach such decisions. After all, we never seek to bind a future Parliament. Such an attempt would be meaningless.
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman reply to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). In the absence of the Conservative amendments that were voted down in our earlier proceedings, it is abundantly clear that, once an Order in Council is made, it can be reversed only by primary legislation.
      Mr. Ron Davies: Or with the agreement of the assembly.
      Mr. Letwin: Indeed. Such is the asymmetry that the legislation builds in.
      Mr. Morgan: It is certainly true that the Bill will become an act of devolution. If Conservative Members are only just discovering that, it is a pity that they did not wake up to it earlier—if they had, they could have then played a greater role in the referendum. The purpose of an act of devolution is to devolve powers democratically to an elected body. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman should express great surprise that the purpose of it is to effect a transfer of powers in an orderly manner that provides for the most stable administrative system possible.
      Mr. John Hayes: When we debated the matter earlier in our proceedings, one issue under discussion was not just the devolution of power from this place to the assembly, but the transfer of existing local government functions. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the funding of the fire service and the police, but local government has far more responsibilities for those matters than just their funding. Is he suggesting a massive transfer of power from local government to the assembly?
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Morgan: Not at all. Functions relating to the police and fire service are the responsibility of two Secretaries of State, one because funding is provided by

      61
      him to local authorities through the rate support grant and the other because general responsibilities remain with the Home Secretary. Given that the Secretary of State for Wales already has some responsibility for the police and the fire service because he provides for their funding by local authorities through the rate support grant—those authorities are then precepted by the police and the fire service—it is clear that a further transfer of responsibilities relating to the fire service and the police could be regarded as an extension of a responsibility already discussed in the White Paper. I accept that any transfer of powers relating to prisons would be new.
      We must search for a stable but flexible system in which three possible outcomes could be considered. A proposed transfer of powers could be regarded as a matter that required another referendum to be held; other categories of transfer might require primary legislation or merely an Order in Council. That classification would be clear to the people of Wales and to hon. Members on both sides of the House. The guidance offered by the House to successor bodies would be clear, even though we could not bind those bodies.
      If a proposed transfer merely represented an extension of the transfers proposed in the White Paper or the Bill, the use of an Order in Council would be appropriate. If that transfer represented a complete change, there is no reason why it should not be covered by primary legislation, even though it is difficult to take into account the fact that the political environment may change over five to 10 years.
      I am sure that we are all clear about the three classifications that could govern the possible extent of any future suggested transfer of functions compared with the transfers that have already been suggested in the White Paper and were discussed and fought over during the referendum campaign.
      Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has rightly said that things can change in five years. He said that the use of a referendum is one of the options when deciding the transfer of powers. As far as the House is concerned, referendums are consultative. Does he accept that the political scene will be different once the assembly is established, because it will articulate some of the wishes of the people of Wales? Surely its role should also be part of the equation.
      Mr. Morgan: I do not seek to anticipate the political future that we may face in five or 10 years, once the Welsh assembly and the Scottish Parliament have been in operation. That is the problem with an unwritten constitution—one cannot anticipate how political judgments might change. Perhaps, in five or 10 years, there will be a general consensus among the four political parties of Britain that responsibility for prisons should be transferred to the Welsh assembly. People may say, "That transfer does not matter a damn. Do it tomorrow by Order in Council, because everyone agrees with it." Without a written constitution, that could happen. It is a matter of theory, but one must take into account that the political mood can change.
      Cost shunting is the most important issue not yet discussed. We must put on record now that it will sometimes be possible for major changes made by Parliament in primary legislation of a UK-wide type to
      62
      have massive consequences for the Welsh assembly. I am thinking about the care of the elderly or long-term care for those with disabilities. Let us imagine a scenario where the Department of Social Security lays additional burdens on local authorities by transferring to them all responsibility for funding long-term care for the elderly or for those with disabilities. What was previously done by the DSS will now have to be done by social services departments of local authorities, which will need a massive uplift in their rate support grant. If the responsibility were transferred, but there were no such uplift in the rate support grant, one can imagine the problems that would face the Welsh assembly.
      That is not the only possible example—the police and fire services come to mind. Whereas prisons are clearly a Home Office responsibility, many of the alternatives to prison—crime prevention policies, alternative places and so on—which might form part of a policy to reduce the prison population, are the responsibility of local authorities. Somewhere, there has to be some sort of concordat covering such grey areas in respect of the possibility of cost shunting. The Welsh assembly will have responsibility for funding local authorities, which might have additional responsibilities laid on them by future Acts of Parliament.
      There must be some way of handling situations in which there is no proposal to shift policy making from here to the Welsh assembly, but there is the likelihood of funding responsibilities being shifted to the Welsh assembly as the funding body for local authorities. We have to be clear about the implications of the various ways in which costs can be shunted either side of the devolved boundary, so we have to be sympathetic to the need sometimes to transfer functions in cases where we have, in effect, already transferred the costs of the responsibility for certain matters.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will forgive me if I do not join him in speculating about what might happen in future. Instead, I shall concentrate on amendment No. 144, which was moved some time ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands).
      Clause 22 provides for any ministerial function, in so far as it relates to Wales, to be transferred by order. I hope that there is clarity on that point. That could, of course, include any statutory functions to do with prisons or social security.
      Mr. Jenkin: So there it is.
      Mr. Davies: Yes, but I want to make the point absolutely clear. There would be nothing to prevent a Government from transferring such functions by primary legislation, rather than by a clause 22 order, if they so wished. It is for that purpose that clause 21, which now stands on the face of the Bill, provides for either of those options. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said that those alternative mechanisms exist and could be used, but it would not be productive for us to explore the

      63
      circumstances in which either provision would be used, because that would be a matter for the Government of the day.
      Mr. Jenkin: Trust the Government.
      Mr. Davies: I want to come to that point. It is a matter for the Government of the day to decide whether they wish to transfer powers to the assembly. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has argued on several occasions that Parliament is sovereign, and I hope that he acknowledges the theoretical possibility, if not the wisdom, of any future Government deciding that further powers should be devolved to the assembly. He must acknowledge that possibility, because he argues the case for the sovereignty of Parliament.
      If that is the case, a Government who command a majority in the House could decide, as a matter of policy, that they wished to devolve further functions to the assembly, and they could seek to do that either by primary legislation, which, as we have made clear in clause 21, would require the assent of the House, or by using the mechanism in clause 22 and tabling an order, in which case the consent of the House would again be required. In either case, the Government of the day decide what their policy is, and then have to seek the necessary authority from the House. In clause 22, we have merely indicated the second of the options available to the Government.
      There is little profit in our speculating now about which functions should be transferred and which process should be used to achieve that transfer at some point in the future. We do not know how policy will develop or how the pace of decentralisation will develop. We do not know what pressures will prevail in five or 10 years' time or what the policy imperatives or the demands of the people will be. There is no point in our spending time now trying to forecast what will happen in future; nor is there much point in the hon. Member for North Essex trying to curtail the process of devolution, which is what he is trying to achieve. He is trying to prevent the Government from embarking on this policy.
      Let me make it clear, as I did when speaking to the previous group of amendments, that it is the Government's policy to have a substantial act of devolution. We want to devolve the powers that will be set down and made absolutely clear in the transfer order, but we want to have a mechanism that will allow the process of devolution to continue, and that is the purpose of clause 22. The hon. Member for North Essex should not jump up and down as though it is some great revelation that clause 22 allows for devolution to take place in future. I have made that absolutely clear for as long as I have been talking about devolution. I made it clear on Second Reading, and I have freely acknowledged in every debate in Committee so far, that devolution is a process, and that clause 22 provides a mechanism whereby, if they have the consent of the House, future Governments will be able to devolve to the assembly further powers that they consider would be best discharged by the assembly.
      Mr. Jenkin: To argue that there should be limits on what the Secretary of State can recommend to be
      64
      transferred by order is not to argue against the devolution as set out in schedule 2. That is not the point at issue and we are not arguing against that devolution at this point; we are simply saying that there is no limit to what can be transferred.
      The Secretary of State has not been able to reassure the Committee by saying that for the Government to choose the route of primary legislation is an option; the mere fact that it is only an option underlines the huge discretion that Ministers will have to recommend fast-track devolution to the House and force it through with their majority after only a one-and-a-half-hour debate. That is not an anti-devolution statement; it is simply to underline the massive discretion that we are transferring to Ministers to pursue further devolution by the fast-track process.
      Mr. Davies: There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to underline it, because I do not disguise the fact. I have said time and again that we are debating what will become a substantial act of devolution. The hon. Gentleman seeks to ensure that if at any time in the future the Government wish to devolve further powers to the assembly, they will have to come to the House with a piece of primary legislation. I am saying that there are many areas where it may well not be sensible or practical do to that—there may be no desire for certain matters to be brought before the House in a substantial piece of primary legislation. I have no doubt that there will be instances where the Government of the day and Parliament as a whole decide that it is perfectly sensible to devolve matters by means of order. If Parliament does not agree, the orders will not be passed. All Parliament has to do is say, "No, we do not approve it." The hon. Gentleman cannot get away from the inescapable fact that there is a mechanism whereby Parliament can assert its right and prevent powers from being devolved.
      Amendment No. 144 would exclude social security and home affairs functions from transfer to the assembly. At the moment, I have no social security functions, and the White Paper made it clear that such UK-wide functions would continue to be delivered on the current basis, by the unitary Government. The Government have no plans to transfer such functions to the assembly, so the amendment is unnecessary. [Laughter.] There is no point in the hon. Member for North Essex laughing. It is not the Government's intention, so the amendment is unnecessary.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davies: I shall give way in a moment. The hon. Gentleman has not participated in the debate, although I know that he has listened carefully. We are concluding a lengthy debate and I want to answer the points raised so far, rather than engage in new matters.
      Mr. Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman has just been saying to my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that there is a substantial act of devolution and that future Governments may wish to devolve further matters by order. Therefore, it is not an answer to earlier arguments to say, "The current Government have no plans to do so at present" in relation to social security matters. The right hon. Gentleman has just said that a future Government might decide on wholly new acts of

      65
      devolution by way of order. Does that not reiterate the point made in amendment No. 144, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), that certain categories such as social security and home affairs should be excluded? The Secretary of State's first answer does not fit with his second.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Davies: Yes, of course it does. I have made it clear that any ministerial function can be transferred. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is trying to choose two of the functions. If we were to do so, we would be on our way to saying that this Parliament should try to restrict the rights of a future Government or future Parliament to devolve a series of policy areas and functions. Any future Parliament could set aside that provision, so amendment No. 144 is unnecessary and would be troublesome.
      A number of other amendments have been debated, some of which add to, and some of which detract from, the list in schedule 2. It may be helpful background when considering the amendments if I explain the purpose of the schedule—what it does and, more particularly, what it does not do. At least some of the amendments—this was the point that I was making to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—appear to be based on a misunderstanding of schedule 2.
      The White Paper "A Voice for Wales" sets out the policy that the assembly should take over the responsibilities that I exercise in Wales. Paragraph 1.7 listed them briefly and stated that they would be listed in the Bill—that is the purpose of schedule 2. Annexe A of the White Paper sets out a more detailed version of that list. That part of the White Paper is put into effect in part II of the Bill, notably in clause 22, which provides the power for Her Majesty to transfer ministerial functions to the assembly by Order in Council.
      Clause 22(2) places a duty on me to consider including in the initial transfer order appropriate functions that fall in each of the fields listed in schedule 2—it is only a duty to consider. I listened carefully to the arguments of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and I know that he wants to make similar arguments in subsequent debates. I can tell him that all that schedule 2 does is to place on me a responsibility to consider. The amendments that he will move will not do what he is trying to do, which is to place a duty on me or a power on the assembly; they would merely require me to consider those matters.
      Mr. Wigley: The Secretary of State referred to annexe A of the White Paper. He will be aware that, under the social services heading, the annexe refers to
      "policies for particularly vulnerable groups, including people with learning disability".
      The question of disability has appeared in the White Paper, but, as far as I can see, it does not appear in the Bill.
      Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman referred to specific points relating to the Disabled Persons Act 1981 which I want to deal with slightly later.
      I first wish to deal with the general point about the effect of schedule 2. I made it clear that the White Paper is put into effect in part II of the Bill, particularly in clause
      66
      22, which provides power for Her Majesty to transfer ministerial functions to the assembly by Order in Council. Clause 22(2) places a duty on me to consider including in the initial transfer order appropriate functions that fall in each of the fields listed in schedule 2—nothing more. Without a provision such as clause 22(2), there would be nothing in the Bill to show the extent of the initial powers to be transferred to the assembly. In that sense, clause 22 and schedule 2 provide a mechanism which we have used to show the Committee the broad policy areas that we propose to devolve.
      Clause 22 and schedule 2 taken together implement the policy that it is those functions now exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales—or virtually all of them—that should be included in the initial transfer order. At the same time, clauses 21 and 22 allow for subsequent transfer orders to be made—the point that I was discussing earlier with the hon. Member for North Essex—transferring additional functions to the assembly, which is part of our policy. They also allow the flexibility for the initial transfer order to exclude some functions within the fields listed in schedule 2 if it is concluded that they should not be transferred at present—the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney raised with me on, I think, Second Reading. He has suggested that he intends to return to the subject tonight. Adding new fields to the list in schedule 2—the effect of some of the amendments that have been tabled—would require me to consider transferring such functions to the assembly; it would not require me to transfer some or all of them. If the additions were simply matters already included in one of the broad fields already in schedule 2, the amendment would have no effect at all. Removing a field from schedule 2 would not prevent the transfer order from including it; it would only remove the duty to consider including it.
      I shall now return to the point about the Disabled Persons Act 1981 raised by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon. The 1981 Act is not mentioned in the draft transfer order because it, itself, amends various other Acts that are mentioned in the draft order, including the Highways Act 1980 and the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1972. The right hon. Gentleman was seeking to ensure that the assembly will have the power to consider those matters. I can only give him the answer by reference to the transfer order: the matters that are subsequently defined in the transfer order will be those that are devolved to the assembly. It is at that point that the right hon. Gentleman will have to seek to press the Government on the nature of the orders that are defined in the other pieces of legislation, the Highways Act or the Disabled Persons Act.
      Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that clarification, but some parts of the 1981 Act do not relate specifically to any other Act. May we take it that he would be prepared to look again at that question or any similar representations made in the context of the transfer orders to ensure that those powers that should be there are clearly there?
      Mr. Davies: I shall certainly look—or perhaps I shall get someone else to look on my behalf—very closely at the 1981 Act to ensure that those functions, if any, that I currently discharge will be included in the transfer order. That is as far as I can go in giving the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

      67
      Schedule 2's other role relates to part III of the Bill. Clause 56 requires the assembly to set up subject committees. Each of them must have responsibilities in a field listed in schedule 2, but there is nothing to prevent its having responsibilities in more than one of the fields, or even all of them.
      I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), who made a powerful case for the assembly having a discrete responsibility for particular issues. The assembly—its internal architecture and policies—will decide how it wishes to handle those matters. What I am concerned with, and what the Bill is now concerned with, is the extent to which the powers that will be necessary for the assembly to discharge those responsibilities in the way that my hon. Friend suggests are contained in the Bill. I can give her the assurance that I think that she was seeking: I am content that adequate powers will be contained in the Bill and the subsequent transfer order to allow the assembly to discharge its functions in the way that she was suggesting.
      Taken together, the subject committees must have responsibilities in all the fields listed in schedule 2, but they would not necessarily be defined in accordance with the particular fields that we have identified in schedule 2. Adding or subtracting a field in the schedule would not necessarily change the number of subject committees. That issue lies behind some of the amendments that I said we would consider later, so I hope that when we reach them the Committee will forgive me if my replies to those debates are brief.
      There is no requirement that there should be a committee for each area. The assembly can set up committees for any subject that it wishes. If it wanted to have a committee for children's issues and rights—on which a number of hon. Members have spoken—it would be able to set one up. There is nothing that we can do—other than to make it explicit on the face of the Bill—that would require that to happen. I hope that the Committee will bear those points in mind when we consider amendments relating to schedule 2, particularly amendment No. 160 on the Council of the Isles, No. 157 on disablement policy, No. 159 on European affairs, No. 185 on sustainable development, No. 158 on rural affairs and No. 165 on children's issues and rights.
      Mr. Rogers: I well understand that, within the transfer-of-function arrangements, financial arrangements would need to be made to carry out the transferred functions. However, in the event that, as my right hon. Friend just outlined, the assembly wanted to take to itself certain functions, by what mechanisms would it obtain money to carry them out—especially if it was in conflict with the Secretary of State?
      Conflict between assembly and Secretary of State will be possible. Later clauses give the Secretary of State the right to allocate moneys to the assembly—the assembly has no immediate call on money, which can come only through the Secretary of State. Therefore, if the Secretary of State does not agree with the assembly on any power that it wishes to take to itself, or any committee that it
      68
      wishes to set up, or any function that it wishes to carry out, how can the assembly do that without tax-raising powers?
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend raises two points.
      First, it will be entirely for the assembly to decide how it wishes to organise and deliver in those policy areas for which it has responsibility, either as a result of the clause or the accompanying schedule. Matters that have been devolved to the assembly will be entirely a matter for the assembly, and its Members must make their judgments according to the available block grant—they must decide their priorities. There is no question of their doing anything else.
      However, the importance of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) lay in the second question that he asked, about what would happen if the assembly wished to have additional powers. It would have those additional powers only if it were agreed by the Government of the day and Parliament. It would be perfectly feasible for additional powers to be given to the assembly, but the assembly and the Government of the day would then have to negotiate what additional resources would follow the granting of additional powers. That would be a discussion process, with the assembly getting the agreement of the Government of the day. I hope that that answers the point that my hon. Friend raised.
      I return to amendment No. 144. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a range of functions with respect to police, fire, prisons, and so on in Wales. As I shall explain, I have some functions with respect to the funding of police and fire authorities, but they are the only functions in that field that the Government are considering for transfer to the assembly. I know that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon will understand my argument. Therefore, that aspect of amendment No. 144 is inappropriate, because it might prevent the transfer of my responsibilities relating to the funding of the fire service or of the police.
      The remaining amendments in the group all seek to insert a field in schedule 2. Amendment No. 162 refers to
      "Administration of justice and the courts system."
      Those are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor—not me—and the Government have no plans to change that responsibility.
      Amendment No. 161 refers to "Policing, prisons and probation", and amendment No. 163 refers to the fire service. I have very limited responsibilities with respect to the police and fire services in Wales, but police authorities in Wales are funded jointly by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and me—about 51 per cent. of revenue comes from the Home Secretary in the form of police grant and the remainder from me through revenue support grant and redistributed non-domestic rates. Prisons and probation services are the responsibility of the Home Secretary, and the Government have no plans to change that.
      If I may say so, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West was speculating about which of the processes in clause 21 might be appropriate. I cannot give him an

      69
      answer to that because the Government are not proposing it, but it seems to me that if the Government of the day were proposing—
      Mr. Jenkin: That is a cop-out.
      Mr. Davies: It is not a cop-out. I do not know whether that remark was made by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) or his side-kick of today.
      Mr. Jenkin: His side-kick.
      Mr. Davies: It is not a cop-out; it is a rational explanation of the position that might arise in five or 10 years' time. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want devolution to proceed, but I want it to succeed and I want it to work, and the answer—
      Mr. Jenkin: That has nothing to do with it.
      Mr. Davies: It has everything to do with it.
      The answer that I am trying to give my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West is that if the Government of the day were to envisage a substantial transfer of powers—those that have not hitherto been devolved to me—from a Whitehall Department, obviously they would have to consider the option of primary legislation.
      However, I cannot say what will happen in five or 10 years' time. I merely acknowledge the strength of my hon. Friend's argument. The Parliament of the day would have to acknowledge the strength of the argument. I should have thought that, in the case of a substantial transfer of powers, the Government of the day would be wise to ensure that consent had been obtained by means of a general election manifesto—or, conceivably, by a referendum—and then agreement by the House of Commons. That seems to me the process that a sensible Government, or any sensible participant in a political process, would want to adopt.
      Mr. Michael Ancram (Devizes): Disgraceful.
      Mr. Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to intervene—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows how to behave, and it is not the way to behave, sitting there interrupting the speeches.
      Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend was talking to me.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Well, he should not be talking to anyone. He should be listening to the debate.
      Mr. Davies: Had I more time, Mr. Martin, I might want to argue with your ruling that the right hon. Gentleman knows how to behave.
      My sole responsibility with respect to the fire service is that of funding fire authorities in Wales as part of the funding provided to county and county borough councils under the local government finance settlement. The function there falls within the local government field in schedule 2.
      70
      6.45 pm
      Amendment No. 157, on disablement policy—I have explained the case to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon; I hope to his satisfaction—and amendment No. 165, on children's issues and rights, raise different issues. Disablement policy cuts across almost all the functions of the assembly: it is not a field in itself. As I have explained in general terms already, such an amendment to schedule 2 is not the appropriate vehicle to ensure that the assembly establishes specific subject committees. That will have to be addressed through the assembly's standing orders. The same comments apply to children's issues and rights, which touch on many functions in such fields as health, education and social services.
      I hope that the responses that I have given to hon. Members who have spoken to amendments are sufficient for them to realise that we have built in a sensible mechanism for the transfer of those powers that are currently devolved and a process that will allow the Government of the day, with the consent of Parliament, to ensure that the system of government in this country is carried on effectively with a commitment to the principle of devolution.
      I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney for initiating this interesting brief debate, but I hope that I have persuaded him not to press amendment No. 144 to a Division.
      Mr. Rowlands: My right hon. Friend said that amendment No. 144 was unnecessary because the present Government had no intention of transferring such powers. I think, with modest respect, that the intentions of the present Government are irrelevant to the nature of the legislation that we are drafting. The issue that should concern anyone who scrutinises the Bill is not the present Government's intentions, but the powers that we are bestowing on a future Executive.
      I was suggesting that I could see that it would be very convenient for a future Government to have at its discretion the ability to use a simple order-making power instead of the process of primary legislation. We, as Back Benchers in this Parliament, should feel queasy about giving future Governments such powers—very wide powers, in clause 22(1), to transfer functions by simple order.
      The debate has also drawn attention to something that the interesting contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) illustrated very well: the fact that we have not sat down and written a constitution. We do not have a written constitution and we are not producing one, so the problems of trying to use a piece of typical traditional process called a Bill to create a different set of constitutional arrangements lies at the heart of many of the dilemmas and difficulties that confront us. We do not have a constitutional settlement, so we do not have a written constitution and we do not have the means by which we would amend that constitution by changing the respective powers, so we are obliged to proceed using this traditional process.
      I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, because we are not going down the radical new route of writing constitutions, but, instead, are using the traditional, pragmatic Bill process, we should feel especially queasy about bestowing on a future Executive powers of the type suggested in clause 22(1).

      71
      Arguments have been made from both sides of the Committee. The debate was essentially about the process—not about the merits of the respective transfers of future responsibilities and functions. I have listened carefully. I believe that it is arguable that aspects of home affairs in particular should possibly be devolved at some time.
      I shall not press the amendment to a Division, but I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the argument and the dilemmas that we have tried to grapple with are endemic in the process. We are not sitting down with a blank piece of paper and writing a new constitution that would lay down how all those matters should be dealt with. By undertaking the process as we are doing, we shall hit the same dilemmas time and again. We should not ignore them or pretend that they do not exist. As Members of Parliament legislating for the future, it is right that we should feel queasy about them. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 136, in page 13, line 5, leave out
      'concurrence of or subject to the consent or approval'
      and insert 'agreement'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 208, in page 13, line 21, at end insert—
      '(5) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council under this section for the transfer of taxation powers unless and until the proposals for such a transfer have been approved by the Welsh people in a referendum vote.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 207, in clause 23, page 14, line 41, after 'Minister', add
      'but do not include the Chancellor of the Exchequer'.
      Mr. Davies: Amendment No. 208 would insert new subsection (5) into clause 22, which would restrict the order-making powers of Her Majesty in Council on the recommendation of Ministers in the case of the transfer of taxation powers to the National Assembly. The amendment would limit that power through a referendum of the Welsh people.
      Amendment No. 207 is slightly different. It would restrict the order-making power by amending the Bill to exclude the functions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the order-making powers. It would do so by adding to subsection (10) of clause 23, which states that the words "Minister of the Crown" shall include a Scottish Minister. The amendment would add,
      "but do not include the Chancellor of the Exchequer".
      Unless there is some defect in the drafting, that would ensure that taxation powers could not be transferred to the assembly by the order-making powers in clause 22.
      It is always open to the House to do anything by Act of Parliament, including transferring taxation powers from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Welsh assembly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that that was the reason for clause 21(b), but we do not need it.
      72
      We do not need to be told that the House can do that. I do not want to pursue the argument, but why on earth do we need clause 21(b)?
      Having listened to my right hon. Friend addressing the previous amendment and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who made an extremely interesting contribution, I think that I am pushing at a fairly open door. My right hon. Friend accepted that the White Paper had made it clear, and the referendum was fought on the basis, that there was no intention of transferring functions that operate on a UK basis.
      Leaving aside the council tax and local taxes, with which the provision does not deal, the taxation functions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer operate on a UK basis. I tried to argue previously that they were not functions in relation to Wales, and I shall not pursue that argument. It is interesting that the White Paper referred to functions that operate on a UK basis. Those are therefore not functions that relate just to Wales.
      In his winding-up speech on the previous amendment, my right hon. Friend referred to UK-wide functions, so I should have thought that he and I were on all fours. When the referendum was fought, it was made clear that there was no intention to transfer to a Welsh assembly functions that operate on a UK-wide basis or on a UK basis.
      I can see some difficulties with home affairs. There are certain functions that would be carried out on a Welsh basis, not on a UK basis. There might be some minor problems in relation to social security. However, as far as I am aware, the Secretary of State for Wales has no taxation functions in relation to Wales.
      When we suggest in amendment No. 208 that there should be a referendum, or in amendment No. 207 that there should be an Act of Parliament, before the Order in Council, I do not see how my right hon. Friend could object. The argument is entirely consistent with his position.
      I am not arguing for or against the transfer of powers of taxation. This is not a debate about whether a Welsh assembly should have taxation powers. In a single economic unit such as Britain, with a single currency and unrestricted freedom of movement of capital, persons and labour, it is daft to suggest that there should be different rates of income tax in that single economic unit, or different rates of capital gains tax, of VAT, if that was allowed under the European treaties, or of corporation tax. That is not the issue. The argument underlying the amendment is that we should not transfer powers of taxation, which are clearly UK-based powers, without an Act of Parliament or, better still, a referendum.
      The amendments were tabled as a result of what my right hon. Friend clearly said during the Committee's previous sitting. When I shouted from a sedentary position, for which I apologise, "Taxation," my right hon. Friend readily and enthusiastically said yes. He seemed delighted that I had suggested that taxation could be transferred as well. I was rather surprised. Perhaps I am the only member of the Committee who is surprised that under the Bill it is possible to transfer taxation powers by order—an affirmative resolution is provided for in the Bill. Within one and a half hours, taxation powers can be transferred from the UK unitary state, the British Government or the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Welsh assembly.

      73
      I tried my best to give my right hon. Friend an escape route. I argued first that, under clause 22, the functions had to be transferred by Act of Parliament, but he would have none of that. I am sure the draftsmen advised him about that. Then I argued that taxation powers were not powers in relation to Wales, but he would have none of that, either. I have done my best to stop him getting himself into a corner and telling the people of Wales that, despite having said in the White Paper and during the referendum that functions that operate on a UK basis would not be transferred, here we are—that can be done, not even by an Act of Parliament, but by Order in Council.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is more aware than I am of the Scottish referendum. I know that the example is not exactly the same, but in Scotland we deemed that there should be a separate question on whether the people of Scotland should have powers of taxation. I need not labour the point. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West—from a sedentary position or in his speech, I forget which—suggested that such powers are so fundamental that a referendum would be required.
      7 pm
      That is all we are asking. We are not asking for anything terrible. We are not saying that the Welsh Assembly should not be able to function properly. Those of us who raised these matters during an earlier devolution debate were immediately castigated as anti-devolution, but that is not the position. Previous debate has shown how difficult it is to handle these matters without a constitutional settlement.
      In an earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West mentioned a dispute resolution system, and mentioned words such as "resource allocation system". He argued that all devolution systems should have such provisions within them. Well, the mechanism before us does not. I have referred to some of the matters that some of us tried to raise during the referendum campaign, which are seen by others as antipathetic to devolution.
      We have heard this evening about defence and foreign affairs. Those matters are not the subject of the amendment, but, by analogy, there is no reason why the powers of the Secretary of State for Defence and those of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs should not be transferred. Apparently, such powers are related to Wales and are thus able to be transferred by Order in Council in an hour and a half.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says that there is no intention of pursuing that course. The White Paper did not refer to such transfers, but surely these matters are so fundamental that it should have done so. I invite my right hon. Friend to accept, or to consider constructively, one or other of the amendments—in other words, either a referendum or an Act of Parliament. There is a choice between one or the other, but a fundamental limitation should be placed on the transfer of fundamental taxation powers merely by Order in Council.
      Mr. Ancram: I support the amendment of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), especially in the light of his closing remarks. Indeed, we are looking for a safeguard, which should take the form of an undertaking
      74
      in the Bill that primary legislation would be required for significant transfers of power, or, alternatively, a mechanism for triggering a referendum so that the people of Wales would not have foisted on them something for which they had not voted in a democratic vote.
      The amendment reflects the lack of success that we have had in trying to pierce the Secretary of State's intransigence and in endeavouring to get it through to him that we are not trying to destroy his Bill. We are not trying to dilute devolution. We are merely trying to provide some safeguards that will give people confidence that we are engaged in devolution within the United Kingdom, but not in a process that will lead inevitably to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
      The Secretary of State says over and over again that the sovereignty of Parliament will ensure that the break-up of the United Kingdom cannot happen. The more I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman, the more I have come to the conclusion that he is talking not about the sovereignty of Parliament but about that of government. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that Parliament can always turn down an Order in Council at the end of the day if it is put before it. He argues that Parliament does not need to approve it, and that, in that event, Parliament has exercised its supremacy and sovereignty.
      The Secretary of State then says, however, that it is up to the Government of the day to decide whether these matters will be heard by primary legislation or by an Order in Council. The right hon. Gentleman is saying—there may be some terrible element of constitutional truth in this—that we have a system where the Government can decide and deliver, through whipping their majority, anything that they may want to introduce.
      If that is the position—I hope that the Secretary of State will respond when he replies to the debate—what is the distinction he sees between an Order in Council and an Act of primary legislation? Why do we have primary legislation? The answer is to give the House of Commons the chance to scrutinise, debate, amend and, if necessary, change proposed legislation that is put before it.
      Let us consider the amount of detail that will be in the draft order and contemplate that, at some stage in future, another Order in Council may be introduced containing an enormous amount of detail, not one item of which will be changeable. The House of Commons would be asked to take it or leave it. If the Government put such an order before the House of Commons with a whipped majority behind them, it will be agreed to. In terms of creating confidence in devolution and in what is being transferred, that surely cannot be the right approach.
      We return to what the Secretary of State said last Wednesday evening. When the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney asked about the transfer of substantial power from the Home Office, he asked whether that would be done by order or by primary legislation. The Secretary of State said:
      "I cannot answer that question; we are not proposing it anyway. Some future Government might decide that it was necessary to transfer substantial additional powers to the Welsh assembly."
      The right hon. Member for Llanelli interjected:
      "Like taxation?"
      The Secretary of State said:
      "That is not what I am proposing, but a future Government might consider it. If so, I am sure that the Government of the day and Parliament would say, 'Hang on, you cannot do that by order: it is a substantial shift'."

      75
      What is a "substantial shift"? What is significant in terms of the powers that might be transferred?
      The Secretary of State went on to say that, of course, the necessary provision was included in the Bill. In answer to the question that he had been asked, he added that
      "legislation must be acted on in the light of political common sense."
      I think it was the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney who warned us not to put too much store by common sense. He reminded us that we know that politically that is not always the safest way in which to proceed. I think that that was the tenor of his remarks. I hope that I have not misquoted him.
      The Secretary of State said, however, that legislation would
      "be acted on in the light of political common sense."
      He added:
      "Meanwhile, the Bill contains a mechanism for a transfer order dealing with law-and-order issues and other non-controversial matters that a Government of the future might believe could be transferred by order after a one-and-a-half hour debate."
      Again, he uses "non-controversial" as an adjective. We have no definition of non-controversial. For added measure, the Secretary of State finishes by saying:
      "Other, larger areas of responsibility may need primary legislation, however."—[Official Report, 21 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 1106–07.]
      We have a "substantial shift" that has not been defined. Similarly, "common sense" has not been defined, along with "non-controversial" and "larger". Yet we are being asked to accept an act of faith to the effect that, when any of these adjectives come into play, there will be primary legislation of the sort that we were seeking last week, or there will be a referendum of the sort that right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli is seeking, but when these adjectives are not applicable there will be a simple order that will be debated for one and a half hours and then passed.
      It is not being anti-devolution or anti-assembly to say that that is selling the House of Commons a pig in a poke. We do not know what we are being asked to accept or support. When the Secretary of State is asked what he means by "significant" and he is given examples, he says that he cannot answer the question because he is not proposing such a thing. However, I understand that this is a constitutional Bill. That is why consideration of it in Committee is being taken on the Floor of the House.
      It is a constitutional measure which is not just for today, because it is supposed to create a long-term assembly; yet, at the most important or crucial part of the Bill—the power to transfer functions now and in future—we have what can be described only as a foggy mass, without one definition or distinction that allows the House of Commons to know how things will be done.
      The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) referred to Northern Ireland. I know what it is like to govern by Order in Council, and I stood at the Government Dispatch Box on a number of occasions when we renewed the order
      76
      that allowed us to do so. I said over and over, "I hope this is the last year that we have to do this, because it is not a fully democratic way of making decisions in the House."
      Mr. Öpik: Surely the right hon. Gentleman accepts, as the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) did, that comparisons between Northern Ireland and Wales are wholly inappropriate in this debate.
      Mr. Ancram: I do not make that comparison. I was taking a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, who did make that comparison, which he pushed. I saw what Orders in Council did, and hon. Members from Northern Ireland asked over and over for primary legislation in the House to take through their legislation.
      If we leave these two amendments as they stand, they will build into the Bill something that will cause enormous confrontation. In relation to taxation powers and the powers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is difficult to understand under the order- making power what is possible. Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain.
      Clause 22(1)(a) allows
      "the transfer to the Assembly of any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales."
      We know from his comments on Wednesday that that includes taxation, because he did not say that it did not.
      Clause 22(1)(b) includes the power to
      "direct that any function so far as so exercisable shall be exercisable by the Assembly concurrently with the Minister of the Crown."
      Does that mean that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Assembly can exercise some tax-raising powers?
      The third power that the Bill gives, in clause 22(1)(c), is even more strange. It is to
      "direct that any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales shall be exercisable by the Minister only with the concurrence of or subject to the consent or approval of, or after consultation with, the Assembly."
      In terms of taxation as it relates to Wales, in the manner that was described last Wednesday, and not denied by the Secretary of State, does that mean that the assembly could be given the right of veto over taxation matters?
      Mr. Ron Davies indicated dissent.
      Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It is his Bill—
      Mr. Davies: We have dealt with it.
      Mr. Ancram: If the Secretary of State had dealt with it, I would not be raising these matters again now. We have not had a single answer from him except to say, "It does not matter, because we are not proposing that today." The fact that he is not proposing it today does not mean that we do not have the right to raise these serious matters, which are germane to the way in which the legislation will work in future.
      The right hon. Member for Llanelli was right to table the amendment, because no guarantee or assurance has been given to the people of Wales or to the House. If the Secretary of State is prepared to listen to these arguments—which were made, if I may say so,

      77
      with a great deal of charm by the right hon. Member for Llanelli, in an effort to sway his right hon. Friend—I will believe that he is serious about wanting such devolution to work within the United Kingdom. If he brushes them aside, as he has brushed aside every amendment that has so far been moved, on the basis that the Bill is perfect, the worst fears that we on the Opposition Benches have about what he is trying to achieve will be realised.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Rogers: I do not know why we have got into this position, because a White Paper was published and the people of Wales, in a referendum, gave their approval for an assembly with the powers as outlined.
      The Secretary of State—rather touchily—thought that I was accusing him of breaking faith. What I said was that I am sure that he would not want to do that. I am quite sure that he wants for the assembly only the powers that were outlined in the White Paper—powers for which the people of Wales gave their mandate. It is as simple as that, so why are we having this unnecessary argument? All the Bill needs to contain is that which is in the White Paper and what was put before the people of Wales in the referendum. Nobody else, no matter who they are, has a mandate beyond what the people of Wales decided in September.
      If someone wants nationalism by the back door, that is up to them. I am never quite sure what the Liberal Democrats want, but I am pretty sure what Plaid Cymru Members want, as they are pretty honest about their position. I will give them that, but that is about the only thing that I would give them. We also know what the Labour party wants, and I presume that that is what the Government are attempting to implement.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) outlined the problem of the transfer of powers. I do not think that the present Government or Secretary of State want to break faith with the people of Wales, but, quite frankly, I do not trust politicians. Having been in the House for almost 17 years with that lot opposite in government, I have no faith in future Governments. We saw government by Order in Council when the Conservatives were in power. We saw how Mrs. Thatcher used Orders in Council time and again so that issues such as trade union law and other matters were not discussed on the Floor of the House. It was government by fiat. I do not trust future Governments.
      That is why I appeal to the Secretary of State to take on the fears about social security and home affairs, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), about defence and foreign affairs, which I raised, and about taxation, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli raised.
      It is easy enough. Just as schedule 2 states the responsibilities of the assembly, another schedule or whatever—however the draftsman wishes to draw it up—should say what the assembly cannot do; or we should not include a clause that will allow the transfer of functions by a Government who, for instance, might have to rely on the Liberal Democrats for a majority, or who might have to buy off Welsh nationalists to get their votes to stay in power. One never knows what will happen in future. I have great faith in the Labour party being honourable and straightforward, but I certainly do not trust those on the Opposition Benches, and never have.
      78
      I appeal to the Secretary of State to take us out of this unnecessary argument, to prevent our political opponents from making points—we know why they want to make their points—and adhere to the principles of the White Paper and the policy on which we fought the election.
      Mr. Öpik: I have listened carefully to the debate, and the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has not convinced the Liberal Democrats that tax-varying powers should not be transferred, and he did not convince us when we had the referendum. It is a matter of speculation now, and not one on which I shall dwell, but perhaps, had we had a constitutional convention in Wales, as there was in Scotland, tax-varying powers would be included at the outset of the creation of a Welsh assembly.
      We must face the fact that tax-varying powers were not included in the initial set-up. The best evidence for the benefits of tax-varying powers will be in the operation of the Scottish Parliament, which has those powers. Moreover, as people begin to trust the Welsh assembly more, they will realise that it is not such a big risk to trust it also with financial decision making of that type.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: While it may be entirely appropriate to trust the assembly, will the hon. Gentleman trust the Welsh people by at least allowing them a further referendum to discuss what he evidently believes was missed out in the last referendum?
      Mr. Öpik: It is always a pleasure to take interventions from the hon. Gentleman. He asks a perfectly valid question. Let me explain simply that we do not support the idea of a referendum because if the Welsh assembly is to have real teeth, it must have tax-varying powers at the outset. Having voted for a limited degree of autonomy, especially in the financial context, for the Welsh assembly, the last thing that the Liberal Democrats want to do is add further obstacles to right a small wrong.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Öpik: I am spoilt for choice. I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve).
      Mr. Grieve: I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman identifies only tax-varying powers, because those are the product of primary legislation, which the Welsh assembly has no power to implement.
      Mr. Öpik: That takes us back to the somewhat pedantic debate on the transfer of powers. We have already spent three hours today discussing a legitimate issue under the previous amendment, so I do not propose to reopen that debate. I simply reiterate that the Liberal Democrats would have liked tax-varying powers to be included in the first referendum. Contrary to the belief of some hon. Members, had we spent a number of years acclimatising the Welsh people to the concept of an assembly, that would not have been a problem—it could even have been a bonus. Indeed, it may have strengthened the yes vote.
      Mr. Hayes: There seems to be a contradiction in the hon. Gentleman's comments. He says on one hand, that tax-raising powers are a minor issue which does not require the further consent of the Welsh people and on the other, that the Liberal Democrats are passionately

      79
      committed to tax-raising powers, which are fundamentally important. The ability to raise tax is usually regarded as a fundamental part of a democratic body. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the issue is important or not?
      Mr. Öpik: It is clearly an important issue; otherwise, I would not have based my speech on it. If Conservative Members have any faith in the competence of individuals who are elected to the House of Commons to make decisions of that nature, they should not be afraid of the democratic process within which we find ourselves this evening. Furthermore, they should not be afraid of allowing those who are employed to represent their constituents to make such decisions on their behalf.
      I do not want to enter the sort of debate that I had during my philosophy degree at Bristol university.
      Hon. Members: Do, do.
      Mr. Livsey: Do not be tempted.
      Mr. Öpik: I am guided by the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased if I do not enter a deep discussion on the merits of political systems.
      The Liberal Democrats believe that it would have been right to have tax-varying powers in the first place. More to the point, the simpler that we can make the method of introducing them, when doing so seems appropriate to others in the House, the better. A referendum would simply hold things up. We now have the fundamental principle of a Welsh assembly and we should make progress by improving the assembly's autonomy and influence as fast as we can, with minimum fuss and disruption.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. that a referendum would hold things up because it is extremely unlikely that the Welsh people would vote yes to tax-varying powers. Does he accept that, even in the Scottish referendum, there was a yes vote for the Parliament, but 10 per cent. fewer people wanted tax-varying powers? In Wales, 50.3 per cent. voted yes; 10 per cent. fewer people would take the vote to 40 per cent. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would not allow his constituents the opportunity to say whether they wanted tax-varying powers for a future assembly?
      Mr. Öpik: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's input. Although sense is not all that common in politics, surely there is enough common sense in this Committee to recognise when the Welsh people would be prepared to accept an extension of powers, without the need for a referendum. I shall state the obvious and put an end to this spurious debate—[Interruption.] These questions are not black and white. It is perfectly legitimate for others to argue that we could have a referendum; the Liberal Democrats simply say that we have always wanted the assembly to have tax-varying powers. We said so during the referendum debate and we continue to say so now.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Öpik: Hon. Members are flooding in to support the case that I am making on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
      Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. Is it appropriate for leaders of political parties to come to the rescue of their members?
      The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair. Before I call the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) back to the Floor, may I say that there is an awful lot of background noise in the Chamber. It is unfair to those addressing the Committee.
      Mr. Öpik: Thank you, Mr. Martin. May I say that it is a delight to be in a political party whose leader is sufficiently interested in the subject of Wales to come and listen to, and perhaps participate in, the debate? I do not blame the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) for being jealous; obviously, he would wish that to happen in his party.
      Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Öpik: No. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech if he wants to comment on what I have said.
      Tax-varying powers are a central requirement of a Welsh assembly if it is to enjoy sufficient financial autonomy to make the Welsh economy shine. It is a matter of legitimate debate whether we need a referendum, but the Liberal Democrats believe that, now that we have had a yes vote, we must make the assembly work. The Scottish precedent shows that it could be a foolish waste of money to hold a referendum because eventually it will be obvious to everyone, even the doubting Thomases in this Committee, not simply that tax-varying powers for Wales would be nice to have, but that ultimately, they are necessary if the Welsh assembly is to maximise its potential.
      Mr. Dalyell: I hear interesting whispers in my ear that discourteous speeches from Scots would be less than well received, so I shall ask just two questions. First, have I got the wrong end of the stick in thinking that, under these proposals, Westminster will be stripped of sovereignty? That fact emerged in the perceptive speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). We can talk about sovereignty remaining in Westminster for as long as we like, but given the political reality of setting up an assembly in Cardiff, is not Westminster stripped of sovereignty?
      Secondly, I would be fascinated to hear an explanation from the Secretary of State. I thought that I was immersed in what has been written on this subject, but I have honestly never really understood why it was considered right that an assembly at Holyrood should have taxation powers and that an assembly in Cardiff should not. It would be nice if that were explained.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Swayne: It would have been better if the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) had regaled us with the philosophy that he learned at university, rather than such sophistry. It is extraordinary that the process of recent government—the previous Administration were as

      81
      guilty as any other—has been such that we are increasingly becoming a bureaucracy. Orders in Council and other legislative instruments, which defy the House's ability to scrutinise legislation properly, give power to the Executive.
      The referendum specifically excluded the possibility of tax-raising powers, so it is absurd that the Bill contains the means by which a future Government—or, indeed, this Government—can choose to give the assembly such powers. I do not doubt that, had the debate that we have had in the past 45 minutes been rehearsed before the referendum, we would have had a different result; I understand that the actual result is in some doubt.
      After the result of the referendum, the Prime Minister said that the Government would act with some sensitivity. The amendments strike me as the very basis of such sensitivity. If the Government cannot be sensitive enough to accept them, I cannot conceive of what such sensitivity consists.
      Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) for contributing to the debate, because his speech was astonishing in the light of the assurances that were given when this matter came up on Second Reading. The fear and anxiety of Conservative Members is that, far from government getting closer to the people, the more accountability that is removed, so that politicians are not accountable and the House does not discuss matters, the more the system resembles bureaucratic government. The Government are being offered sweeping powers to transfer other powers by Orders in Council.
      At the moment, taxation requires primary legislation. However, we can foresee a time when that will cease to be so, and it, too, could be rafted off without the House being consulted. It would be consistent with the Secretary of State's approach to the Bill for any future transfer of power to be determined by the House with the consent of the people of Wales, so it would be wrong for the clause to stand unamended.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: This is an interesting amendment, because it underlines an important constitutional problem. I am sure that the Government will claim that they cannot legislate for something that will not happen. They will argue that when a certain proposition was put to the people of Wales, they were not given the opportunity to vote for tax-raising powers. They will say that they have no intention of giving the assembly such powers, so the amendment is unnecessary, and that Acts of Parliament would be unbelievably long if we had to legislate for what may never happen.
      That point is all right as far as it goes, but the amendment shows that there is a problem with referendums. We are moving into an era when more and more important issues will be decided by referendum, and they will become increasingly common. Hitherto, we have had an unwritten constitution and Parliament has been supreme. Under a written constitution, decisions are often made by way of referendums; how they should be prescribed and circumscribed is carefully set down in the constitution.
      In our case, we have no way of knowing what a referendum decides. Logically, if there is a substantial change in Government policy after a referendum has been put to the people, another referendum should be held.
      82
      That is what caused the angst and difficulty during the previous Parliament in debates on Europe. It was considered that the people had decided our place in Europe on the basis of certain propositions contained in the treaty of Rome, and although more and more powers were added or were given away, the people were not given the opportunity to vote on any such changes in a referendum. That is what caused the upset, and why the then Government and the present Government finally accepted that there should be a referendum if there were a significant change and we were to join a single currency.
      If we are to use the device of a referendum more often, we must establish at an early stage in our deliberations that if the Government put a certain proposition to the people and subsequently want to give significantly greater powers to the Welsh assembly or to the Scottish Parliament, they should hold another referendum.
      The amendment is important because the democratic rights that have been given to the people of Scotland to decide these issues should not be denied to the people of Wales. There should be some similarity of treatment between Scotland and Wales.
      The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) made a very weak speech which lacked any intellectual rigour. He seemed to be saying that there should be a creeping increase in the Welsh assembly's powers, and that he did not know what all the fuss was about. He did not deal with any of the points made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), or with any of our serious arguments. I thought that the Liberal Democrats were committed to the principle of a referendum. They now seem to be committed to the principle that people can decide what they like by referendum, but that that can be overturned by subsequent Orders in Council.
      Mr. Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the contradiction between his comments and those of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)? Furthermore, does he not understand the simple point that we made? The Liberal Democrats have always supported the idea of tax-raising powers and continue to do so, and believe that in the fulness of time, they will be the logical consequence of a successful Welsh assembly.
      Mr. Leigh: There is no contradiction between what I am saying and what my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said. If the Liberal Democrats are committed to the principle of tax-raising powers for the Welsh assembly, they should have confidence in the Welsh people, who will want to vote on that in a referendum. A future Government should not be entitled to introduce such major and sweeping powers by the back door through Orders in Council. I am disappointed in the Liberal Democrats, because I thought that they were democrats and wanted to give more power to ordinary people, but clearly they do not.
      Mr. Öpik rose—
      Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance, and he cannot go on intervening. He is doing his argument no good.
      In conclusion, I hope that the Government will give this important amendment serious consideration.
      Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a particular pleasure to make my "maiden speech" in

      83
      the deliberations on the Bill in support of the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). I was present for most of the Second Reading debate, but was not here for last week's Committee debate, as I was in Northern Ireland with the Northern Ireland Select Committee.
      I am only half a Welshman, but more of my blood comes from Wales than from any other part of the kingdom. I do not recall the exact slogan that was used in the Welsh referendum campaign, but I believe that it was to the effect that Wales should not allow Scotland to leave it behind. My personal impression had been that, in the proposals for Wales—not least in view of the absence of any reference to taxation—Wales had already been left behind. As half a Welshman—whatever my views on devolution—I resented the fact that Wales was being short-changed. I sensed that what was being offered was cynically regarded as the minimum that Wales could be relied to vote for.
      The right hon. Member for Llanelli spoke eloquently. He will not remember the occasion when, during the run-up to the 1979 general election, we were conducting an economic debate in the House and had reached one of those tundras of mid-evening when the Chamber is more or less empty. It is possible that the Whips were present, but I suspect that they had been sent out to scour the highways and byways for anyone who might be able to contribute at least a half-economic idea. I recall that those present were my noble Friend Lord Stewartby—then Member of Parliament for Hitchin—the right hon. Member for Llanelli and me.
      In my speech, I made a prediction. I said that the Labour party faced another tundra—the prospect of being in the wilderness for many years. I also quoted lines that I had learnt at my mother's knee about the children of Israel:

      "Joshua the Son of Nun

      And Caleb the Son of Jephunneh

      Were the only two

      Who ever got through

      To the land of milk and honey."

      Because my noble Friend—as he is now—and I were both members of the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill and knew the right hon. Member for Llanelli to be a distinguished Treasury Minister, I then expressed the hope that the role of either Caleb or Joshua would fall to him when Labour came back from the wilderness. I must say now, on the basis of the thoughtful contributions that the right hon. Gentleman is making to our deliberations, that in my view, the Government would be significantly stronger if he were a member of it.
      As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman spoke to his amendments very eloquently, and I do not propose to dwell on them. Let me emulate the 18th-century Member of Parliament who, after a long speech by Edmund Burke, simply rose and said, "Ditto", and say that I am in the right hon. Gentleman's camp. If the Secretary of State—who has temporarily gone to seek advice—resists the right hon. Gentleman's case, I for one will regard that as a contradiction of his argument in favour of the Bill that
      84
      central Government cannot be relied on, or trusted, to make decisions for Wales if the people of Wales are opposed to those views.
      Mr. Letwin: I should like clarification of one point. Amendment No. 207—with which, in common with most of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I entirely sympathise—relies on a particular interpretation, and brings to light a particular problem. To a layman reading clause 22(1)(a), it appears clear that the powers that can be transferred by order are those that are already exercisable—I admit that the clause does not actually say this—by order, and that is, by parenthesis,
      "by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales".
      I take it that that paragraph does not intend to enable by order the transfer of powers where those powers can currently be exercised through primary legislation.
      It so happens that, under the Finance Acts—I admit that I did not check all of them, but I checked the last eight or nine—there has been no instance, at least recently, of a major taxation power being given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for him to exercise by order. For example, under local government finance legislation, income tax rates might have been devolved to the Secretary of State for him to exercise by order, but in the case of Finance Acts, they are not so devolved; the rates themselves appear in the Acts. I assume that amendment No. 207 would not be needed in the case of a Finance Act to prevent a transfer by order of taxation powers—as things currently stand in constitutional precedent, and as that precedent relates to the Finance Act.
      That point brings me to the reason why I support the amendment so strongly. We can replay exactly what I have just said the other way round. As the Bill stands, it gives a dreadful incentive to the Government—this, perhaps, illustrates in just one more way how constitutional measures such as this affect not just the parts of the kingdom to which they ostensibly refer, but the whole kingdom—to change current practice in relation to the Finance Act, and to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer powers by order, for example, to change income tax rates, which I understand is entirely legitimate but unprecedented. Furthermore, in the absence of amendment No. 207, clause 22(1)(a) would make it possible by order to transfer powers of taxation to the Welsh Assembly.
      There is a dreadful possibility that something that is fundamental to the liberties of people in the United Kingdom as a whole, and England in particular, could be changed under the pressure of an incentive created by a constitutional laxity in the Bill. For that reason if for no other, it seems to me extraordinarily important that English Members should seek a change in the Bill in line with the amendment.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Hayes: I am delighted to be able to speak in the debate, particularly—if I may say so without flattering you, Mr. Jones—with you in the Chair. I shall resist the temptation to tease you about the result of the referendum vote in Hawarden or in any other part of Flintshire. In that part of Wales that we both know so well, the vote was heavily against devolution.
      Mr. David Hanson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hayes: In a moment; I have hardly got going.

      85
      Much of the debate has focused on the definition of powers. It is important to point out—particularly for the benefit of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik)—that the debate is about not the powers themselves, but the ability to change and vary them: the ability to transfer powers from one body to another. The hon. Gentleman's speech was based entirely on the historical debate about whether the assembly should have had tax-raising powers initially.
      It is appropriate for us to consider the transfer and the varying of powers, particularly in respect of tax. The Government deemed that so important in Scotland that they decided to place it on the Scottish referendum ballot paper, and I think that they were right to do so. Clearly, the ability to raise tax, the nature of the relationship between representation and taxation and the tenet of democratic power represented by tax-varying powers are fundamentally important. Yet we hear, in respect of the Welsh assembly, that this fundamentally important tenet of a democratic institution—that fundamental part of the exercise of political power—is not to be subject to the further consent of the Welsh people. It is not to be subject to their consent at all, given its exclusion from the initial referendum. The Welsh people will therefore be peculiarly disadvantaged in that respect. The Scottish people were deemed competent to make the judgment, but we know not whence the authority will originate in respect of the Welsh.
      I must comment further on the speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. He claimed that this was a mere matter of detail that did not require further democratic consultation, but—as I pointed out in an intervention—simultaneously claimed that it was so fundamentally important that it was a core part of the Liberal Democrats' campaign during the referendum debate.
      Mr. Letwin: I have been puzzling for some time about the logic of the speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). Does my hon. Friend agree that it could be reduced to the following proposition? At the time of the referendum, the Liberal Democrats took the view that there should be tax-raising powers; the people of Wales did not. The Liberal Democrats therefore provide a constitutional basis for assuming that the referendum should have had a result that it did not have, and, accordingly, no further democratic legitimisation is necessary.
      Mr. Hayes: The situation is even more stark and extraordinary than my hon. Friend suggests. The Liberal Democrat view in respect of Europe is that a referendum is not only desirable but necessary. However, they take a rather less generous view about the will of the Welsh people. That is an inherent contradiction.
      Mr. Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hayes: No. I must make progress.
      As I have said, the nub of the debate is the ability to transfer and move powers: it is not about the powers themselves. On various occasions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has described the legislation as a dog's dinner, a pig in a poke and, I think, a fog. That is an interesting and colourful use of
      86
      metaphors. One might say that we have been left with a pig's breakfast or perhaps a dog in a poke—at least a confused relationship between the bodies that exercise political power. Later in Committee, we shall debate cross-border authority and that may lead to further discussion about the confused relationship.
      For the purpose of clarity, the Secretary of State must give an authoritative answer about the precise relationship between the bodies that exercise political power in Wales and the way that political sovereignty and authority are transferred between them.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I express my deep gratitude to, and my undying admiration for, my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). Without his considered and helpful amendment, we should have been denied a fascinating debate over the past hour. He used his considerable expertise in putting his case and he is invariably helpful when he tables such amendments. I must decline my right hon. Friend's offer. He suggested that I might want to accept the amendments to get myself out of what he perceived to be a difficulty, but I do not perceive myself to be in any difficulty. Let us see whether we can agree on a starting point.
      The White Paper made it plain that the assembly would not inherit functions that operate on a common UK basis, and they include taxation and macro-economic policy. It also made it clear that my functions on local taxation, which are operated separately in Wales, would be transferred to the assembly, although the Government will not take a decision on capping powers, for example, until the outcome of the current review of local government finance is known. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and other hon. Members who have expressed an interest in the matter intended to imply through amendment No. 208 that the assembly would not have responsibilities for local taxation in Wales unless there were a referendum on the matter. That is the essence of my right hon. Friend's amendment. I do not want to use that as a means of rejecting the principle of what he said because he said that he was pressing at an open door.
      The Government believe in holding a referendum if there is an important matter before Parliament. Perhaps, in the future, this Government, or any other, would want to do that if they were minded to go down the road of conveying tax-raising powers to the assembly. That proposal is not before the Committee, although I do not want to take refuge in that technical argument by using it to reject my right hon. Friend's two amendments.
      Powers for the assembly on personal and corporate taxation formed no part of the proposals that the Government put to the Welsh people in September's referendum. I listened carefully to the considered speech by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Ôpik), although I disagree with its central thrust that the assembly should have tax-raising powers.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked whether the assembly would have the same powers as the Scottish Parliament. We could have a fascinating argument on that, but, if I went down that road, I should be called to order. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question. He also asked whether, in the absence of the amendments, Parliament would be stripped of its sovereignty because powers would be passed to the Welsh assembly. The simple answer to

      87
      that is no. All the powers that we propose to transfer, whether by primary or secondary legislation, will ultimately have to be approved by Parliament. As we have said time and again, sovereignty rests in this Parliament, and no powers, whether they be for tax raising or for anything else, can pass to the assembly without the consent of Parliament.
      As I have said, powers for the assembly on personal and corporate taxation form no part of the proposals. I do not think that any future Government who propose a tax-varying power for the assembly will present legislation without the express consent of the Welsh people. It is inconceivable that that could happen. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who wish to intervene should refer themselves to me and not use passing references in my speech to make ill-considered and unprovoked attacks on other hon. Members.
      It is difficult to think of any circumstance in which the express consent of the people would not be sought. It is unnecessary to provide for that in the Bill because Ministers do not have powers to vary taxation. If powers existed to transfer taxation powers by means of secondary legislation, there might be a case for such a provision, although I do not think that there is.
      Mr. Ancram: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Davies: I shall shortly give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but first I should like to respond to his speech.
      If such transfer powers existed, it might be fair to say that safeguards should be placed in the Bill. There is no such power.
      Mr. Ancram rose—
      Mr. Letwin rose—
      Mr. Davies: There is nothing like talk of referendums and the attendant question of Europe to get the Conservative party into a frenzy. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will contribute to the debate in an ordered and considered way.
      Mr. Ancram: On Wednesday, the Minister gave a clear sign that he thought that taxation powers could be transferred by order, but went on to say that, of course, he would say, "Hang on, we should not do it that way." Is he withdrawing that remark and saying that they cannot be transferred by order? That is salient to the debate.
      Mr. Davies: No, I am not saying that at all, and if the right hon. Gentleman asked me to say it, I would have to decline his invitation. Wednesday's debate was in an entirely different context and he was asking theoretical questions. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman's habit of pouting and gesticulating when he does not like answers is not one of his most endearing. If he persists in asking self-evident questions, he must expect self-evident answers. Wednesday's debate was quite different from this one.
      In theory, a range of matters could be transferred to the assembly, but, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, if the transfer of such powers were
      88
      proposed, it is likely that a future Parliament would say, "Hold on a minute." Any sensible Government with a practical, commonsense approach would say, "Those hugely significant powers cannot be transferred except by primary legislation." That was the case that I put on Wednesday and I am putting it again now.
      It is unnecessary to provide in the Bill the safeguards that have been suggested because Ministers themselves do not have powers to vary taxation. Changes in tax rates are set out in the annual Finance Bill. Amendment No. 207 would prevent the transfer of any functions from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the assembly.
      Acts do not usually confer functions—this is an important point for my right hon. Friend, who is a former Treasury Minister—on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The modern practice is that Acts confer functions on the Treasury, although some older Acts are different. The Government's policy is plain—we shall not be transferring to the assembly functions to do with macro-economic policy and United Kingdom taxation. The amendment is unnecessary to achieve that outcome. I remind the House that all orders under clause 22 are subject to affirmative resolution. Therefore, if any future Government wished to transfer significant Treasury functions to the assembly, they could do so only through primary legislation conveying those powers to a Treasury Minister, and then seeking further consent, by means of approval of an order, to transfer those powers from the Minister to the assembly.
      8 pm
      Finance and other Acts dealing with matters such as income tax, capital gains tax and excise duties generally proceed by specifying what taxes individuals or companies must pay. There is no power to amend those provisions other than through the annual Finance Bill. For the most part, there are no ministerial functions that could be transferred to the assembly. There are certainly no ministerial powers to vary income tax, which is why the Scotland Bill is drafted in the way that it is.
      Mr. Letwin: The right hon. Gentleman has now begun to clarify the matter. Does he accept that the consequence of what he is saying is that if, in some Finance Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer were given powers to make by order whatever rates of income tax that he so wished, those powers subsequently could be transferred by order to the Welsh assembly?
      Mr. Davies: I shall not be drawn into hypothetical constructions. The hon. Gentleman could equally say that, if it were the Government's policy to make rockets to fly to the moon, the power to build those rockets could be transferred to the Welsh assembly. [Interruption.] I thought that that would get a ready response from the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). However, I do not intend to become involved in hypothetical discussions about propositions that this Government have no intention of putting before the people.
      Functions connected with the collection of national taxation are vested in the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue and of Customs and Excise. None of those functions can be transferred to the assembly under clause

      89
      22 because the two sets of commissioners have not been included in the definition of "Minister of the Crown" in clause 145.
      I want to deal with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I have heard the speech that he made this evening at least half a dozen times before. There are genuine matters that need to be debated, but such tedious repetition time after time does not do his case any good and does not help the Committee explore the real issues. Our debate last week was an interesting precursor of what was to come today. [Interruption.] I am replying to the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised—[Interruption.] He has two ears and should apply them both to this serious debate; we might then be excused yet another repetition of his speech later this evening.
      The right hon. Gentleman will remember our debate last week and the amendments tabled in his name. He said that power should be transferred to the assembly only through primary legislation, but then suggested that the Bill should provide for the unilateral removal of powers from the assembly through secondary legislation. We have had a re-run of his argument. He says that no transfer of powers to the assembly should be done through secondary legislation, but only last week he was arguing that it would be a suitable mechanism for taking powers back from the assembly.
      As I said, we have serious issues to debate, but the right hon. Gentleman has not done his case any good. He and his colleagues have indulged in time wasting. We have seen synthetic indignation from his hon. Friends who have come into the Chamber only because there is a debate about a referendum. They do not have the slightest interest in Welsh devolution or in the Bill—they just want to rehearse spurious arguments about the holding of a referendum.
      The statements that we have had from Conservative Members are wholly bogus. The argument for a referendum is clear when there is a specific proposition before a political party, before the country, or before a Government. None of those circumstances applies at the moment. My party is not proposing to convey powers to the assembly to raise taxation and the Government are not proposing to do so. There is no proposal to put that before the people at the next election or for the Government to introduce any such legislation.
      When referendums have been held, there has always been a specific matter before a political party which it needs to resolve. The Conservative party understands the need sometimes to use a referendum to get it out of a difficult position. My party certainly recognised that, on the devolution question, there was a strong strategic argument in favour of a referendum to obtain the specific consent of the people for constitutional change. The Government recognise that if the status of sterling were to be changed, there would have to be a referendum or the consent of the people obtained at a general election. My party and this Government do not have any proposition before them to alter the status of the assembly by conveying to it the power to raise taxation. Therefore, the arguments that we have heard are entirely irrelevant.
      As the right hon. Member for Devizes waxes so indignantly about the matter, why did he not table any amendments to clause 22? All the arguments from the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have been in
      90
      support of an amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. If the Opposition had any commitment or determination to pursue the matter, they would have tabled their own amendments.
      Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman referred to amendments we had tabled for last Wednesday's debate. If he looks at them, he will find that they were to clause 22. They were tabled to allow us to make the points that we did. We are supporting the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) tonight because the Secretary of State failed to take any account of our amendments. I hope that he will take account of those tabled by his right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Davies: I clearly acknowledged that amendments had been tabled last week—specifically, amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47. I reminded the House that the purpose of those amendments was not to provide for a referendum or to provide any safeguards. Amendment No. 45 would convey powers to the assembly exclusively through primary legislation. There was no reference to either a referendum or to taxation powers. Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 would take powers away from the assembly through secondary legislation, not primary legislation. They have nothing to do with the amendments that we are discussing, which is why this evening we heard a repetition of the right hon. Gentleman's boring, tedious old speech.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for valiantly working his way—this is no criticism—through the taxation powers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Inland Revenue and the Treasury. It is not a simple matter, as taxation covers all sorts of different areas.
      I was as surprised as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and others when, during our last debate, my right hon. Friend said that it was possible to transfer taxation powers by order. I always thought that that needed primary legislation somewhere along the way. I think that, in his reply this evening, my right hon. Friend is now saying that, but intertwined with statements such as "theoretically possible". [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend must not despair when I say that, because it is what he said. He said that it could not be done without primary legislation. He also said that, anyway, the Government had no intention of doing that. I am sure that that is the case, but he was mixing up those matters.
      If my right hon. Friend were simply to say, "No, there are no powers in the Bill to transfer taxation by order to the Welsh assembly", we would understand that, and go away happy because that was always our understanding of the constitutional position. He did not quite say that, although he came fairly close. Perhaps he will say it now.
      Mr. Ron Davies: If my right hon. Friend had asked me that question, I would have given him an answer. However, he did not ask me that question. I was asked whether it would be possible to do it. The answer to that question must be, in a theoretical sense: yes, of course it is. As I made it clear in this debate, however, that can be done only if primary legislation initially conveyed the

      91
      powers to a Treasury Minister. The House's specific approval would then be necessary to transfer the powers to the assembly. It is a theoretical possibility.
      Mr. Davies: I am grateful for that reply. I think, Mr. Jones, that perhaps we should draw this debate to a close. There was considerable meat in my right hon. Friend's speech, and we should perhaps re-examine the matter. It may be possible—in another place, if not in the House—to table a more precise amendment.
      On that basis—and on the basis that we have had a very good debate, for which I thank my right hon. Friend—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 2

      FIELDS REFERRED TO IN SECTIONS 22 AND 56.
      Mr. Evans: I beg to move amendment No. 209, in page 73, leave out line 18.
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Barry Jones): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 158, in page 73, line 28, at end insert—
      '11B. Rural affairs.'.
      Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State for Wales may think that my speech also is old, boring and tedious, but his criterion for labelling speeches with such words is simply that he fundamentally disagrees with what the other person is saying.
      We are not asking for agriculture to be removed from schedule 2—which contains the tasks and responsibilities that will initially be transferred from the Secretary of State—because we have an enduring confidence in the Secretary of State or in the Minister of Agriculture. The Committee has only to consider the worst crisis to hit farming in many years to appreciate that that is not the reason for our amendment. The House has only to consider some of the actions that farmers have resorted to, not only in Wales but across the United Kingdom, to realise that that is not so. The Opposition do not condone those actions—as shown by headlines such as "Farmers Have Been Betrayed", which appeared in the Western Mail as early as 15 January 1998—but we should consider why farmers in Wales have felt that they had to resort to them.
      My concern is that some will think that Welsh agriculture has been demoted at Westminster if it is made a responsibility of the assembly—where, undoubtedly, agriculture will be talked about at length. However, talking will not help the farmers. [Interruption.] Did an hon. Member want to intervene? No? So we will hear from Plaid Cymru only sedentary yells—but those also will not help farmers. Action will save farmers' livelihood.
      We need a strong voice for Wales at the Cabinet table. In Europe, we need a strong voice fighting for Welsh and British farmers. Devolving responsibility for agriculture will diminish the weight of Welsh farming.
      Mr. Wigley: I am pleased to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation. Presumably it was the strong
      92
      voice of the Conservative party at the Cabinet table in the past 18 years that landed Welsh agriculture in its current mess. How did he and the Conservative party allow that mess to occur if a strong voice in Cabinet and in Europe provides all the strength?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Evans: With respect, the right hon. Member was doing better with sedentary interventions. Farmers regard the situation of 12 months ago rather more favourably than they do that under the current Government, who are—amazingly—supported in their actions by the nationalists.
      Welsh and other farmers have recently held two demonstrations at the House. In those two demonstrations, because there were so many farmers, it was necessary to hold three meetings of the Welsh Grand Committee in Westminster Hall. On both occasions, farmers asked to speak to the Secretary of State for Wales—which I believe that they did—to make their representations. Under the new regime, to whom will they make their representations? Will it be to the First Secretary? If so, what powers will the First Secretary have to take the farmers' message to Government, where the real clout lies? Will the First Secretary get on the train—the 125—and be the messenger boy of the Secretary of State for Wales?
      We fear for the Secretary of State's role in future. It will be a case of his sitting at the end of the Cabinet table and occasionally coughing to try to catch the Prime Minister's attention. It will most certainly be a case of being in office but having no power.
      Big decisions will have to be made about the current situation and the future of Welsh farming. Let us first consider the current situation—such as the matter of claiming the European Union compensation package, for which many farmers have been asking. The assembly will not be able to pronounce on that matter, because representations by the Government will be necessary to claim such large amounts.
      What of the prospect of Wales going it alone in seeking compensation that the rest of Britain would not receive? Such a plan would not be workable even if it were possible. What of the charges being faced by farmers and by renderers in traceability and hygiene schemes? The assembly will not be able to do anything about those farming matters. Action on those matters will occur only if the Secretary of State were to use his influence with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to change policy.
      The assembly would not be able to do anything about the Ministry of Defence's failure to source locally the meat that it buys. The Secretary of State for Wales, however, could use his influence with defence Ministers to try to ensure that that policy was changed.
      What will happen with local education authorities? The assembly cannot dictate policy to local education authorities, because that would be reverse devolution, which is quite absurd.
      Farmers face the problem of the pound's strength. Will that be the assembly's responsibility, or will it be a responsibility for national Government? As we have already heard that it will be a responsibility of national Government, the issue of transferring that power is a non-starter.

      93
      The hot air of debate will not save a single farm, but it will lead to conflict between the assembly, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of Agriculture. That is all that it will do.
      What of the Secretary of State's involvement in the common agricultural policy?
      Mr. Ron Davies: Come on.
      Mr. Evans: Huffing and puffing—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was accused of doing—is not one of the Secretary of State's endearing charms. If he will simply listen to what I am saying, I am sure that he will agree that farmers need a strong voice in Europe, ensuring that they are not disadvantaged. A strong voice for Wales on agriculture is needed.
      Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Welsh agriculture has distinct problems arising from its own distinctive features—such as the fact that so much of Wales is in a less-favoured area and is reliant on the livestock industry? In those circumstances, should not Wales have a distinct democratic voice? Will not such a voice enhance the role of agriculture in Wales?
      Mr. Evans: There are distinct problems in Welsh farming—as there are in farming across the United Kingdom—and it should have a distinct voice. What the heck is the Secretary of State for Wales doing? He should be the distinct voice of Welsh farming. On two occasions, demonstrating farmers came to him to plead that he listen to what they had to say, that he recognise the problems that they were facing in farming in Wales and that he take the problems to the Minister of Agriculture so that Government policy could be changed. Although he has signally failed to be the strong voice for Welsh farmers, we do not want to remove responsibility for Welsh agriculture from him and give it to an assembly.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—perhaps he will be able to calm down and regain his breath. Can he explain why it is so important to exclude agriculture from the devolution scheme, but not to exclude health, education, the environment, transport or any of the other matters that will be devolved? Why does he single out agriculture? Does the fact that he is excluding only agriculture matters mean that he is satisfied with the other parts of the devolution scheme?
      Mr. Evans: No, it does not. The Bill has a long way to go—through both Houses of Parliament—and there are whole chunks upon which we must pronounce. I have decided to pick on agriculture because of the European involvement and because of the importance of having a strong voice for agriculture at Westminster and within the EU. Hopefully, we can try to persuade the Secretary of State for Wales that he is in an advantageous position to speak up for Welsh farmers. Looking at the plight of Welsh farmers, one sees that he does not seem to be doing a good job on their behalf.
      Mr. Davies: Why does the hon. Gentleman's argument not apply equally to education or health? The relationship that I have with my central Government colleagues is
      94
      precisely the same; I have devolved matters, but I am also involved in the development of overall UK policy. The relationship is exactly the same. Why does the hon. Gentleman want to exclude agriculture from the advantages of direct democratic control, but apparently is content to allow education and health to be treated in that way?
      Mr. Evans: We are not content with the Bill at all—I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that—but it has a long way to go. We are testing the water through various amendments, and we have seen how the right hon. Gentleman acts when his own Back Benchers try to persuade him. If we were to table amendments to every clause and schedule at this time, we would, no doubt, be accused by the Secretary of State of time wasting.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman has failed to answer the question, which I asked as reasonably as I could. In the light of his last comment, is he saying that, in the ideal world, he would seek to delete all of the functions listed in schedule 2?
      Mr. Evans: We are trying to limit the powers that the Secretary of State for Wales is trying to give to the assembly. If it were my responsibility—and looking at what the people of Wales are saying—I would not transfer any of the powers from the Secretary of State to the assembly. We ought to make some progress before we deviate too far from the amendments. My comments seem to have caused the Secretary of State much excitement, as he rose to his feet three times. [Interruption.] I wish that the Secretary of State was as vociferous about the plight of the farmers as he is about the amendment.
      Farmers need a strong voice for Wales, but it is needed here. The farmers are crying out for help, but are being offered cold comfort. The Secretary of State's inaction must not be misinterpreted as inability to act; unwillingness to act, yes. However, his unwillingness to act on behalf of the farmers will not be compensated by the assembly's willingness to talk.
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: That was the most astonishing speech that I have heard during this debate by any Conservative Member. How could the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) come to this House with a straight face—it was a red face—and say that the Conservative Government, who had all the powers he claimed should rest with the Secretary of State, did everything to defend the interests of Welsh farmers? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that all his colleagues representing Welsh constituencies in the last Parliament represented rural constituencies? Does he recognise that every single one of them was swept out on 1 May precisely because he and his colleagues did not stand up for the interests of Welsh farmers?
      Astonishingly, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley stated that this Secretary of State for Wales is not going to Brussels to defend the interests of Welsh farmers. How many times did Conservative Secretaries of State cross the threshold to go to Brussels to argue that case? How successful were Conservative Secretaries of State for Wales in influencing agriculture Ministers here in Westminster? I can tell him—they failed every time.
      Let me give an example. In 1992, we were discussing the MacSharry reforms, which would have been emasculated under the original proposals by the then Minister of

      95
      Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who was proposing that the reforms go much further than Ray MacSharry ever wanted. The Minister rejected the principle that Welsh and other farmers should be supported in a particular way. However, the Secretary of State for Wales did not stand up for the interests of Welsh farmers. Ray MacSharry did more for Welsh farmers than any Conservative Minister, and that should be put on the record.
      Mr. Evans: Let me interrupt the hon. Gentleman's tirade to remind him that the Conservative party got twice as many votes as the nationalists. Let that be a lesson to him. I wish to ask him a straight question. What difference would the assembly make for Welsh farmers—a practical example, please?
      Mr. Jones: I will come to that in a minute. The Committee should have it on record that the hon. Gentleman is claiming that the interests of Welsh farmers were better served by the kind of Administration that he and his colleagues ran than they would be by an assembly. The reason why his colleagues were swept out of those seats in Wales was because they failed. My party now represents four rural areas in Wales. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there was a dramatic shift in those rural areas away from the Conservatives towards Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party.
      Ms Jackie Lawrence: Perhaps I could assist the hon. Gentleman in responding to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). One definite way in which the assembly could have assisted farmers is that it would not have permitted the previous Secretary of State for Wales—the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—to give £150 million back to the Treasury that could have gone a considerable way towards helping Welsh farmers.
      Mr. Jones: That is absolutely right. The Welsh assembly will not transfer £150 million back to the Treasury when there are so many things that we could do with that money in Wales.
      I am frankly astonished by the proposal that the Welsh assembly should not be discussing, or even looking at, agriculture. What will Gwilym Jones or Rod Richards be telling people on the doorstep before the assembly elections—because they will be standing for election? Will they tell people that the Conservative party does not want the assembly to talk about agriculture, and that the interests of Welsh farmers can be left to Conservative Secretaries of State for Wales? That is the point that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley is making. He has totally failed to understand what has happened in Wales since 1 May. The Welsh people rejected the present system—we want to move forward to a new kind of politics, where the people of Wales set the agenda.
      The Secretary of State has indicated on more than one occasion that when the Welsh assembly has responsibility for agriculture, representatives of the assembly will have the opportunity to go to Brussels to argue the case for Welsh farmers. They will have an opportunity to influence events. During the MacSharry proposals, not once did the then Secretary of State go to Brussels to argue the case. Under the new proposals, the assembly will have the
      96
      opportunity to have a real input into Welsh and European agriculture. Whether we are talking about the future of the common agricultural policy, the future of agri-environmental payments or an integrated rural policy—so desperately needed in Wales—the assembly will be setting the agenda.
      Mr. Evans: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will go to the assembly, but what will he, his hon. Friends, the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends be doing here at Westminster? Surely they should be making representations on behalf of Welsh farmers.
      Mr. Jones: That shows that the hon. Gentleman does not understand what happened on 1 May. The people of Wales decided that the system had to be reconsidered. The proposal in the White Paper was that agriculture should be a devolved responsibility, and the people of Wales have since decided that that should happen. Why should the hon. Gentleman tell us that it should not?
      The assembly needs to develop agricultural and rural policies for Wales in an integrated, not a disparate way. We support farmers in one way, through the common agricultural policy, but rural development is supported in another, through European structural funds. The assembly will have an important role in developing the idea that some of the structural funds that currently involve no investment in agriculture could be channelled into an integrated rural policy.
      8.30 pm
      The National Assembly for Wales will have an opportunity to develop those ideas alongside others that are being developed elsewhere in Europe. Integration of agricultural and rural investment, probably through revamped structural funds, will give us a more coherent rural development policy. We need to develop along those lines because agriculture is so important for rural employment, and there is so much spin-off employment in other areas. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that, in order to achieve that, we must reject the amendment.
      Mr. Swayne: The principal grief that afflicts farmers in my constituency and throughout the kingdom is the current valuation of the pound, which is a direct consequence of the Government's interest rate policy. Until the Welsh assembly has its own interest rate policy or its own currency, or until we all share a European currency, there seems little point in handing over responsibility for agriculture, the fate of which is so inextricably linked to the financial policy of the United Kingdom. There may well come a time when those circumstances prevail, in which case it will be proper to have the Order in Council to transfer responsibility to the assembly; but that has not yet happened.
      The scenario painted by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), of all kinds of structural funds being put to the advantage of agriculture in Wales, filled me with absolute horror. What most upset the farmers who came to London last week was the absence of what they called a fair playing field: the thought that farmers in the rest of Europe had access to reliefs and funds to which the British Government were not prepared to allow ours access, for various reasons attendant on the Fontainebleau summit.

      97
      The prospect of Wales having access to reliefs and funds to which the rest of the kingdom has no access raises the prospect of an absence of a fair playing field in agriculture within the United Kingdom. Frankly, I do not believe that it is technically possible for that to happen, because the member state at the table in Brussels remains the United Kingdom; but the very fact that such a prospect could be raised highlights the divisiveness of the measure. The amendment should be supported, and agriculture should not be handed to the Welsh assembly.
      Mr. Öpik: Having awakened the mighty wrath of Her Majesty's official Opposition earlier, I shall tread carefully and try to repay the compliment by enlightening them on our views on Welsh agriculture. We feel that the Conservative amendment would send a negative statement to a large percentage of residents of rural Wales, and indeed to the geographical majority of the country. The last thing we need at the moment is to make it more difficult for the assembly to help rural Wales. Agricultural concerns need to be addressed directly, especially in the European context.
      Environmental considerations have not been sufficiently emphasised. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds recently pointed out that the kite country project in Powys, which has brought an estimated £5.4 million into the mid-Wales economy, supports 114 full-time-equivalent jobs. That is directly relevant to the creation of an integrated rural affairs policy, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones).
      The assembly should have rural affairs in its remit, to allow it to support and develop such projects, not piece by piece, but coherently, strategically, in an integrated way, in the interests not only of the economy but of the environment of Wales.
      The Bill will abolish the Development Board for Rural Wales and transfer its functions to a new format, under the overarching auspices of the economic powerhouse. That may have benefits or drawbacks, but it makes it all the more important that the assembly should have the specific authority to intervene in the actions of that powerhouse, to ensure that rural considerations are specifically included in its planning.
      The amendment would deny the assembly the right specifically to consider issues relating to the rural economy and environment in mid-Wales. It would be a sad and rather irresponsible approach to tie the assembly's hands for a large tranche of its intended constituency of interest.
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made an interesting assessment of the competence of the current Secretary of State, but we can all agree that we should not create a political system based on an assessment of an individual's or an individual Government's performance. May I add that it was unhelpful of him to be so personal when we were debating much larger issues.
      Whatever we set up should work regardless of the political persuasion of any future Government. It is logical to assume that whoever is elected to the assembly will have been put there by the democratic will of the people of Wales. Like it or hate it, we have to trust that will to decide who should be responsible for the governance of Wales.
      Mr. Evans: I still want to know what the hon. Gentleman and other Welsh Members will be doing here,
      98
      because the lead Minister will be the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, both here and in Europe. I have seen the hon. Gentleman working with farmers and listening to their concerns; part of his duty is to take that representation from his constituents to the Minister of Agriculture, and not to devolve it away. My great fear is that farming will be isolated and pushed back into Wales, when it is a United Kingdom issue.
      Mr. Öpik: The answer is obvious. There are plenty of precedents across the United Kingdom. How does a Member of Parliament interact with his or her local authority? Inevitably there is linkage and overlap. More to the point, there is the opportunity for synergy by operating consistently at different levels of government in the common interest.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Perhaps the true answer to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), to use a crude, old agricultural expression, is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The only major area of economic activity in Wales that has chosen to devolve itself is agriculture. The break-away was only partial, but, in 1955, the Farmers Union of Wales split from the National Farmers Union. Everyone thought that it would collapse in a few years, but it has lasted 43 years. No trade unions have done it, except the Undeb Cenedlaethol Athrawon Cymru in education. Some voluntary movements have done it, but, in economic activity, only farming has decided to devolve. Is not that the ultimate proof that there is a Welsh dimension to farming? If it was not devolved, we would cut across the industry's own actions.
      Mr. Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his insightful intervention. We have two further important examples in response to the question of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. First, the Welsh Office has an agriculture department that mirrors what we are trying to propose, and, through the propositions of the Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru push forward. Secondly, the Farmers Union of Wales works with the National Farmers Union in the collective interest of Welsh agriculture. Those organisations overlap, but they work in the strategic interest. During the current crisis in particular, they have created a rural policy. There is no conflict in Westminster representatives discussing agriculture while the Welsh assembly has the authority to make representations, both in Wales and directly to Europe. If we have any faith in democracy, we must believe that good people will do a good job working together.
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Öpik: I shall give way for the last time.
      Mr. Robertson: Is there not a contradiction? As I understand it, Ministers will retain responsibility for ensuring that European legislation is implemented. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said, agriculture is by and large controlled from Europe, but we are handing agriculture to the assembly. Is not that contradictory?
      Mr. Öpik: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the concepts of synergy and a Europe of the regions. By synergy,

      99
      I mean that there is no need to think of life in such a linear fashion. Surely he knows about the concept of networking and the benefits of informal contacts, especially between Wales and Europe—even those that exist now. Surely he knows of the desire of some of us to create a Europe of the regions with subsidiarity, through which nations can work together directly, as they do through Europe? I reassure him that, despite the fears of his colleagues—I am not sure whether he shares them—Europe is a project not to centralise power but to devolve it. The sooner Conservative Members recognise that, the sooner they can put to bed the monsters under their passports, their fears of a more coherent whole.
      Let me conclude with the simple observation that much of Wales is dependent on the money that flows around because of agriculture and other rural industries. It would be not only a mistake to prevent the Welsh assembly from operating in agriculture, but an abdication of responsibility. More than that, it would be a snub to the many people who have maintained the Welsh economy and culture for so many decades. That is why we support making a clear statement to the people of Wales that we care about Welsh agriculture. We should enable the assembly to do the same.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) on his thoughtful and constructive contribution. Given the unprecedented onslaught on him during the previous debate, it was a speech of great clarity and vision. He is growing in stature by the hour as a parliamentarian of renown.
      In an earlier debate, I laid down the general principles that underlie the Government's approach to schedule 2. I shall not go through it all again, but I shall touch on one element later. Schedule 2 lists the fields in respect of which I am required to consider functions for transfer to the assembly. The Opposition amendment seeks to remove agriculture, forestry, fishing and food from it. That would deprive the assembly of a major area of consideration of the transfer of functions.
      When the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) introduced the debate, I asked him to explain why he had singled out agriculture when he was content, at least for the purposes of this amendment, to allow health and education to be devolved to the assembly. He gave no reason. He owed it to the House to explain why agriculture was singled out. Unfortunately, he did not. He tacitly admitted that he wanted all the matters in schedule 2 to be withheld. We must conclude that this is a wrecking amendment—another manifestation of the Opposition's inability to come to terms with the fact that there will be devolution, that the Bill lays down the process by which legislation will take place, and that schedule 2 highlights the areas that I will consider for transfer of power to the assembly. I shall try to assist the hon. Member for Ribble Valley and his colleagues.
      Agriculture is partly devolved. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ribble Valley raised this matter. It would be a courtesy to the Committee if he would listen to my reply because he will presumably have to advise Members whether he wishes to pursue the amendment to a vote or withdraw it. I ask him to extend the courtesy normally expected in these circumstances.
      100
      Some agriculture is devolved to the Welsh Office. The expenditure for it comes out of the Welsh block. Many other aspects of agriculture are not devolved. The Minister of Agriculture takes the lead on matters such as reform of the common agricultural policy. There is no discretion at Welsh level to exercise those responsibilities differently in Wales from their exercise in England or Scotland. Schedule 2 deals with the devolution to the assembly of the matters for which I am responsible, not the wider ones for which the Minister of Agriculture is responsible. I shall give positive examples of where the assembly would serve Wales well in such matters.
      First, I shall deal with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who, on Second Reading, asked about the extent to which the transfer order would relate to animal health and food safety. I said then that it was likely that the transfer order would not transfer my powers on animal health and food safety to the assembly. Last Wednesday, he raised the matter again. I am anxious that he should not be misled about the current position. The Government have not reached a final decision on the matter. We are discussing it, as I said earlier. As the Committee already knows, the general policy is that virtually all my functions should be transferred to the assembly. While there are sensitive and difficult questions relating to them, such as whether joint powers should be split so that the assembly can operate them separately for Wales, the present position is that the Government are considering transferring them to the assembly. There will need to be a concordat so that the powers are exercised in a manner sympathetic to their exercise at English level, by the Minister of Agriculture, and at Scottish level. I should be willing to consider any written representations from my hon. Friend or other hon. Members if they feel particularly strongly about the matter. I reassure him that we have not yet reached a decision.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Rowlands: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend. When we discussed the matter on previous occasions, he was clear that the powers in section 16 of the Food Safety Act 1990, under which meat on the bone was banned, would not be devolved. Do I take it from his remarks tonight that he is rather more open on that possibility? I was curious to find out that a Secretary of State for Scotland may well have such powers under the Scotland Bill. A Scottish Parliament might not support a ban on meat on the bone. Is my right hon. Friend now less decisive than he was, because I thought that he had ruled out the possibility of food safety legislation becoming a devolved function?
      Mr. Davies: I most certainly did not rule it out. If my hon. Friend looks at the form of words I used on Second Reading, he will see that I left the option open. His analysis of the Scottish position is quite right, because the Scottish Parliament could go its own way because the Scottish scheme of devolution is different from our own.
      The general principle is that many of the powers relating to agriculture are exercised jointly between myself, as the Minister responsible for agriculture in Wales, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have to decide the extent to which such powers will either be devolved to the assembly or remain with that Ministry. We must also consider whether there are

      101
      circumstances when it would be better for those powers to be exercised concurrently, as we debated about four hours ago. There may be a case for that if it is felt that schemes operating in England and Wales on food safety or animal health should be exactly the same. The Government have not made any resolution on those matters yet, and we are considering them collectively.
      It is my wish that any scheme for agriculture should be as clear as possible. If some relevant powers are devolved to the assembly, we need to establish a good working relationship between it and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or the Department of Health, to ensure that powers are used sympathetically and consistently in England and Wales. We are considering that at the moment.
      Mr. Wigley: The right hon. Gentleman has said that there is a split in current responsibilities and that there is a need to clarify exactly what powers should go to the assembly and which should remain with the Secretary of State. That is an important consideration. He will be aware that if Welsh Members write to MAFF about dairy quotas or the sheepmeat regime—matters of great importance to Wales—those letters are directed to his office because he has responsibility for such matters in Wales. When those matters are discussed in Brussels, however, it is invariably the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who negotiates on our behalf.
      That is why it is important that the Secretary of State should confirm that Members of the National Assembly of Wales will be able to be part of the United Kingdom team in Brussels so that those who make representations on behalf of Wales are there to give evidence.
      Mr. Davies: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not respond immediately to that question. I will deal with the European perspective later.
      Amendment No. 158, the terms of which the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) outlined, proposes that a new responsibility relating to rural affairs should be included in schedule 2. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I take it that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the internal architecture of the assembly either gives expression to the concept of an integrated approach to rural affairs or places a requirement on the assembly to ensure that it adopts a more coherent approach when delivering policy. I am entirely sympathetic to those objectives, but I believe that the amendment proposes the wrong mechanism by laying a duty on the assembly to establish a rural affairs committee or to make rural affairs a policy imperative. It is for the assembly to decide its policy, so I am minded to reject the amendment, although I share the hon. Gentleman's objectives.
      I believe that the definition of rural affairs is too broad and it could cover a variety of functions to be included in schedule 2. It is difficult to conceive of all the functions that would be transferred under the terms of that definition. They could include, for example, town and country planning, the environment, agriculture, forestry and fisheries and food. We have already made provision within the schedule to transfer all those functions to the assembly; in that sense, the amendment is unacceptable.
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley moved amendment No.209 and asked what difference it would make if the term
      102
      "Agriculture, forestry, fisheries and food."
      were left out of schedule 2. I should like to offer five such examples, which are important. He made great play of the current crisis facing agriculture. It is bit much for the Opposition, who were in power from 1979 to 1997 and who, I have no doubt, were responsible for the mounting crisis in British agriculture, to turn round and expect an incoming Government to resolve in six months all the problems that have been festering in agriculture.
      The principal problem is BSE, and there is a good reason why I want to use it to illustrate my argument. I was heavily involved in scrutinising the orders that were passed under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. I am sure that if that secondary legislation had been subject to adequate scrutiny, public pressure would have been brought to bear, and the Government of the day would have been forced to listen to the case that was being made. Unfortunately, in the late 1980s and 1990s, the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a supporter were determined that there would be no public examination of the issues or proper scrutiny of the regulations relating to animal feedstuffs or the disposal of possibly infected animals. As a result of the Bill, all such orders issued under the 1985 Act would be dealt with by the assembly.
      Those of us who represent Welsh constituencies were well aware of the widespread public concern about BSE long before it came to such a calamitous conclusion a couple of years ago.
      Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman was a Member of Parliament then. Why did he not do anything about it?
      Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman cares to go to the Library and asks for a printout of all the motions, parliamentary questions and debates that I initiated on BSE, he will discover that I was the first person to raise it on the Floor of the House, as early as 1989. He will also discover that many motions and questions pressed the Government to acknowledge the severity of the problem. When the hon. Gentleman has informed himself properly about my record on BSE, I will willingly debate the matter with him. I will not go into further detail on that because I want my remarks to keep strictly to the terms of the amendment.
      Had we had the opportunity in a Welsh assembly to debate the orders issued under the 1985 Act, I have no doubt that the matter would have been subject to proper public exposure and the scandal of BSE would not have been allowed to develop as it did; the then Government were able to circumvent such scrutiny. That is one example and there are others.
      Mr. Ancram: It was all done by order.
      Mr. Davies: Of course it was done by order—that is precisely the point. The procedures of the British House of Commons failed to protect the public interest, because those orders could be smuggled through upstairs in Committee or pushed through in the Chamber late at night without the benefit of a vote, and that was what the Government of the day were minded to do.
      Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davies: No, I want to develop my point. If those matters had been dealt with by a Welsh assembly,

      103
      there would have proper public scrutiny and that scandal would not have happened. That is equally true of the problem of radioactive contamination in Gwynedd, which would be better dealt with by the Welsh assembly, because the orders giving effect to powers arising out of the Food and Environment Protection Act are dealt with by means of secondary legislation.
      The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) raised the question of Europe. There are two important reasons why I resist his amendment. First, there are dozens—hundreds—of pieces of secondary legislation emanating from Europe, and the assembly will have the responsibility for seeing those through. It seems to me inconceivable—
      Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? It is a serious point.
      9 pm
      Mr. Davies: If it is a serious point, I shall give way, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that he cannot intervene until I have made my statement. When I have done so, he may have something with which to take issue.
      There are hundreds of pieces of secondary legislation giving effect to European decisions and it seems to me inconceivable that the assembly should have responsibility for debating all except those relating to food, to the protection of animal health or human health, or to the implementation of the common agricultural policy. It is vital that the assembly be empowered to deal with those matters; if the amendment were accepted, it would be unable to do so.
      Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have the pleasure to serve on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The precise problem is that there is insufficient scrutiny of statutory instruments in this place. I accept that, but the problem will not be resolved by what the right hon. Gentleman proposes, because there can be no scrutiny of European statutory instruments and, whether scrutiny takes place in Wales or here, the quality will not improve. We have to look at procedures here.
      Mr. Davies: I do not like to say this, but the hon. Gentleman is both ignorant and patronising. Scrutiny will be enormously improved if we in Wales have the forum to debate those matters properly. That is the purpose of devolution.
      The other point raised by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon was the question of the delegation. There will be representation from the Welsh assembly within that delegation and, when matters relating to the reform of the common agricultural policy are being discussed, that delegation will be directly informed by the views of the assembly. There may well be a difference of political views, but nothing will be the worse for that. If the particular interests of Wales—upland farming, forestry or marine matters—are represented, that view can be fed in directly. The representative of the assembly will know precisely what is happening, the nature of the British Government's case and the responses of the other
      104
      European countries; and all that can be reported back to ensure full and public debate in Wales. The amendment would deny us that opportunity.
      There are many other examples, but let me conclude by giving just one—the need for the development of a coherent approach to the countryside, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. A coherent approach means that the needs of the environment must be looked at in the context of agriculture; that the needs of rural communities—health and employment, and so on—must be looked at in the context of agriculture; that planning policies must be informed by the needs of agriculture; that our education and health policies must be informed by the agricultural dimension, which is so important to rural life; and that the development of transport facilities is looked at in the light of agriculture. The amendment would strip agriculture out of that, so that we would not have the opportunity to develop a coherent approach. It is important that we have a proper forum to resolve all those issues.
      Let me refer the hon. Member for Ribble Valley back to our debate last week. The hon. Gentleman should pay attention, because I am going to quote him—it is not something I want to do very often, but I shall give him the pleasure on this occasion. He was taxed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who said:
      "What the hon. Gentleman just said is absolute nonsense."
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley replied:
      "It would not be the first time that I have spoken nonsense, Sir Alan, and I suspect that it will not be the last."—[Official Report, 21 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 1045.]
      Tonight, we have had living proof of that.
      Mr. Evans: Of course, that was said with an air of jocularity—a sense of humour, which I pride myself on having, but which unfortunately does not appear to be shared by the Secretary of State.
      I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. because the transfer of powers under schedule 2 and the crisis facing farming are vital issues. No one in the Chamber doubts that farmers are facing a crisis, with incomes falling by 50 per cent. and the pound strengthening and cheap imports being sucked in. Farmers are looking for help from the Government, but they are not getting it.
      The problem is that the deficiency in the Government's policy is being translated into a need to transfer the powers to the Welsh assembly and away from the Secretary of State for Wales. I do not believe that that will serve them well.
      The Secretary of State mentioned an interesting aspect of food safety: the possibility that the Government would devolve some food safety matters down to the Welsh assembly. That might, in certain circumstances, allow the Welsh assembly to decide that meat could be served on the bone in Wales. I should be delighted to give way on this point as I suspect that some people in Wales who have been listening to the debate will have understood that matter as I did. I know that the Secretary of State said that he was looking for a good working relationship between the assembly and the food safety policy decided by the Government. If there is a possibility that meat on the bone could be served in Wales, but not in England and Scotland, I should be interested to hear about it.

      105
      That reminds me of a story from I was a youngster living in Swansea. Our local authority decided to ban the film, "The Life of Brian", but Llanelli council decided to allow it to be shown. It may come as a surprise to the Secretary of State for Wales, but everyone in Swansea who wanted to see the film, did so; they all went to Llanelli. It was an absurd policy and Swansea gave up its control over the censorship of films. I urge caution on the Secretary of State if that is the sort of policy that he is seeking to devolve down to the assembly.
      Does the Secretary of State agree with the answer that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland gave in a written answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? The hon. Gentleman asked the Secretary of State for Scotland
      "what advantages in Brussels have accrued to (a) Catalonia, (b) Andalucia and (c) Baden-Württemberg which are not currently available to the Scottish Office in Brussels; and if he will list the special arrangements which exist within the (i) European Commission and (ii) Council of Ministers for dealing with matters relating to devolved legislative entities within member states."
      The Secretary of State answered:
      "From the contacts I have had with the Catalonia and Baden-Württemberg offices, I conclude that these offices have contributed to improving the quality of information available to their regional governments and have helped those governments contribute to their domestic debate on European proposals. Although there are frequent informal contacts between devolved governments and the European institutions, there are no special arrangements for dealing with matters relating to devolved legislative bodies within the Commission and the Council."—[Official Report, 23 January 1998; Vol. 304, c.704.]
      That is an important matter to take on board. If the Secretary of State for Wales agrees with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, it means that he is trying to suggest that the devolved assembly will have more power than it really has. That is an extremely dangerous thing to do.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Livsey: I beg to move amendment No. 20A, in page 73, line 19, at end insert '2a. Broadcasting'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 155, in page 73, line 20, after 'culture', insert 'and the arts'.
      No. 211, in page 73, line 28, at end insert—
      '11A. Public Service Broadcasting'.
      No. 212, in page 73, leave out line 35.
      No. 221, in clause 33, clause 33, page 21, line 20, leave out
      'do anything it considers appropriate to support'
      and insert 'promote'.
      No. 83, in page 21, line 20, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'reasonable'.
      No. 271, in page 21, line 23, after 'historical', insert 'or archaeological'.
      No. 205, in page 21, line 24, after language,', insert—
      '(ca) variants of the English language used in Wales,
      (cb) other languages used in Wales,'.
      Mr. Livsey: It is certainly our view that broadcasting is an important medium in Wales. In "My Fair Lady", Rex Harrison said that there were places where English was never heard; he was commenting on the situation in Wales. In Wales itself, there are even places where television is never seen, not even Welsh television. In my constituency, in the towns of Knighton, Presteign and the district of Painscastle, it is impossible to see television from Wales, whether public service television or private sector television. It is possible for farmers to go to the Royal Welsh show, win the prize with their bull and never be able to see that glory on television, because there is no reception. Indeed, my constituents have to watch what goes on in Lincolnshire, but they have not a clue about what happens in Wales. That is one reason why we need powers in the Bill to ensure that it is possible for people living in all parts of Wales to receive clearly, and participate in, television and radio. That is not the case at the moment.
      Mr. Rogers: The hon. Gentleman should not have claimed such ridiculous powers for the assembly. Even in south Wales, where we have a far greater problem, in that far more people are affected by the inability to receive television transmissions, we do not believe that the assembly can resolve the matter. It is just a matter of providing some aerial masts. Indeed, throughout south Wales we cannot receive Channel 4 or Channel 5; we can receive only S4C, and many people living in our English-speaking areas resent that very much. If, like the Welsh nationalists, they were not well behaved, they would probably withhold their licence fees.
      Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman is involved in engineering matters, and he must realise that it should not be beyond the wit of the Welsh assembly to get hold of all the engineers and ensure proper reception of television and radio the length and breadth of Wales.
      The arguments in this regard are clear. The media define attitudes, and help people to debate and participate in the formation of attitudes. One aspect of the referendum in Wales and the debate that preceded it was that many people who live in Wales, especially in eastern, southern and north-eastern Wales, have their televisions turned in other directions or cannot receive Wales television, and I think—
      Mr. Swayne: It was deliberate.
      Mr. Livsey: I think that that had an impact on the referendum result, because those people had no chance to listen to any of the debates beforehand. That is especially important.
      Mr. Ancram: I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he suggesting in amendment No. 20A that the Welsh assembly should pay from its budget for S4C?
      Mr. Livsey: No, I am not suggesting that for a moment, and the right hon. Gentleman should not take it that I said

      107
      that—I did not. The Welsh assembly needs the power to take decisions relating to broadcasting, which is especially relevant with the onset of digital broadcasting. The continuing issues of television reception, Welsh language programming and future allocation of television and radio franchises are important.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman said that the Welsh assembly should take decisions on broadcasting. Is he saying that it should take decisions but not be obliged to face the financial consequences for those decisions, which should continue to be borne by the Westminster Parliament?
      Mr. Livsey: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but, as we heard in a previous debate, the Welsh assembly cannot have tax-varying powers. It will be entirely reliant for finance on the Westminster Parliament, and I am certainly not suggesting what the right hon. Gentleman just said.
      Why do we need the assembly to have some decision-making powers relating to, or at least functions of assisting in effecting a better standard of, broadcasting in Wales? Broadcasting affects Wales as a major employer, and operates in the public and private sectors.
      The digital revolution was regarded as a solution for many Welsh broadcasting difficulties, such as continuing reception problems and the long-standing frustration that many people experience at being unable, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, to receive Channel 4 in addition to S4C.
      As many as 35 per cent. of Welsh viewers will not be able to receive digital services for at least four years after they start. In the early years, problems will be acute in rural areas. Those problems will need political solutions, which the Welsh assembly must be able to provide. For example, rural communities are generally deprived of cable services because operators are reluctant to incur the costs of laying cable in sparsely populated areas. Digital satellite may prove to be the only option, unless action is taken to accelerate the pace of digital terrestrial service provision.
      9.15 pm
      It is vital that the assembly has the power to pressure Westminster to ensure that viewers and listeners in Wales are not penalised. Welsh broadcasting is distinctive, not least because of the Welsh language. The assembly should have the ability to take decisions relating to Welsh language broadcasting and other broadcasting reflecting distinctive Welsh culture. That applies to English language broadcasting and television as much as to Welsh language output.
      In 1993, 529 hours of Welsh language programmes were provided by BBC Wales for S4C, free of charge under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990, and a total of 1,170 hours were commissioned from independent producers. The assembly must be enabled to protect and shape future broadcasting in Wales.
      The amendment proposes not that the assembly assume responsibility for the funding or the setting of funding levels for broadcasting, but that it should have a
      108
      recognised voice in matters relating to Welsh broadcasting. These are important issues, but I shall not detain the Committee much longer.
      The assembly should also be involved in the allocation of licences for broadcasting, such as independent television franchises, to ensure that Welsh matters are discussed in the allocation process and that Welsh broadcasting remains distinctive. In that respect, our amendment is markedly different from the Conservative amendment, which refers only to public service broadcasting.
      Broadcasting is at the core of the evolution of the Welsh language, its culture and co-existing cultures present in Wales. We will support the amendment tabled by Plaid Cymru to add the arts to the functions of the assembly. Broadcasting should indeed be included in the Bill. I apologise for the poor quality of my voice.
      Mr. Rogers: We have just heard a typical Liberal speech, telling us what is needed and promising to provide this and that, but when it comes to delivering the goods, where will the money come from? The question is ducked completely, as in a typical Liberal party political broadcast.
      The problems of television reception in Wales are engineering problems, and money must be devoted to them if they are to be resolved. No committee or working party will resolve them. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House when the Broadcasting Bill went through Parliament, and I do not recall that the Liberal party made any contribution to it.
      I support part of the amendments, especially with regard to the Welsh language. The Welsh assembly will, I am sure, be controlled by the Labour party. I am pleased about that, because we will know that the Welsh language will be in safe hands.
      I was a member of the old Glamorgan county council when it became Mid-Glamorgan, and a large section of the Welsh-speaking area of Glamorgan was taken away. Lord Heycock, who was the chairman of the education committee, and others had developed the Welsh language schools in south Wales, in the English-speaking areas as well as the Welsh-speaking areas of West Glamorgan. I venture to say that they saved the Welsh language in the English-speaking areas of south Wales. If there is to be any development, it will be in that area.
      When Mid-Glamorgan was set up, it was the Labour-controlled council which spent the resources to develop the present Welsh school system. The daughter of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attends a school within it, as do my grandchildren, along with many others.
      I should like to see the assembly play a more positive part and be responsible for the development of the Welsh language. It is only in the hands of the people of Wales that the Welsh language is safe. Similarly, it is only by implementing progressive policies and the application of resources that the Welsh language can be not only saved but developed as it now is.
      It is no good saying that we would like to do this, that or the other. It is necessary always to devote resources. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and his party would agree to the transfer of the £70 million that is presently provided

      109
      to S4C by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I wonder whether that will come out of the Welsh assembly budget. Is that what is wanted, or is there to be a transfer of resources?
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has devoted so much time to an engineering problem that detracts from the main thrust of the amendments—that the Welsh assembly should have more say in the control and development of the Welsh language.
      Mr. Wigley: I am glad to take up the most recent remarks of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). I agree whole-heartedly with much of what he said. I know that he has taken pleasure and pride in the past that his grandchildren are attending Welsh-medium schools, and are speaking the Welsh language.
      I am willing to pay tribute to those such as Lord Heycock, who undertook much work on behalf of the Welsh language in Glamorgan. There were some areas where much progress was made, and others where progress has been slower. There is now, I think, an agreement across party on the Welsh language, and that is good. The issue has to that extent been taken away from some of the more acrimonious politics that existed perhaps two decades ago.
      My colleagues and I support amendment No. 20A, for reasons that overlap those advanced by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda that there is a challenge of resources. Technical problems have to be resolved, and obtaining the necessary resources is part of the overall challenge. We would argue that the block of resources that S4C receives from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport should be transferred to the assembly. If there is a need for more resources, we would agree that there should be an available option to raise them from taxation. Unfortunately, that is not within the remit of the Bill.
      There are things that can be done within the assembly even without the power to raise moneys from taxation. There seems to be an omission from the Bill, in that it contains no power of answerability for any dimension of broadcasting in Wales. I have read the contents of schedule 2, and I look forward to considering schedules 3 and 4. I look also to the powers that are set out in clause 73.
      Are there any powers at all whereby the National Assembly can call people from the Broadcasting Council for Wales to answer on matters of public policy on broadcasting in Wales? That is perfectly reasonable. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) took part in consideration of what was the Broadcasting Bill of 1990, to which the hon. Member for Rhondda referred. Some important debates took place. I know also that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) played a leading role in considering the Bill. There must be a role for the assembly in at least asking questions and initiating a debate on a subject that has an important all-Wales dimension.
      I have taken note of some of the bodies that will have an answerability. There are United Kingdom bodies such as the British Tourist Authority, the British Waterways Board and the British Wool Marketing Board. In addition, there are the Environment Agency, the Meat and Livestock Commission, the Museums and Galleries Commission and the United Kingdom Sports Council. All
      110
      those bodies have a degree of answerability. It seems, however, that the Broadcasting Council for Wales does not. If the Secretary of State wants to intervene to inform me that I am mistaken, I shall be glad to be put out of my misery.
      Mr. Ron Davies: The right hon. Gentleman need not labour this point. I want to respond to him specifically when I reply. I think that he will be reasonably reassured by what I have to say.
      Mr. Wigley: In that case, I shall not take up any more time on that matter, but instead wait to hear the Secretary of State's comments.
      What about the provision of better English language broadcasting in Wales? We have moved the agenda forward considerably on the Welsh language television front, but there is a paucity of English broadcasting, particularly on television, from Wales to Wales, and non-Welsh-speaking viewers are right to complain about it. I would not like English broadcasting to develop at the expense of Welsh language broadcasting, but there is room to co-ordinate existing channels, and perhaps to develop it.
      There is a technological revolution under way in broadcasting. There are arguments about the fibre-optic cabling of areas of Wales, which may be the vehicle to provide broadcasting in Wales in future. Offers are out for a fibre-optic link along the north Wales coast. Two companies have bid for Cheshire and bits of north Wales, but there is no strategic approach, and, unless the infrastructure is in place, whole communities will lose out on future technological opportunities.
      Amendment No. 155—our amendment—refers to the arts, and is purely a probing amendment. Schedule 1 refers to
      "culture (including museums, galleries and libraries)."
      Culture goes way beyond those. It includes them, of course, but one could specify a realm of cultural issues if one were to be inclusive.
      The term used by the Government is "national heritage". We have national heritage in Wales, but it does not appear to come through in any full way in the Bill. We tabled the amendment because the arts most certainly should be covered. We are aware that reference is made to the Arts Council of Wales in schedule 3, but I want to be assured that, when referring to culture, we mean the whole gamut of culture, not just a restricted part of it—museums, galleries and libraries.
      I refer briefly to the amazing amendment No. 212, tabled by Conservative Members, which wants to leave out all reference to the Welsh language. We heard earlier that Conservative Members want to remove agriculture from the responsibility of the assembly. Now they want to remove the Welsh language.
      Mr. Cynog Dafis: The Conservatives also want to leave out the environment.
      Mr. Wigley: We are seeing a deliberate, cynical approach, to try to undermine the assembly lock, stock, and barrel. When the referendum result said yes, albeit by a tight majority, some more enlightened Conservative Members—[Interruption.]—not those who are barracking

      111
      from the Back Benches—said, "The people of Wales have made their decision. It's up to us to get the best assembly we can. We may not agree with it, but let's get the best possible animal to meet a legitimate all-Wales agenda." So they start by taking away agriculture, the environment—even the Welsh language. They want the Welsh language to be dealt with by Committees in this place, dominated by Conservative Members, no doubt, from English constituencies, as happened with the Welsh Language Act 1993.
      That is the totally cynical approach of the Tory party towards the assembly, lock, stock and barrel. Let the electorate of Wales know that, when Rod Richards, Gwilym Jones and the rest become Tory candidates in the elections, their agenda will be to take everything away. If we are ever again unfortunate enough to have a Tory Government, that is what they will be up to, so the challenge for us is to ensure that the assembly is strong enough to withstand the danger of its being eroded in the way proposed by this cynical amendment.
      Mr. Chris Ruane: I wish to address amendment No. 211, which the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has just discussed so vigorously.
      My grandfather was a Welsh speaker; seven of his children, 35 of his grandchildren and all but one of his 130 great-grandchildren lost the language. The Welsh language has taken a hammering over the past 70 years, but it is making a comeback. I have been learning Welsh for some four years, and I pay tribute to my Welsh teachers—Margaret Williams, Nesta Ellis and Christine Roberts—for persevering with such a difficult pupil. The desire to learn Welsh is growing in Wales, and Welsh lessons are being held in the House of Commons. Conservative Members are welcome to attend those lessons—I know that they take a keen interest in Welsh affairs—every Thursday at 1 o'clock. It will be interesting to see how many take up that kind offer.
      The Welsh language issue is of central importance to the government of Wales, and must be a key responsibility of the Welsh assembly. If it is to flourish, we need a strategic overview, which only the Welsh assembly can provide. It is too important to be left to a quango, a committee or one individual. Its rightful place is in the heart of government, the assembly and Wales. The amendment is an affront to the people of Wales, and it should be withdrawn.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Evans: The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said that the Conservatives were cynically trying to wreck the assembly. We are not; we are trying to improve the Bill, which is what the Committee stage is all about. Hon. Members should not misinterpret our objectives whenever we table an amendment. We simply want to improve the legislation.
      I am certain that, if Rod Richards decides to stand—he has made no announcement that he intends to do so—he and Gwilym Jones, who has announced that he will stand, will win seats, and will be joined by colleagues representing the Conservative party. More importantly, they want to ensure, on behalf of the three out of four people in Wales who did not support this legislation,
      112
      that the Government are sensitive to the needs of the Welsh people, as the Prime Minister said on the steps of 10 Downing street the day after the referendum result. It is important that we get that absolutely right.
      This group of amendments deals with broadcasting, the Welsh language, and Welsh arts and culture. Our friendly probing amendments seek clarification. Apparently broadcasting will not be the responsibility of the Welsh assembly, and we want to know the thinking behind that. We have been accused of trying to take responsibilities away from the assembly—[Interruption.] In time, I will swap places with the Secretary of State, who has just suggested that I take his place. Why is broadcasting being kept out when so much else is being transferred?
      Mr. Ron Davies: There is a simple and straightforward answer: the principle that underlies the whole of devolution is that the powers that currently rest with me will be transferred to the assembly. I have no responsibility for broadcasting, so it follows that we have no proposals to transfer broadcasting to the assembly.
      Mr. Evans: That is the first acceptable answer in our three-day debate. However, there is a conflict between responsibility for the Welsh language, which is transferred in schedule 2, and responsibility for broadcasting. As has been noted, we have tabled an amendment to that provision.
      We must have clarification of this issue; otherwise, enormous difficulties will arise between the assembly and Sianel Pedwar Cymru. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) asked who will pay for Sianel Pedwar Cymru if the assembly controls it, as the Liberal Democrats would like. Many people would find it odd if the assembly was responsible for it, but did not take responsibility for the financial controls. That television station was set up in 1980 by the Conservatives, and it has been expanding its remit with digital television, which will shortly be upon us.
      Before I go any further, I want to pay tribute to Lord Roberts, who is a former Minister. He was second to none in his promotion of the Welsh language throughout Wales. He managed that without raising the hackles of people who do not speak Welsh. The matter could have been divisive if it had been handled wrongly. We should not underestimate his gift for promoting the Welsh language, because, if handled improperly, it could be a problem. I pay tribute to his deft handling of the issue. We need his sensitivity for this legislation, because there could be conflict.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The hon. Gentleman has paid a well-deserved tribute to Lord Roberts. He asks us to support his amendment, which would prevent functions relating to the Welsh language from being transferred to the Welsh assembly. Does Lord Roberts agree with that proposal?
      Mr. Evans: I spoke to Lord Roberts about five hours ago, and he was delighted when I told him that I intended to pay him that tribute. Yes, he agrees with the amendment. The Welsh language was afforded protection under the current arrangements without the help of a Welsh assembly. Lord Roberts supports the amendment

      113
      that we have tabled, and is happy with the way in which the House has promoted and protected the Welsh language. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) may be privy to information that we do not have, but I am merely telling the House of the conversation that I had with Lord Roberts earlier today.
      We are told that the assembly will be a cure for everyone's evils. I suspect that, in a short time, just as every household will be able to get all the television pictures it wants from wherever it wants, we will all be speaking Welsh.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: If the hon. Gentleman spoke to Lord Roberts five hours ago, that was during the debate, and I did not see him leave.
      Mr. Evans: That was because the hon. Gentleman did not see me come into the Chamber. When he arrived, I was making some notes on the speeches that I shall make later. I am delighted that my every movement is being tagged by the nationalists. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I had that conversation.
      It will be interesting to see whether the Welsh assembly will deliver what has been claimed for it. I urge the Government's supporters, the nationalists and the Liberal Democrats to be cautious and not to build up the assembly's reputation too much, or expectations will be so high that people will feel let down if it does not deliver on the central, key propositions.
      The assembly could allow Sianel Pedwar Cymru or another station to broadcast its proceedings. That would no doubt fill the people of Wales with great anticipation. It would probably be more depressing than "EastEnders" and less transfixing than the test card. I suspect that the Government will not allow that function to be transferred, but we need clarification, particularly on Sianel Pedwar Cymru, because it wants to know about its future.
      Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman does not have to suspect: it is clear that the Bill contains no provision for such a transfer.
      Mr. Evans: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has clarified that. I suspect that the people who work at Sianel Pedwar Cymru also want to know that.
      A conflict may arise because of the Welsh language content in Sianel Pedwar Cymru programmes. Does the Secretary of State envisage any conflict between Sianel Pedwar Cymru and the assembly, given that responsibility for the Welsh language is being transferred? How would such conflicts be resolved?
      Mr. Ron Davies: I do not envisage any conflicts, so there would be no need to resolve them.
      Mr. Evans: There are all sorts of things that the Secretary of State may think may not happen, but hon. Members should consider what will happen once an assembly has been set up with 60 members, including nationalists who may be operating on their own agenda. The Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Minister must forgive me if we envisage a worst-case scenario in certain respects. It is all very well to sit here looking through rose-tinted spectacles and believing that everything will be all right when the assembly has been
      114
      set up, but, unless we legislate with a view to the worst case scenarios, there will be horrific problems in the future.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Looking across at the hon. Gentleman, we are viewing the worst-case scenario.
      Mr. Evans: I am delighted to hear from the Minister, but, if that is his only contribution, I should have preferred him to continue to sit where he is sitting and to say absolutely nothing, as he has for most of the debate.
      I fear that there may be conflicts in the future, and I should like them to be sorted out.
      Mr. Nick Ainger: What are the problems?
      Mr. Evans: I have already described the problems that may affect Sianel Pedwar Cymru, with its Welsh language remit. A large proportion of what is broadcast is in Welsh, and, indeed, 61 per cent. of Welsh speakers spend half their time watching the channel. The Welsh assembly will see that it has an important role to play, and I hope that the Secretary of State will take that into account.
      Amendments Nos. 221 and 83 are intended to tidy up clause 33, which gives the assembly carte blanche to support museums, art galleries, libraries, the Welsh language, the arts, crafts, sport, and so forth. We want the promotion of those places and activities to be clarified, and to be made reasonable.
      Will the Secretary of State tell us what limitations there may be on the assembly in regard to future expenditure, and the actions that the assembly may take? If, for instance, the assembly decided to set up and sponsor its own lottery, operating only in Wales, to support some of the places and activities that I have mentioned, would it be able to establish such a competing lottery? If not, what would it be able to do for that purpose?
      The financial aspects are important. We are told that the assembly will have no tax-varying powers—
      Mr. Ron Davies: I can help the hon. Gentleman. The assembly will have no legislative powers, and will therefore not be able to legislate to create a statutory lottery like the one we now have.
      Mr. Evans: As the Secretary of State will know, a lottery called Pronto has already been set up to support something. I want to know whether the assembly, with no legislative powers, would be able to back a lottery that would compete with the national lottery.
      Will there be any limitations in the support of those activities? Local authorities in Wales will want to know. The assembly will be given money to hand to authorities; if it starts to take some of that money to itself, and to spend it to support such activities, authorities will have to make up the amount themselves somehow.
      The Secretary of State has told us that the assembly will have no tax-varying powers, but local authorities may have to make up the shortfall by raising the council taxes paid by people living in Wales. Until the Secretary of

      115
      State can give us the answers, the people of Wales will fear that tax increases will be brought in through the back door.
      Mrs. Betty Williams: I oppose amendment No. 212 which proposes to leave out on page 73, "The Welsh language". To seek to remove that is a gross insult to the people of Wales, Welsh speaking or non-Welsh speaking, and to the intelligence of hon. Members. When I saw the proposal to remove the Welsh language from the functions of the Welsh assembly, I could not believe my eyes. Perhaps I am naive in thinking that the Conservative party has at last realised that the Welsh language exists, but if Opposition Members have come to that view, I applaud them.
      Last week and today, we have spent many hours discussing social services, agriculture, health, rural affairs and many other issues. The one issue that is unique to Wales is the Welsh language. It is not a matter for Scotland, Northern Ireland or England and it is a gross insult to the people of Wales for anyone to suggest that iaith y nefoedd, the language of heaven, should not be a function of the assembly.
      9.45 pm
      I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said about my predecessor, now Lord Roberts of Conwy. I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of lying, but I hope that he and his hon. Friends paid attention to what Lord Roberts said in the past couple of weeks and that they will take his advice. I doubt whether Lord Roberts has said that he thinks that the Welsh language should not be a function of the national assembly of Wales.
      In an Adjournment debate on Thursday, hon. Members spoke about the power cuts at Christmas and the central issue of communications. Hon. Members related the problems that were faced by the people of north Wales in trying to get people on the other end of the telephone to understand the problems and to recognise the parts of north Wales that were affected. Of all functions, the Welsh language is the one which should be included. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
      Mr. Swayne: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) presented an entirely one-sided picture when he spoke about a Wales in which hundreds of thousands of people were thwarted by geography and engineering problems and unable to satisfy their demand for Welsh television. Perhaps I could set the record straight by relating the experience of my family, which is as Welsh as any of those who are sitting below the Gangway. They hail from Y Fenni in Monmouthshire, but moved there from Abergwaun in Pembrokeshire.
      The family are beset by all sorts of geographical and engineering problems, but of a different kind because they do not want to receive Welsh television; they want to receive television from the rest of the kingdom. They have used their ingenuity, initiative, skill and engineering
      116
      ability to overcome the problems. They did not sit back and bleat in the expectation that an assembly with vast funds at its disposal would solve the problems for them.
      Mr. Ron Davies rose—
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan rose—
      Mr. Davies: Perhaps my hon. Friend will seek to intervene if he feels the need to speak on this matter.
      I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) when he moved his amendment. There is obviously a strong case for broadcasting to be included in the assembly's responsibilities. Broadcasting is important in Wales and there is a distinctive broadcasting agenda.
      As I said to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) in an intervention, the starting principle for devolution was the need to transfer to the assembly the powers currently vested in me. Broadcasting is not one of the powers invested in me, so the Government decided that it would not be appropriate to make that fairly substantial shift of responsibility from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the Welsh Office. That is why the Bill does not contain a provision for broadcasting to be transferred to the assembly.
      I can tell the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who raised this particular point with me, that substantial broadcasting responsibilities will go to the assembly. For example, there will be a general power to debate, and that will extend to making representations. I have no doubt that the assembly will want to exercise that power in respect of the Welsh institutions of the BBC, S4C and HTV.
      Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether the general powers to which he referred will be fine tuned so that specific powers are given to the assembly to call people to give evidence or to answer questions? Will it be in the assembly's power to invite people from the world of broadcasting, especially from the Broadcasting Council for Wales, to give evidence before a committee of the assembly?
      Mr. Davies: There will be a general power to invite any bodies or persons that the assembly sees fit to invite. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) finds it amusing that people in Wales should want to consider the quality of our broadcasting. I assure him that it is an important matter.
      Mr. Ancram rose—
      Mr. Davies: I will give way in a moment, but first I want to reply in full to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon.
      The power of summons will not be given, but the power to invite certainly will be. There will also be additional functions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will consult the assembly about broadcasting appointments in Wales, just as he consults me at present. It will be a statutory provision. We will introduce an order under clause 31 specifying the members of S4C and the BBC national governor for Wales as appointments about which the assembly must be

      117
      consulted. In addition, we will ensure that the concordat that will be agreed with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will cover other broadcasting issues of special relevance to Wales.
      Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman rightly extolled the virtues of Welsh television broadcasters. I understand that they do not presently fall within his remit or sphere of influence. However, he is talking about only the first draft order before the first elections for the Welsh assembly. Will he say whether, after that, he would be prepared to transfer broadcasting to the assembly?
      Mr. Davies: Certainly I have no proposals, and neither do the Government, to do so. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, because we debated the matter at some length earlier, clause 21 provides a mechanism for that, if the Government of the day so wish. The assembly will be a substantial body. Broadcasting is adequately dealt with within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and I have no proposals for it to be devolved to the assembly.
      In view of the endorsement of our proposals in the general election and in the referendum, the Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 20A and 211. On amendment No. 221, the draft transfer of functions order rightly implies that the assembly should have responsibility for the Welsh language. It is of great importance in Wales and it is right that the assembly should have responsibility for it. Indeed, I was amazed by the Opposition's proposal that one of the specific functions that the Welsh assembly should not be given is responsibility for the Welsh language.
      I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley about Lord Roberts. I have to tell him that there is enormous admiration, on both sides of the Committee, for the work that Lord Roberts did in fathering the Welsh Language Act 1993 and piloting it through the House. If the hon. Gentleman wants to learn any lessons from Lord Roberts, one should be how to approach the question of devolution.
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley has accepted that the people of Wales have voted for devolution. He has accepted also that the House's role is now to ensure not that devolution is somehow blocked or frustrated but that we all combine as best we can to ensure that the legislation that ultimately emerges from the process is the best possible legislation and that the assembly, once established, is the best possible assembly. I have no doubt that if he discusses that with Lord Roberts, he will find that that is the one very clear message which Lord Roberts wishes to give to the Conservative party.
      Mr. Evans: When the Bill goes to the other place, will the Secretary of State have a word with his noble Friends to ensure that they consider very carefully any amendments to the Bill tabled by Lord Roberts?
      Mr. Davies: In the other place, unlike this Committee, everyone listens to what everyone else says.
      I shall now deal with amendments Nos. 221 and 83. The wording of clause 33, on what the assembly can achieve, is realistic. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley asked about the use of the word promote. Using "promote" would lead to confusion. The word appropriate is the correct one in the context of the clause.
      118
      There may be many instances in which the assembly might be sympathetic to a cause and think it reasonable to offer support. However, it might remain inappropriate for it so to do. There are many worthwhile causes, such as health, education, social services and the environment. However, I suspect that without unlimited resources, which the assembly clearly will not have, it will frequently find itself in situations in which it considers it reasonable but not appropriate to support activities.
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley referred specifically to clause 33 and asked about limitations. The only limitation is the provision in the Bill that
      "The assembly may do anything it considers appropriate".
      "Appropriate" is an inherently limiting term. It indicates what a public body should do—for example, supporting an exhibition or purchasing a manuscript—and what it should not do, such as buying a front row for rugby games. Inserting "reasonable"—which is the point of amendment No. 83—misses the point.
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley asked about the lottery. Support includes financial support, but the cost of using clause 33 will fall to the assembly and will have to be met from the Welsh block. In direct answer to the question that he asked about a lottery, the assembly cannot establish a lottery. Operation of lotteries is strictly controlled by primary legislation. As I told him, in the absence of primary legislation, the assembly will not be able to sponsor a lottery.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I hope that the Minister will have time to deal with Plaid Cymru's amendment No. 205, which specifically refers to the need to support not only the Welsh language but those variants of the English language that are in common use in Wales. I am thinking particularly of dialects of the English language such as that used in parts of Swansea, where everyone says "clar-eye-fi-ca-tion".
      Mr. Davies: I will reflect on that point, although I cannot guarantee that I will table an amendment to deal with it.
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley mentioned amendment No. 205, and the Committee considered also amendment Nos 155 and 271. All I can say is that schedule 2 lists the fields in which I must consider transferring functions to the assembly.
      The only statutory function that I have in the arts—the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon and other hon. Members—is specified in section 26 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, which concerns policy directions to the Arts Council of Wales on the use of lottery funds. I have a range of other functions, but that is the only statutory function.
      There is provision in clause 33 for the assembly to do anything that it considers appropriate to support museums, art galleries or libraries; buildings of historical, architectural or archaeological interest; the Welsh language and arts; and crafts, sport and other cultural activities. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Member for Caernarfon. Clause 33 really is a very wide provision.

      119
      Clause 33(d), dealing with cultural activities, would cover any support that the assembly considered appropriate to foster languages other than the Welsh language that are in use in Wales. I am not sure whether the Swansea English dialect would fall into that category, although I have already assured my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) that I shall closely examine the matter.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire—who tabled the amendment—will reflect on the fact that we have had a reasonable debate. There are sound reasons why the Government have introduced the legislation as it is. The assembly is properly empowered, and I would not wish it now to be given the message that the Committee was divided on the extent of its powers to deal with culture and other matters.
      Mr. Livsey: I have heard what the Secretary of State has said, particularly in relation to broadcasting in Wales. We have had a substantial and constructive debate, and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Wigley: I beg to move amendment No. 160, in schedule 2, page 73, line 19, at end insert—
      '2B. Council of the Isles issues.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 159, in schedule 2, page 73, line 22, at end insert—
      '5A. European affairs.'.
      Mr. Wigley: The amendment raises the question of the council of the isles, which has come on to the agenda since the Bill was published. I would be glad to know the Government's thinking on the matter.
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN put the Questions necessary to dispose of the remaining proceedings on schedule 2, clauses 23 to 29, schedule 3 and clauses 30 to 44, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [20 January].
      Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
      Schedule 2 agreed to.

    Clause 23

      TRANSFERS: SUPPLEMENTARY
      Amendments made: No. 137, in page 13, leave out line 23 and insert
      'only with the agreement of, or after'.
      No. 138, in page 14, line 31, leave out
      'concurrence or subject to the consent or approval'
      and insert 'agreement'.
      No. 139, in page 14, line 36, leave out
      'concurrence of or subject to the consent or approval'
      and insert 'agreement'.
      No. 140, in page 14, line 41, leave out 'Scottish Minister' and insert
      'member of the Scottish Executive'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 24 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 3 agreed to.

    Clause 30

      POWER TO IMPLEMENT COMMUNITY LAW
      Amendment made: No. 141, in page 19, line 25, at end insert 'designating the Assembly'.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 31 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
      To report progress and ask leave sit again.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

    ACCOMMODATION AND WORKS COMMITTEE
    Ordered,
    That Mr. David Rendel be discharged from the Accommodation and Works Committee and Mr. David Chidgey be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Protected Tenants (Rent)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
10.4 pm
Ms Karen Buck: I begin with a brief disclaimer: if I live to be 100, and think of nothing else for the rest of my life, I shall never acquire the knowledge on the subject of my Adjournment debate that my hon. Friend the Minister has, so I introduce it with some humility. I hope that I do not make him cringe too much with any errors of fact, as I tread through a complex field of housing and law.
I appreciate the Government's awareness of the issue, both as a national concern and as it affects my constituency. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the fact that he has met some of the people about whom I intend to talk, and has heard their concerns at first hand. I thank him for his interest in, and knowledge of, the subject. I congratulate the Association of Regulated Tenants Associations, and various other private tenants' groups and workers in this sector, who have helped many vulnerable individuals and documented their story.
I want to place on the record some of my constituents' experiences in Kensington and Chelsea and in Westminster, and to plead for sympathetic consideration of their plight. My constituency has one of the highest proportions of private sector tenants in the United Kingdom—they are heavily concentrated in places such as Maida Vale, St. John's Wood and Regent's Park—but there are 300,000 protected tenants throughout the country. I believe that there are about 85,000 pensioner households in London in unfurnished accommodation, many of which will fall into the category of protected tenants.
The sector undoubtedly has a major contribution to make to housing supply, but it has some severe weaknesses that need redress. As usual, what is true for the country as a whole is magnified here in central London. The value of privately rented accommodation is that it offers flexibility for people who need housing, perhaps because of changes in employment or personal circumstances, and for whom the permanence of a house purchase, for example, would not be appropriate. It also offers housing opportunities for those who may be unable to obtain a mortgage or who cannot access the social rented sector.
There is no doubt that renting a home in the private market is for many people an important, often an ideal, option. The problems on which I intend to concentrate tonight concern the substantial minority of tenants who have sought not flexibility but security in the private rented sector. Some sought security of tenure, as implied by their original leases or tenancy agreements, while others had a reasonable expectation of financial security when agreements were entered into, sometimes 40 or 50 years ago.
I want to draw attention to an injustice done to householders who entered into agreements in good faith. They believed that those agreements enabled them to invest and plan for the future and that they could build a family home; but those agreements have turned out to be effectively worthless, as rents have soared, sometimes by
122
hundreds of percentage points. Investment in homes, sometimes running to tens of thousands of pounds, has counted for nothing.
Assurances given at the time of the Housing Act 1988 have been rendered null and void by practices adopted in recent years. That legislation had among its aims the transformation of the rented housing market. There was a clear expectation that rents would rise for new tenants, but that was balanced by the stated exemption for tenants who entered into agreements before the commencement of that Act, such as regulated tenants under the Rent Act 1977. In fact, the shift towards market rents for pre-1988 protected tenants has in recent years had a dramatic and devastating effect.
Not only have landlords forced the pace towards market rents for protected tenants, but rent officers—and especially rent assessment committees—have exacerbated the process. That has especially been the case since the Spath Holme judgment in 1995, which changed the basis of rent officers' determinations. As a result, landlords are requesting substantial two-yearly increases, which are often raised by rent officers. Ironically, sometimes rent officers raise rents to forestall excessive rises at the appeal stage. When cases go to appeal, further huge increases are often imposed by rent assessment committees.
Maria Eagle: Is my hon. Friend aware that such problems exist not only in London but in Liverpool and many other places? In one instance in my constituency, a rent officer accompanying a landlady, who was given the full 100 per cent. increase for which she asked, told her that she should be able to obtain more. As a result, the landlady appealed against the assessment, despite getting 100 per cent. of what she asked for, and got a further increase. The 85-year-old tenant, who had lived in the property all her life, has been in hospital ever since. The problem seriously affects vulnerable and elderly tenants.
Ms Buck: That is exactly the sort of the case that I shall discuss. My hon. Friend confirms my argument. She mentioned appeals. Of 703 cases heard in London in the first quarter of 1996, the rent assessment committee found in favour of the tenant in only 14 per cent. of cases. In more than 60 per cent., it increased the rent recommended by rent officers. It is hardly surprising that the rent determination process is viewed with the deepest cynicism by my constituents or that the secretive and unaccountable rent assessment committees are regarded as heavily loaded in favour of landlords.
I want to tell the stories of some my constituents, stories that are shot through with a sense of betrayal and anger, both at the role of landlords and at the rent assessment procedure, and with a great deal of human misery. A lady tenant of the Eyre estate in St. John's Wood wrote:
"My husband, who is 77 and has Parkinson's Disease, myself and my two children have lived in this house for 29 years … from the beginning, we treated this house as our home; installed heating; rewired; put a new roof on the house … yet since 1980, the rent has increased by 900 per cent … It is definitely time for the market to come to a halt so people like us do not have to worry ourselves to the grave about rents".
Another gentleman wrote:

123
"In 1990, my rent was £4350 per annum. By 1994 it had increased to £8200. At the next registration the landlord asked for £11,600 and was granted this figure by the Rent Officer. Notwithstanding this the landlord still objected to the rent and I had to face the Rent Assessment Committee … At the hearing, the landlord asked for £35,000 per annum and the Rent Assessment Committee assessed the rent at £17,000."
My constituent says that he managed to cope, but many other tenants have not. They have been forced out, sometimes into old people's homes as many are pensioners.
To add appalling insult to injury, when tenants go, they are often landed with dilapidation charges, compounding their fears. One gentleman wrote to advise me of a 79-year-old neighbour who left his home because he could not afford the rent increases. He had two disabled children as well as a dependent elderly wife. The landlords demanded £35,000 from him on leaving the property.
The person involved in the final example out of many that I could have quoted wrote:
"When I first moved in in 1976, my rent was £1,600 per annum. It is now £13,650—a rise of 753 per cent … the high capital investment I have made, and the tough lease terms were acceptable at the time because we had the security of a protected tenancy, low rents, phasing in of rent increases and the right of my children to live in this house when I die. Without these advantages, I would never have taken the lease and invested all that time and money … No-one would have done so. It is, therefore, no surprise that we now feel cheated."
Again and again comes the message, "We have been betrayed."
The vulnerability of my constituents is heightened by the booming London property market, which adds both to market pressures on rents and to pressure to turn rental properties into corporate or holiday lets or sales. Last week, one private tenants' rights worker told me that she was about to represent a tenant in a block where the quoted market rents ranged from £515 a week to £1,350 a week. Another told me of a case where the rent was increased from £10,000 per annum in March to £17,000 in December following the decision in the Court of Appeal in the Curtis case.
The effects of such increases can be summarised simply—communities of rented homes are breaking up. The number of Eyre estate tenants in St. John's Wood has plunged below 100. Many of those communities are made up of people who moved in years ago, sometimes before the second world war. They are established communities which are part of London life, but they are being destroyed.
Properties are sold, often into the international property market because of the demands of that sector in central London, and they are being turned into corporate and holiday lets. That is helping to turn parts of the inner city into a desert. That is in direct contrast to the aims of our social exclusion unit, which seeks a mixed residential pattern in our inner cities.
Pensioners and others on fixed incomes are living in terror. They are unable to pay rent increases, but virtually unable to leave homes that they may have occupied for decades. Many of them are just above the housing benefit level and therefore have to absorb the full cost of the charges placed on them. However, many others are on housing benefit, so the excessive demands of landlords, supported by a rent assessment committee decision, is transferring much of that cost on to the public purse through housing benefit.
124
My hon. Friend the Minister has been asked to consider several options, including the use of section 31 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to restrict increases in rent. He has also been asked to consider a rent cap linking rent increases to the retail prices index plus a given percentage; a thorough review of rent assessment committees to ensure impartiality between landlords and tenants' interests; and the restoration of succession rights where they form part of the original lease.
I should greatly welcome any sign that my hon. Friend is able to give tonight as to the Government's thinking on the problems I have outlined and their possible solutions. Above all, I should welcome his recognition of the urgency of the matter. Every passing week results in more of my constituents being forced out of their homes. It is adding to the toll of families forced to leave their homes and of pensioners made homeless or living in constant fear of debt and homelessness. Those people are an integral part of the inner-London community and I hope that we shall soon be able to lift at least a portion of the burden that they bear.
10.16 pm
The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing the Adjournment debate and using it to raise such an important matter. She has highlighted a number of cases of steep rent increases, which have caused anxiety and hardship to people who have long been residents in her area. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) intervened to highlight the extent to which it is not just a problem encountered in London, but in other parts of the country.
Both my hon. Friends will know that the Government are very concerned about the disproportionate increases that some regulated tenants have faced in recent years. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North has been in correspondence with my Department about the plight of some of her constituents and will be aware that we have been looking to see what can be done to help tenants who face such problems.
Before I outline the possible measures that we are exploring, it might be helpful if I summarise the background to the setting of fair rents and why they have increased significantly in recent years.
When the Housing Act 1988 introduced assured tenancies at market rents for all new lettings from January 1989, existing tenants' rights to security of tenure and rent control were not changed. Those regulated tenants and their landlords have the right to have a fair rent registered for the tenancy by an independent rent officer. Both also have a right to appeal to a rent assessment committee if they are dissatisfied with the rent officer's decision. The registered rent is the maximum rent the landlord can charge and it cannot normally be re-registered for two years.
When assessing fair rents, rent officers and rent assessment committees must follow the rules laid down in section 70 of the Rent Act 1977. That requires them to take into account the age, character, locality and state of repair of the dwelling but to disregard any premium resulting from a scarcity of similar accommodation in the area. A fair rent is therefore what a landlord could achieve in a market in which the supply of and demand for

125
accommodation are in balance. Rent officers cannot take a tenant's or a landlord's personal circumstances into account.
Until the introduction of assured tenancies, there was little evidence of open-market rents because of rent control, so rent officers and rent assessment committees tended in the past to determine fair rents using the evidence of their own previous decisions. Before 1989, when there was no evidence of decontrolled market rents, that was the only practicable approach. More recently, it has been possible to determine fair rents by starting from the market rent and subtracting any element due to scarcity.
The way in which rent officers and rent assessment committees determine fair rents was the subject of a Court of Appeal case in 1995—Greater Manchester and Lancashire Rent Assessment Panel v. Spath Holme. The effect of the judgment was to give more weight to the market rent less the scarcity method of rent determination. That approach has been reaffirmed in a series of subsequent judgments, most recently the Curtis case, which came before the Court of Appeal in October 1997. Changing to that method has caused fair rents to rise steeply. Increases in recent years have been well above increases in the retail prices index over the same period. In some areas, particularly but not exclusively in London, increases on re-registration have been more than 20 per cent. higher than the retail prices index for the same two-year period.
Most of the tenants affected could never have expected increases of that magnitude under a fair rent system. As my hon. Friend said, many regulated tenants are elderly and on fixed incomes. They have planned their affairs on the assumption that they would be able to remain in their present home and I know that these increases are causing some of them not only great hardship, but great anxiety as they face the alternatives of giving up their home of many years, or seeing their savings rapidly disappear.
I do not believe that landlords of regulated tenants expected such increases. Regulated tenancies have generally been acquired in anticipation of substantial capital gains when the tenancies come to an end. These tenancies have always traded at a discount to vacant possession value. The discount may have reduced in recent years, but even now those properties trade at some 30 to 45 per cent. below vacant possession value. Moreover, the landlords bought those properties in the knowledge that the rents were subject to fair rent controls and that potential rental yields would be lower than those obtainable from assured shorthold tenancies. Therefore, we feel that there is a strong case for considering Government intervention to moderate rent increases for the small group of existing tenants in that position.
What options are we considering? First, I must make it clear that we do not have it in mind to change either the existing system of fair rent determinations by rent officers and rent assessment committees, or the rent criteria in section 70 of the Rent Act 1977. That would require primary legislation and, in view of the many other pressures on parliamentary time, any opportunity for that would be likely to lie some way ahead.
A more attractive option, which may be possible through secondary legislation, is the application of a maximum limit to the size of the rent increase which could be imposed by rent officers and rent assessment
126
committees under the existing system. We have in mind linking rent increases to the retail prices index, as a well-established measure of affordability, by way of an "RPI plus X" formula. However, there are some tricky issues to be resolved. We would need to ensure that we got the right balance between the interests of tenants and the interests of landlords. Another issue is that we do not want to discourage landlords from carrying out necessary improvements to their property; but, equally, we must be sure that any mechanism that allows rent increases to reflect those improvements does not simply provide the landlord with a loophole for circumventing the new limit.
There are difficult and detailed technical and legal issues which still need further study, but assuming that we can overcome these to our satisfaction, we shall issue a public consultation document setting out our proposals and seeking comments on the details. I cannot say precisely when that might be, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are moving as rapidly as we can.
The principles and procedures for registering rents which apply to regulated tenancies under the Rent Act 1977 apply equally to tenants of registered social landlords whose tenancies started before January 1989. Rent officers register the maximum rent that may be charged. The rent officer cannot take into account the fact that RSLs are expected to charge rents affordable to people on low incomes, or that rents are expected to be below equivalent local private market levels. In recent years, in line with trends affecting other secure tenants, rent officers have recommended steep increases in RSL fair rents. Although, RSLs are not obliged to charge the full fair rent if they consider it too high, many do so.
The Housing Corporation has become increasingly concerned about rent levels within the sector generally and is taking steps to bear down on all RSL rents. Since April 1997, RSLs receiving capital grants for new development have been required to limit the increase in rents and service charges to RPI plus 1 per cent.
The corporation has recently consulted on further measures to limit increases for existing secure and assured tenants. Under the new performance standards for RSLs, to be introduced on 1 April 1998, RSLs will be expected to limit their overall rent increases to RPI plus 1 per cent. That figure will, however, apply to the total rent envelope of an association's stock rather than to individual rents. It will not prevent an individual tenant's rent from rising by significantly more than that figure.
The corporation has also been encouraging RSLs to develop rent policies aimed at setting rents that reflect the size, nature and location of the property rather than the nature of the tenancy or the funding regime under which it was developed. That would suggest a gradual process of convergence between secure and assured rents. However, it could seem rather inequitable to allow individual fair rents in the social rented sector to rise unchecked, if those in the private sector were subject to a cap.
We are therefore considering whether any proposal to limit fair rent increases for regulated tenants might also apply to secure tenants of RSLs, but within the rent control framework being developed by the Housing Corporation for all existing stock. RSLs would still be expected to develop rent policies that worked towards rent convergence, although that convergence might be slower if fair rent increases were limited. Clearly, we are trying

127
to balance a number of issues here and we would not take any decisions about the way ahead without consulting all the interested parties first.
Concerns have also been expressed that fair rent levels are not consistent between rent office areas or between rent officers and rent assessment committees. The Government share those concerns and we are looking at ways to improve performance. We have already announced that we have decided to create a unified national structure for the rent officer service in England by establishing it as a next steps agency of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. That should ensure that a more consistent and accountable service is provided to the public. We are currently planning on the assumption that the agency will be established in October 1999.
We are also reviewing, in the light of the Nolan report and the code of practice for public appointments, the composition of rent assessment panels and the procedures for appointing members. In doing so, we are responding to the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend about possible imbalances in the membership of rent assessment panels.
I have been concerned that members of the panel should be drawn from a broader constituency. The panels are now making greater use of lay members on their committees and tribunals. The Department has already started advertising annually for panel members to widen the catchment from which they are drawn. More information is now required from candidates for appointment and declarations of interest are required from members on both appointment and re-appointment. I know that panel presidents are very aware of the need to ensure that members do not consider cases in which they may have either a personal or professional interest. However, we are looking to strengthen the safeguards still further. We want to see greater openness in the appointment process, with tenants and landlords having
128
ready access to information about the members considering their case. That is why I have asked the panels to look at how a register of members' interests can be made available for public inspection.
Another development that I can report is that a working group comprising members of the Institute of Rent Officers and rent assessment panels has been set up to consider, in the light of the recent fair rent court cases, how to achieve general consistency of approach to the registration of fair rents. I welcome that initiative and look forward to seeing the good practice guide that it proposes to issue in due course.
I know that the very fact that we are looking at the problem of unjustifiably high rent increases in the regulated sector has set alarm bells ringing in some quarters. Landlords' associations are suggesting that moderating fair rent increases could be the thin end of the wedge—the prelude to wider rent control. They are also predicting that it would scare away the financial institutions, which are at last beginning to show renewed interest in investing in private residential housing. I have to say, and keep on saying, that there is no rational basis for such fears. They are groundless. The factors that have led us to consider moderating fair rent increases simply do not apply in the deregulated sector of the market. We have no plans to change the legal framework for deregulated private tenancies, where rents and rent increases follow market trends.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North is reassured from what I have said that the Government share her concerns about the plight of fair rent tenants. We are developing proposals to impose a maximum limit on the size of fair rent increases and we hope to be in a position to issue a public consultation paper shortly, setting out our proposals and seeking comments on the details.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Lambeth Palace
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what was the annual cost of running and maintaining Lambeth Palace in each of the last three years. [25204]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Lambeth Palace is the base for the Archbishop of Canterbury's ministry and a listed historic building. The cost of running and maintaining the fabric of Lambeth Palace, which includes not only domestic accommodation but a chapel, meeting rooms and office accommodation, was £440,000 in 1996, the last year for which figures are currently available. The figure includes expenditure on repairs and decorations, other outgoings such as insurance and water rates, garden upkeep and extra provision for security and takes account of rental income from leased accommodation.

  The costs in 1994 and 1995 were £410,000 in each year. Expenditure each year varies depending on the incidence of major repairs.

  Bishops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, pursuant to his oral answer of 12 January 1998,Official Report, column 18, what plans he has to reduce the £124,545 spent on average per bishop per year. [25203]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  In 1996 the Commissioners spent 10 per cent. of their total expenditure on supporting episcopal ministry. The Commissioners endeavour to provide the level of support for bishops necessary to enable them to undertake their ministry to the Church efficiently and economically.

  Spending on episcopal housing, staff salaries and expenses is subject to close budgetary control. Repairs to buildings are limited to the minimum which the Commissioners feel is consistent with the proper maintenance of those properties in their care. The Commissioners are engaged in a review of the suitability of diocesan bishops' houses and in many cases steps have been taken to reduce long-term running costs.

  Church Commissioners (Staff)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners how many people work for the Church Commissioners; and what was their total cost in 1996. [24830]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners' administrative costs in 1996 (inclusive of salaries, staff pensions and office running costs) were £10.6 million, down 8 per cent. in real terms since 1993. £5.2 million were asset 2
  management costs; £5.4 million was the cost of central Church functions for which the Commissioners are responsible. Two hundred and forty-seven staff worked for the Commissioners as at 31 December 1996, down 12 per cent. over the previous three years. I direct the hon. Member to page 22 of the Commissioners' Report and Accounts, a copy of which is in the Library. This shows the Commissioners' efficient cost management record over the last ten years.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 15 January 1998,Official Report, column 268, if he will publish the programme of his wife when she accompanied him to Dublin at public expense. [25595]

  The Attorney-General
  My wife's programme on visiting Dublin on 17 and 18 September 1997 was as follows:17 September
  Arrive Dublin.
  Visit British Embassy, to meet HM Ambassador, followed by short tour of Dublin.
  Attend reception, lectures and banquet hosted by the Ambassador of the United States on the occasion of the opening of the Forum for US-EU Legal and Economic Affairs.
  18 September
  Return to London.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he plans to take to strengthen the principle of local justice dispensed through magistrates courts. [25032]

  Mr. Hoon
  My hon. Friend will be aware that on 29 October 1997,Official Report, columns 901–05, I made a statement to the House setting out in some detail the Government's plan for the future structure of the magistrates courts service. As part of that statement, I made clear my commitment to the concept of local justice dispensed through a locally administered magistrates courts service. We will shortly be embarking upon a joint working group with the service and local authorities which will examine the financial and legal relationship between them, define their relative responsibilities and enable the close local relationship which is already in evidence to develop further.

  Civil Justice Reforms
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) of 19 January 1998,Official Report, column 403, if the implementation of those civil justice reforms and changes intended for completion in April 1999 are progressing as anticipated; and if he will make a statement. [25416]
  3
  Mr. Hoon
  I am pleased to confirm the answer I gave to the question of the hon. Member for Hendon on 19 January that the preparations for implementation of the civil justice reforms in April 1999 are indeed progressing as planned. For example, draft rules for the fast and multi-tracks, revised in the light of responses to the consultation paper issued last year, will be considered by the Rule Committee this month. A similar exercise will follow the closure of consultation on the small claims procedures at the end of this month. Further details can be obtained from the Department's bulletin, "Implementing the Civil Justice Reforms", a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what date his Department's proposals to introduce the legal aid changes announced by the Lord Chancellor on 18 October 1997 will come into effect. [25340]

  Mr. Hoon
  When my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor announced on 18 October 1997 the Government's proposals for reform of the legal aid system, he indicated his determination to consult widely before reaching any final decisions. We have received a large number of representations, each of which is being carefully considered. We intend to complete this consultation before implementing any changes.

  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what is the total cost to the Legal Aid Board of court fees since January 1997; [24121]

  (2) what is the additional cost to the Legal Aid Board arising from the increase in court fees since January 1997. [24120]

  Mr. Hoon
  From the Legal Aid Board's computer system it is not possible to identify separately the amounts paid in respect of court fees from other disbursements.

  Arbitration
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions in the last 12 months an application under Order 19 rule 3(2), to rescind an automatic reference to arbitration has(a) been made and (b) been granted. [24123]

  Mr. Hoon
  In the 12 months to 31 December 1997, there were 820 applications made and 650 applications granted.

  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions in the last 12 months an application under Order 19 rule 3(2)(d), to rescind an automatic reference to arbitration where it would be unreasonable for the claim to proceed, having regard to the subject matter, circumstances of the parties or interests of third parties who would be affected, has(a) been made and (b) been granted. [24122]

  Mr. Hoon
  (a) The information is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. (b) The information is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Small Claims
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many district and deputy district judges are able to sit as arbitrators in small claims proceedings; and how many of those have received training in handling small claims. [24119]

  Mr. Hoon
  All district judges and deputy district judges, apart from those who sit in the Principal Registry of the Family Division, have the jurisdiction to sit as arbitrators in small claims proceedings. The Judicial Studies Board provides training on handling small claims arbitrations for all Deputy District judges as part of their induction programme.

WALES

  Travellers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his policy concerning permanent sites for travellers in Flintshire. [24158]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Guidance to local planning authorities in respect of the provision of permanent sites for gipsies in their development plans is set out in Welsh Office Circular 2/94 and in Planning Guidance (Wales) Planning Policy. Local authorities no longer have a statutory duty to provide sites for gipsies, but should have regard to gipsies' accommodation needs in drawing up their development plans. The definition of "gipsies" is contained in Welsh Officer Circular 76/94 and excludes those persons who move from place to place without any connection between their movement and their means of livelihood.

  Integrated Rural Policy
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans his Department has to adopt an integrated rural policy for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [24697]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) as Minister with specific responsibility for rural and countryside issues recognises the special needs of people living and working in rural Wales. I am committed to fostering an integrated approach so that there is improved co-ordination across the wide-range of agricultural, environmental and economic policies which affect the interests and well-being of rural communities. I have also initiated discussions with both farming unions in Wales to discuss these matters.

  Subject to legislation, the creation of the new economic development powerhouse, equipped with the combined strengths, skills and expertise of the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales, will provide for the first time the opportunity for unified policies and programmes for development across the whole of rural Wales. The legislation will also restore the Welsh Development

  5
  Agency's grant-making powers, which will be available to promote business growth and diversification in rural Wales, and the powers to promote initiatives that support social as well as economic regeneration. The new economic development powerhouse, in partnership with the National Assembly and other agencies, will be well equipped to contribute to the promotion of sustainable development in rural Wales.

  The new Agency will have a strong regional presence and a rural policy unit which, in collaboration with other partners, will I hope be able to come forward with effective and innovative proposals for securing the future prosperity of rural communities in Wales.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Road Deaths (Alcohol)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of deaths caused in each of the last 10 years by drivers who had consumed at least one alcoholic drink in the 12 hours prior to an accident but who had a blood alcohol limit lower than the legal limit at the time of accident. [22821]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  When drivers are breath-tested and found to be within the legal limit their precise breath or blood alcohol content is not normally measured, so no information about their alcohol consumption, if any, is available. It is known that some drivers with blood alcohol below the legal limit, including drivers who cause a death, are prosecuted and convicted of "under the influence" drinking-driving offences, but no estimate can be made of the number of fatalities.

  Where a driver has been killed in a road accident the driver's blood alcohol level may be taken in post mortem examinations on behalf of Coroners and Procurators Fiscal. Figures based on these reports are given in the table. They have been adjusted for under-reporting and include the estimated number of persons other than the driver to have been killed in the accidents concerned. 1995 is the latest year for which sufficient information is currently available.

  These figures do not show when alcohol was last consumed by the drivers in these accidents, nor whether the presence of alcohol played any role in causing or aggravating the accidents. Other things being equal, the lower the concentration of alcohol, the less likely it is the alcohol was the cause of the accident.

  Accidents where the driver had a blood alcohol concentration below 10mg/100m1 are not included in this table because below that level, measurement is unreliable and may indicate natural fermentation rather than consumption of alcohol.
  6

  Fatalities in road accidents involving a motor vehicle driver or rider who was killed with a blood alcohol level between 10 and 80mg/100ml: Great Britain (adjusted for under-reporting)

  Number

  1986

  270

  1987

  310

  1988

  270

  1989

  320

  1990

  270

  1991

  270

  1992

  270

  1993

  200

  1994

  260

  1995

  250

  Bridleways
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 18 November 1997,Official Report, column 133, what factors underlay the decision not to include measures to encourage the re-establishment of ancient bridleways in his plans for increasing access to the countryside. [24082]

  Angela Eagle
  We have a long-standing commitment to give people greater freedom to explore open countryside. However, we have no plans at present to introduce new measures relating to rights of way. Local authorities already have powers to create linear routes.

  Driving Licence
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the new form of driving licence will display the union flag of the United Kingdom; and what consultations he is having regarding the format of the new licence. [24397]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The forthcoming photocard driving licence will, like existing paper licences, not include the Union flag in its design. Proposals for plastic photocard driving licences were the subject of public consultations in 1991 and 1996. No further consultations are proposed on the format of the licence, the main features of which are laid down in the second EC driving licence directive, as amended.

  Diabetic Drivers
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations were undertaken prior to the decision to exclude insulin-dependent diabetics from holding driving licences for categories C1 and D1 vehicles. [24223]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department consulted over 100 representative organisations in August 1996 on a number of proposals for implementing the requirements of the Second EC Driving Licence Directive (91/439). These included the proposal that drivers with entitlements to drive vehicles in categories C1 and D1 on the strength of an ordinary car licence should, on expiry of their current licence, have to meet the higher health standards required for those categories by the Directive if they wished to renew those entitlements.
  7
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of accidents for each of the last five years involving vehicles in categories C1 and Dl driven by insulin-dependent diabetics. [24222]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No information is collected nationally on the medical conditions of drivers involved in road accidents. It is not, therefore, possible to supply the information requested.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Total

  April

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  May

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  June

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  4

  July

  1

  2

  1

  2

  0

  6

  August

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  September

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  October

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  3

  November

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  December

  2

  2

  1

  1

  0

  6

  January

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  February

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  March

  3

  2

  1

  1

  0

  7

  Total

  11

  8

  9

  5

  2

  35

  The figures cover all railways in Great Britain, and are published in the Chief Inspector of Railways Annual Reports on Railway Safety, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the monthly number of railway fatalities per passenger mile in each of the last five years. [24438]

  Death or injury rate: passenger

  Train accidents per billion passenger miles

  Movement accidents per billion passenger miles

  Non-movement accidents per billion passenger journeys

  Killed

  Major

  Minor

  Killed

  Major

  Minor

  Killed

  Major

  Minor

  1991–92

  0.08

  0.75

  12.01

  1.16

  3.03

  90.65

  0.63

  63.64

  2,091

  1992–93

  0.00

  0.13

  2.67

  0.68

  3.35

  98.93

  1.29

  100.26

  2,395

  1993–94

  0.00

  0.22

  5.67

  0.62

  1.80

  95.37

  1.30

  103.05

  2,793

  1994–95

  0.14

  0.50

  8.17

  0.55

  2.65

  98.41

  1.26

  85.28

  2,685

  1995–96

  0.04

  0.04

  2.24

  0.29

  1.91

  102.91

  1.23

  98.65

  2,819

  Train accidents per passenger miles

  Movement accidents per billion passenger miles

  Non movement accidents per billion passenger journeys

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  1996–97

  0.04

  6.50

  0.40

  20.21

  1.80

  1,025.80

  New accident regulations were introduced in 1996–97.

  Under the new regulations—the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations, 1995 (RIDDOR 95) there is no distinction between a major and minor injury to a passenger.

  The reporting trigger is that the person is taken from the site of the accident to hospital for treatment.

  Rail Fatalities
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the monthly number of staff fatalities in the railway industry for each of the last five years. [24439]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Details on the number of staff fatalities in the railway industry for the past five years are as follows:

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information is not available in the for requested. However, annual death and injury rates to passengers per billion passenger miles are published in the Chief Inspector of Railways Annual Report on Railway Safety, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library. The relevant extract from the report for 1996–97 listing these rates over the past five years is as follows:

  Train accidents are accidents to trains and rolling stock.

  Movement accidents are accidents to people caused by the movement of railway vehicles, but excluding those involved in train accidents.

  Non-movement accidents are accidents to people on railway premises which are not connected with the movement of railway vehicles.

  Green-field Sites
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the proposal by the Civic Trust to introduce a levy of 10 per cent. on the value of green-field sites with planning permission; and if he will make a statement. [24465]

  Mr. Caborn
  We want to stimulate a debate about the scope for using economic instruments to help achieve our planning objectives and we will take further account of the Civic Trust's proposal in that context. It is likely to be one of the items discussed when my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction meets the Director of the Civic Trust next week.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he will take to protect green-field sites in the North East of Chelmsford and the Al2 corridor. [25291]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government wish to see as much new development as possible allocated to urban areas and existing settlements, and maximum use made of previously developed sites. Any proposals for the development of green-field sites in Essex are, initially, for the local planning authorities to consider. When examining such proposals they, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, should he become involved, will have regard to national policies and the protection of the countryside, and to the need for new development to be suitable and environmentally acceptable.

  Cleaner Vehicles Task Force
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) name of, (b) occupation of and (c) organisation represented by each of the members of the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force; and if he will make a statement. [24467]

  Dr. Strang
  The Cleaner Vehicles Task Force aims to create a new partnership between Government and the private sector to promote environmentally friendly vehicles that people and businesses will want to buy and drive. The task force's members are:

  Name

  Occupation

  Organisation

  Co-Chair

  Gavin Strang

  Minister for Transport

  DETR

  Co-Chair

  Ian McAllister

  President Chairman and Managing Director

  SMMT Ford UK

  John Battle

  Minister for Science, Energy and Industry

  DTI

  Sir Robert May

  Government Chief Scientist

  OST

  Walter Hasselkus

  Chairman and Chief Executive

  Rover Group

  Keith Taylor

  Chairman and Chief Executive

  Esso UK

  Neil Johnson

  Chief Executive

  RAC

  David Lea

  Assistant General Secretary

  TUC

  Nigel Haigh

  Director

  IEEP

  Michael Gwilt

  Chief Executive

  Arriva Group

  David Green

  Director-General

  FTA

  Mike Parker

  Chief Executive

  Nexus

  Mike Baunton

  Managing Director

  Varity Perkins

  Environmental Sustainability
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to what extent environmental sustainability is included as a quality factor under the new best value replacement to compulsory competitive tendering for local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [24458]

  Ms Armstrong
  It will generally be for local authorities to decide how to reflect environmental sustainability in their performance targets for the different services under the proposed best value regime, following consultation with the local community and in the light of their progress in drawing up Local Agenda 21 strategies.

  Home Zone Sign
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the use of the home zone sign in other European member states in reducing traffic casualties; and if he will make a statement. [24468]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The effectiveness of the "home zone" signs used in some EU member states depends on drivers observing very low speed limits (and being conditioned to give way to pedestrians). My Department has been working with local authorities on schemes and studies to reduce vehicle speeds in residential streets and shopping areas. Our experience in this country so far has been that signs by themselves do not reduce vehicle speeds to 20mph or below, and that other self-enforcing measures are needed. We have no plans at present to change primary legislation to introduce home zones but we think there is scope within the current legislation for further speed reducing measures to be applied.

  Coastguard (Wales)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on coastguard provision in Wales(a) currently and (b) after 2001; and if he will list in each case those stations that will be permanently manned. [24479]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are three permanently staffed Coastguard centres in Wales, located at Swansea, Milford Haven and Holyhead.

  There are no plans to change Her Majesty's Coastguard provision in Wales, including the 11 Sector Managers and 47 auxiliary stations, after 2001, with the exception of an increase in the staff complement at Holyhead Coastguard station for the control of the additional radio aerials, following the proposed closure of the Liverpool Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in 2000. A proposed five year strategy for the service was announced on 17 November 1997, Official Report, column 9–10, and a consultation document was issued on 20 January copies of which have gone to all coastal MPs and the House Library.

  Planning (Amble Sewerage Scheme)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to call in the planning application for the Amble sewerage scheme. [24784]
  11
  Mr. Raynsford
  This application has not been referred to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State and he has received no representations about the proposals.

  Greenhouse Gas Reductions
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what specific policy decisions have so far been taken by the Government to deliver the new commitments to the reduction of greenhouse gases that he gave in Tokyo on behalf of the Government. [24707]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Kyoto Protocol set a legally-binding target for the European Union of an 8 per cent. overall reduction in the emissions of six greenhouse gases between 2008 and 2012, compared with 1990. Under our Presidency of the European Union we aim to share out this target between Member States, and to take forward proposals for common and co-ordinated policies and measures. Our priority within the UK will then be to ensure that we achieve our legally binding target.

  We have already taken action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The Chancellor announced in the July Budget, that the real increase in fuel duty would be raised to 6 per cent., a year. Later this year we will be consulting on a programme of policies and measures to meet our legally binding target and launch a national debate on moving towards our domestic aim of a 20 per cent. cut in emissions.

  Unitary Development Plan (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to answer the letter about the City of Newcastle upon Tyne Unitary Development Plan sent to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central. [24657]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I replied to my hon. Friend's letter on 14 January.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make modifications to the Revised Unitary Development Plan published by the City of Newcastle upon Tyne. [24656]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None. Following very careful consideration of all the relevant issues considered by the Inspector to the UDP Inquiry, the Secretary of State decided not to object to the proposals to delete land from the Green Belt for the Northern Development Area. I understand that Newcastle City Council resolved to adopt their plan on 21 January.

  Key factors which were taken into account in reaching this decision included the City Council's proposal to accommodate 76 per cent. of its housing requirements within the existing built up area and the fact that the Inspector accepted that further development in the built up area would lead to town cramming. In addition, the Inspector found that a continuation of population dispersal from Newcastle to Northumberland and North Tyneside would be less sustainable than the proposed development which lies less than 5km from the city centre and can be readily linked to the public transport network.

  Northern Development Area
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will request the SRB partnership for the Graingertown area of Newcastle upon Tyne city centre to report to him on the effect of the proposed Northern Development Area on office redevelopment prospects. [24658]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to do so in view of his quasi-judicial role in the planning system. However, there are well-established procedures in place which allow individuals and organisations to make full representations on development proposals at all stages of the planning process. I understand that the issues of the effect of the proposed Northern Development Area on development elsewhere in the local authority area have already been examined in public before an independent planning inspector in the context of Newcastle upon Tyne Unitary Development Plan Public Inquiry.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for further legislation regarding low flying to combat aircraft noise. [24699]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are considering whether new legislation may be required in respect of civil aircraft noise disturbance, whether that is attributable to low flying or to other causes.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidelines he has issued to local authorities(a) on dealing with computer systems which are not millennium compliant and (b) on budgeting for the costs of remedying computer systems which are not millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [24704]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities are responsible for their own systems and have access to high quality advice on this issue from the Local Government Management Board, the professional body of local government IT officers (SOCTIM) and other professional bodies. My officials have also kept the Local Government Association (LGA) informed on the steps being taken by central government. In addition, the Government have published best practice guidance on millennium compliance. The LGA's views on the pressures faced by all local authorities were taken into account in our proposals for local government revenue expenditure in 1998–99.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate for each local authority of the costs of dealing with computer systems which are not millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [24702]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Local Government Association (LGA) highlighted the possible level of pressures local authorities might face in preparing for millennium computer compliance. Their estimate of £500 million, with spending of at least £100 million required for 1998–99, was based on the overall cost to local authorities. The LGA's
  13
  views on the pressures faced by all local authorities were taken into account in our proposals for local government revenue expenditure in 1998–99.

  Road Lighting
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those roads for which he is responsible where lighting columns are life expired and need replacing. [24280]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 21 January 1998]: The Highways Agency is responsible for lighting columns on the trunk road network. Lighting columns on local roads are the responsibility of the relevant local highway authority.

  The Highways Agency is not aware of any life expired lighting columns on trunk roads as corrective action is taken when problems arise or preventive maintenance identifies signs of defects.

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many public inquiries on applications for motorway service areas were completed in the period 1 May to 31 December 1997; and what was the estimated cost of each inquiry to his Department; [24582]

  (2) how many public inquiries are currently in progress in respect of applications for the development of motorway service areas; and what is the estimated cost to date of those inquiries to his Department. [24578]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Three motorway service public inquiries were completed between 1 May and 31 December 1997: M4 Maidenhead area; A1(M) North Yorkshire and M25 Junctions 15–16 (Elk Meadows). The only such public inquiry currently under way is one which opened on 20 January into a motorway service area proposal at Redbourne on the M1 between Junctions 8 and 9.

  A substantial part of the cost of all four inquiries to my Department will be the time spent on them by staff of the Highways Agency as part of their normal duties. The time spent specifically on these cases could not be separately identified.

  Rents
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was(a) the amount of Housing Rent Account surplus used to finance rent rebates, (b) the number of council tenants paying full rent in each local authority area in which Housing Rent Account surpluses are being used and (c) the financial contribution made per week by each tenant paying full rent in each local authority area in the most recent available year. [24710]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In 1997–98, we estimate that £1,228.6 million of notional Housing Revenue Account surpluses will be used to meet the cost of rent rebates granted by housing authorities in England. In the same year, we estimate that 1,038,873 council tenants will not be granted rent rebates, and will therefore pay full rent.
  14
  The full amount of a tenant's rent, irrespective of whether he or she is granted a rebate, is a credit to the Housing Revenue Account and contributes towards any notional rental surplus. In 1997–98 the average weekly unrebated rent per dwelling for all council tenants in England is £41.18.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what financial criteria are used by his Department in determining the cost of a road accident for a(a) fatality, (b) serious injury and (c) slight injury; and in each case what is the current figure. [24485]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 21 January 1998]: The values attributed to the avoidance of deaths and injuries in road accidents in 1996 were (a) fatal £983,710; and (b) serious accident £118,030; (c) slight accident £11,590. These values take account of medical costs, lost production, the cost of police and courts, insurance administration, property damage, and human costs based on the widely accepted concept of "willingness to pay".

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional resources have been allocated in the financial year 1998–99 to the Vehicle Inspectorate to enhance safety regulation in road transport. [24772]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: Additional resources have been allocated to the VI for road safety enforcement activities in the financial year 1998–99. The total available for this activity will be £16,295,000, an increase of £246k over the current year's allocation.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of the regional office of the Driving Standards Agency at Haymarket House, Edinburgh. [24420]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: The Driving Standards Agency is currently reviewing its Area Office structure. The Agency's preferred option is to relocate the driving test booking operation from Haymarket House to its Newcastle Office but to retain a number of administrative activities, such as handling examiner deployment, customer service and estates functions, in Edinburgh. We expect to announce the results of that review soon.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the future of the driving test centres at(a) Edinburgh, Newington, (b) Saltcoats, (c) Hamilton, (d) Aberfeldy, (e) Girvan, (f) Cumnock, (g) Callander, (h) Fort Augustus, (i) Tarbert, (j) Bettyhill, (k) Helmsdale and (l) Duns. [24421]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: The Driving Standards Agency is currently reviewing its test centre estate across England, Scotland

  15
  and Wales to ascertain whether there is scope for rationalisation while retaining satisfactory levels of service. There are no plans at present to withdraw the driving test service from any of those centres identified by the hon. Member. Any proposals to close particular test centres at a later date would be subject to consultation with local driving instructor groups, local authority interests and the Members within whose constituencies those centres are located.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the plans by the Driving Standards Agency to move the driving test centre in Beeches Road, Chelmsford to another site in the town; and when he expects the move to take place. [25290]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Driving Standards Agency proposes to relocate its driving test centre to a new site at the Chelmar Business Park. Subject to contracts being agreed and the due planning process being completed, a new centre should be opened either later this year or early next year.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when Her Majesty's Government expect to ratify Directive Euratom 96/29 passed by the Council of Ministers in 1996; and what measures he plans to prevent the recycling of nuclear waste into consumer goods. [24817]

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to relax the limits on uncontrolled disposal or release of radioactively contaminated materials; and if he will make a statement. [25493]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 19 January 1998,Official Report, column 376.

  Byways (Vehicle Regulation)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 10 June 1997,Official Report, column 403, when he expects to announce proposals to improve regulation of vehicles on byways. [25070]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: We hope to make an announcement next month.

  Official Cars
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many official cars are available for use by Ministers in his Department; and how many new cars have been acquired for the use of Ministers in his Department since 1 May. [25161]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: Following the merger of the former Departments of the Environment and Transport the total number of cars available to Ministers has been decreased by one to nine. One new car has been acquired since 1 May.

  Road Traffic Reduction Act
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the provisions of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 to come into force; and if he will make a statement. [24985]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: Guidance to local authorities on implementing the provisions of the Road Traffic Reduction Act was issued in draft on 15 January for public consultation. Comments are sought by 20 April 1998. We envisage that the Act will be brought into force later this year, and be followed by final guidance.

  Great Leighs Bypass
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on funding of the Great Leighs bypass. [25292]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Essex County Council bid for support for this scheme in their Transport Policies and Programme (TPP) submission for 1998–99. Because of financial constraints no new major schemes were accepted in the 1998–99 local transport capital settlement, which was announced on 17 December 1997.

  The guidance for the TPP round of 1999–2000 is due to be published in the Spring. My Department is currently considering the headings under which bids will be invited. It is not possible at this stage to say how much weight will be given to major road schemes such as Great Leighs Bypass.

  Rail Passengers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will bring forward proposals to reduce overcarrying of passengers on the rail network in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [25077]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Central door locking has appreciably reduced the risk of accidents caused by passengers boarding and alighting from trains when it would be unsafe to do so. It may have increased the risk of overcarrying, but the Health and Safety Executive does not consider overcarrying a safety issue. Measures to prevent overcarrying are for train operators to consider.

  Parachute Flights
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the regulations regarding maximum permitted decibel levels and the environmental impact of private parachuting flights; and if he will make a statement. [25098]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Aircraft used for parachuting are subject to the same noise certification requirements as comparable aircraft used for other purposes. Depending on local airspace constraints and the location of drop zones, the need for the aircraft to climb over a limited area can be a source of nuisance to those below. Aerodromes and aircraft operators should plan their routes, procedures and activities so as to minimise noise nuisance; subject always to the overriding requirements of safety.

  "New Leadership for London"
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what analysis his Department has made of the answers to the questions set out in the Government's Consultation Paper, "New Leadership for London"; if he will publish this analysis; and if he will make a statement. [25528]

  Mr. Raynsford
  An analysis of the responses we received to the Green Paper "New Leadership for London" will be set out in the White Paper which we intend to publish in March. A list of names of all the individuals and organisations who responded to the Green Paper was placed in the House of Commons Library on 21 November 1997. On the same day, copies of their letters were made available for inspection by the public, in the library of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 3EB.

  Rural Policy
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to adopt an integrated rural policy in England; and if he will make a statement. [24695]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are committed to developing an integrated approach to tackling the problems of rural areas.

  The Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) of Countryside and Rural Policy which is currently being undertaken jointly by DETR and MAFF is considering the aims and delivery of countryside and rural policy for the medium and long term. We expect to make an announcement about how we intend to take forward rural policy in due course, taking account of the work of the CSR.

  Passenger Ferries
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is

  Bilateral aid expenditure

  £ thousand

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Total emergency1 aid all countries

  142,831

  179,544

  208,165

  141,560

  119,934

  of which

  Disaster preparedness all countries

  1,119

  1,939

  2,782

  2,891

  4,303

  Total DFID programme all countries

  1,145,113

  1,177,598

  1,144,066

  1,124,226

  1,078,795

  Total GPEX all countries

  1,353,889

  1,308,743

  1,379,665

  1,421,567

  1,283,224

  Emergency aid as a percentage of DIFD programme

  12.47

  15.25

  18.20

  12.59

  11.12

  Disaster preparedness as percentage of DFID programme

  0.10

  0.16

  0.24

  0.26

  0.40

  Emergency aid as a percentage of GPEX

  10.55

  13.72

  15.09

  9.96

  9.35

  Disaster preparedness as percentage of GPEX

  0.08

  0.15

  0.20

  0.20

  0.34

  Key:

  1 Emergency aid includes disaster relief, emergency food aid, short term refugee relief and disaster preparedness.

  1. DFID programme include all bilateral spending, financial aid, TC, ATP, programme aid, emergency aid and DFID debt relief.

  2. GPEX = Gross Public Expenditure on Development Assistance (includes spending on CDC investments, other (non-DFID) debt relief and small amounts of drug related assistance funded by the Home and Foreign and Commonwealth Offices).
  18
  the frequency of those Marine Safety Agency inspections of passenger ferries at which the MSA inspectors witness emergency drills. [25279]

  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. Alisdair Morgan, dated 26 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your Question about the frequency of emergency drills on passenger ferries.
  Emergency drills are witnessed by inspectors of the Marine Safety Agency at least once a year on all passenger ferries inspected in the UK, and on UK registered ferries operating overseas. The frequency may be increased as required by the inspector in the exercise of his professional judgement.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the impact on the revenue costs of the National Air Traffic Control over(a) 10 and (b) 20 years of the PFI project for the Air Traffic Control centre at Prestwick. [25464]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Negotiations are still continuing between National Air Traffic Services Ltd., and Sky Solutions, the preferred bidder for the New Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre at Prestwick. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to make a statement on estimated costs at this time.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Emergency Relief
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the proportion of the United Kingdom aid programme devoted to emergency relief operations and disasters preparedness and prevention programmes. [24233]

  Clare Short
  The proportions of our aid programme devoted to emergency relief operations and disaster preparedness and prevention programme are set out in the table.
  19
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what money the Government plan to give(a) bilaterally and (b) multilaterally to (i) Burkina Faso, (ii) Niger, (iii) Mali and (iv) Chad for long-term disaster preparedness and food security in 1997–98 and 1998–99. [24348]

  Clare Short
  We plan to channel DFID assistance to Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso and Chad through multilateral agencies, mainly the EU, and through non-governmental organisations.

  We are in close touch with the European Commission on EU plans.

  Food Shortages
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what response she has made to the request for international food aid issued(a) by Niger in November and (b) by Burkina Faso in December. [24349]

  Clare Short
  UK assistance to these countries is provided mainly through the EU. We are in close touch with the European Commission about their plans.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations the Government have received from(a) NGOs and (b) UK officials in Burkina Faso and Niger about the impending food shortages in these countries. [24350]

  Clare Short
  We have received an official representation from one NGO on this issue. Our Embassy in Abidjan, which is accredited to Niger and Burkina Faso, has recently received a request from the Nigerien authorities for assistance which is now being considered.

  Development Assistance
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money has been given in development assistance to(a) Burkina Faso, (b) Niger, (c) Mali and (d) Chad in each year since 1992; and what percentage was (i) bilateral and (ii) multilateral assistance; and what proportion was given for (1) emergency relief and (2) long term disaster preparedness and food security. [24347]

  Clare Short
  Figures for total bilateral assistance (including emergency aid and debt relief) to Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali and Chad from financial year 1991–92 to

  Table 1b: Bilateral emergency aid 1991–92 to 1996–97

  £ thousands

  Country

  Year

  Food aid1

  Disaster relief2

  Refugee relief

  Disaster preparedness

  Total

  Chad

  1991–92

  —

  90

  —

  —

  90

  1992–93

  —

  —

  80

  —

  80

  1993–94

  —

  222

  65

  —

  287

  1994–95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995–96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996–97

  —

  14

  —

  —

  14

  Mali

  1991–92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992–93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20
  1996–97 are given in Table 1a. Further details are given in British Aid Statistics which are available in the House Library.

  Figures for bilateral emergency aid to Niger, Mali and Chad (which includes disaster relief, emergency food aid, short-term refugee relief and disaster preparedness) are given in Table lb. No bilateral emergency assistance was provided to Burkina Faso during this period.

  Figures for the imputed UK share of multilateral assistance to these countries for the calendar years 1992–95 (the latest year for which figures are available) are given in Table 2. We have no details of the proportion of this expenditure which was given for emergency relief, and long-term disaster preparedness and food security.

  Table 1a: Total bilateral assistance 1991–92 to 1996–97

  £ thousand

  Country

  Year

  Gross public expenditure1

  Burkina Faso

  1991–92

  969

  1992–93

  345

  1993–94

  248

  1994–95

  168

  1995–96

  325

  1996–97

  204

  Total 2,259

  Chad

  1991–92

  227

  1992–93

  291

  1993–94

  424

  1994–95

  110

  1995–96

  110

  1996–97

  142

  Total 1,303

  Mali

  1991–92

  1,351

  1992–93

  1,223

  1993–94

  811

  1994–95

  921

  1995–96

  1,336

  1996–97

  8,656

  Total 14,299

  Niger

  1991–92

  392

  1992–93

  373

  1993–94

  468

  1994–95

  539

  1995–96

  686

  1996–97

  454

  Total 2,912

  1 Includes non-DFID debt relief.

  21

  Table 1b: Bilateral emergency aid 1991–92 to 1996–97

  £ thousands

  Country

  Year

  Food aid1

  Disaster relief2

  Refugee relief

  Disaster preparedness

  Total

  Mali cont.

  1994–95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995–96

  —

  128

  —

  —

  128

  1996–97

  —

  23

  —

  —

  23

  Niger

  1991–92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992–93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994–95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995–96

  —

  13

  —

  —

  13

  1996–97

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 DFID uses the World Food Programme as a means of delivering emergency food aid. These amounts are recorded as bilateral food aid as DFID has control over the decision to provide such food aid to a particular destination. Regular non-emergency provisions of food aid are not included in this table.

  2 DFID uses certain UN Agencies as a means of delivering emergency assistance to individual countries. These amounts are recorded as bilateral disaster relief as DFID has influence over the use and destination of funds.

  Table 2: Imputed UK share of net multilateral oda disbursements 1992–1995

  £ millions

  of which

  Total multilateral

  EC

  UN

  Other

  Burkina

  1992

  9.2

  5.8

  0.7

  2.7

  1993

  13.4

  9.2

  0.7

  3.4

  1994

  8.7

  5.1

  0.5

  3.1

  1995

  11.5

  7.7

  0.7

  3.1

  Chad

  1992

  3.7

  1.1

  0.7

  1.9

  1993

  3.3

  0.7

  0.6

  1.9

  1994

  6.9

  4.1

  0.3

  2.6

  1995

  4.8

  2.8

  0.5

  1.6

  Mali

  1992

  9.9

  6.7

  0.9

  2.3

  1993

  9.0

  6.5

  0.8

  1.7

  1994

  10.5

  5.8

  0.5

  4.2

  1995

  12.4

  8.7

  0.7

  3.0

  Niger

  1992

  6.1

  4.1

  1.3

  0.7

  1993

  7.1

  5.5

  1.0

  0.6

  1994

  7.4

  4.8

  0.5

  2.2

  1995

  5.6

  4.3

  0.5

  0.8

  Net Official Development Assistance (oda) is an internationally comparable aid statistic.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how she intends to deploy New Deal Welfare to Work resources relating to Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement; [22735]

  (2) When she proposed to announce the results of the Government's consultation on long-term unemployment; and if she will make a statement; [22743]

  (3) if she will make statement on the New Deal Welfare to Work as it affects lone parents and people with disabilities. [22744]

  Mr. Worthington
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency, under its chief executive Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  22
  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. Norman Godman, dated 19 January 1998:

  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS 22735, 22743 AND 22744
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your questions about the New Deal and the recent consultation on long term unemployment in Northern Ireland.
  No 22735
  Northern Ireland has been allocated £140 million from the £3.5 billion being raised from the Windfall levy to fund the New Deals for young people and the long term unemployed. We estimate that 13,000 young people will enter the Gateway in the first full year of operation beginning in April this year, of which 7,000 are likely to take up one of the four New Deal options. Provision is also being made for a further 3,000 young people in the New Deal age category who would otherwise have benefited from existing training and employment programmes. Resource transfers for the latter will be made from existing programmes during 1998/99. In addition we estimate that approximately 3,000 people aged over 25 and unemployed for more than 2 years will be eligible for subsided employment.
  The allocation for the New Deal for the disabled has yet to be apportioned. The allocation for Lone Parents is mentioned below.
  No. 22743
  Work on the review of long-term unemployment was temporarily overtaken during the Autumn by the overriding priority of the New Deal. We have been examining how existing programmes for the long term unemployed could be best aligned with the New Deal while taking account of the outcome of last year's consultation exercise. I expect an announcement will be made shortly on the future shape of existing programmes and services.
  No. 22744
  An additional £9 million has been allocated to Northern Ireland to fund the New Deal for Lone Parents. From April this year, Lone Parents making a first-time claim for Income Support and whose youngest child is of school age will be offered advice and support to overcome the barriers preventing them from taking up employment. All other Lone Parents will be able to avail of this opportunity from October 1998. Personal Advisers will help Lone Parents to identify suitable after-school childcare services, advise them on in-work benefits and where appropriate, arrange pre-employment training as well as providing an in-work support service to ease the transition from Welfare to Work. Similar opportunities for the sick and disabled who are able to take up employment will mirror the arrangements in Great Britain. We will ensure that the launch of this initiative in Northern Ireland will coincide with national implementation.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Fair Employment and Equality Review
  Mr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she expects to respond to the recommendations of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights report on Fair Employment and Equality Review; and if she will make a statement. [22738]

  Mr. Worthington
  The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has provided a major report on employment equality which includes over 160 recommendations. Following consultation with those who would be directly affected by SACHR's recommendations, the Government's consideration of the recommendations is well advanced and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already indicated certain recommendations on which the Government propose to take action—clarification of the law on direct recruitment of the long-term unemployed and firmer powers against persistent discriminators. The Government will give a response to the full range of SACHR's proposals in a paper to be published early this year. Those recommendations which are accepted by the Government will be implemented as appropriate.

  Political Parties (Funding)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps her Department is taking to ensure the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the Government's proposed legislation on the funding of political parties. [22808]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  As my hon. and learned Friend will be aware the Committee on Standards in Public Life—formally the Nolan Committee, now the Neill Committee—has been asked by the Prime Minister to undertake a wide-ranging investigation into the funding of political parties. Northern Ireland will be included in this. My officials will also be keeping in contact with colleagues in the Home Office regarding Government's legislative proposals. We welcome submissions from political parties and other interested groups.

  River Pollution
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria are used to measure pollution in rivers; and which rivers fail to meet the standards. [25020]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Environment and Heritage Service, under its chief executive Mr. Robert C. Martin. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Robert C. Martin to Mr. David Trimble, dated 26 January 1998:
  As Chief Executive of Environment and Heritage Service (EHS), I am responsible for all operational aspects of the environmental policies of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. I am responding to the Parliamentary Question which you put down on 27 January 1998 regarding the criteria used to measure pollution in rivers, and the rivers which fail to meet standards.
  EHS assesses the quality of approximately 2,400 kilometres of rivers in Northern Ireland by sampling and analysing water at just under 300 monitoring stations. On the basis of the analysis results, the waters are classified as of Very Good, Good, Fairly Good, Fair,
  24
  Poor or Bad quality. The classification system employed is the General Quality Assessment (GQA) drawn up by the Environment Agency for England and Wales.
  The policy of EHS with regard to river quality is generally to manage river systems so that water quality is at least Fair under the Chemical GQA system with no downward movement between classes, and to maintain or improve water quality as required by national policy, EC Directives and international agreements. This policy was published in the report River Quality in Northern Ireland 1995 (paragraph 11). A copy of the report is attached. The Chemical GQA scheme is explained in Appendix 1 of the report.
  Under the terms of the EC Directive on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish life (the 'Freshwater Fish Directive', 78/659/EEC), approximately 1,200 kilometres of rivers have been designated as salmonid (suitable for game fish) or cyprinid (suitable for coarse fish). Designated waters are required to comply with the quality standards set out in Annex 1 of the Directive. A copy of the Directive is attached.
  In 1996, the most recent year for which data have been processed, 88 per cent of the length of rivers monitored was of Fair quality or better. Appendix A lists those rivers or reaches which fell below GQA Fair quality.
  Also in 1996, 72 per cent of the length of designated rivers complied with the requirements of the Freshwater Fish Directive. Appendix B lists those designated rivers or reaches which failed to comply.
  I trust you will find this reply helpful.

DEFENCE

  Fleet Air Arm (826 Squadron)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 November 1997,Official Report, columns 576–77, on 826 squadron, in which years since 1968 the squadron was based at (a) RNAS Culdrose, Helston, Cornwall and (b) Malta. [24540]

  Dr. Reid
  From 1968 until disbandment in 1993, 826 Naval Air Squadron was a front line Anti-submarine Warfare squadron parented by RNAS CULDROSE where it was based when not embarked or deployed. The squadron was deployed in Malta from 31 October to 12 November 1969 and 3 to 22 March 1971. This and similar information, together with that supplied on 12 November 1997,Official Report, columns 576–77, is obtainable from the Fleet Air Arm Museum.

  Land Command
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are under the command of each one star and each two star commander of Land Command United Kingdom. [24796]

  Dr. Reid
  The number of service personnel under command of two-star and one-star commanders in land Command in the United Kingdom is as follows:

  Two Stars

  Appointment

  Regular

  TA

  Total

  General Officer Commanding

  2 Division

  10,704

  17,737

  28,441

  3 Division

  8,966

  3,221

  12,187

  4 Division

  17,218

  5,702

  22,920

  5 Division

  5,335

  13,492

  18,827

  London District

  4,620

  714

  5,334

  Scotland

  2,596

  7,084

  9,680

  25

  One star

  Appointment

  Regular

  TA

  Total

  Commander

  1 Mech Bde

  6,280

  0

  6,280

  2 (SE) Bde

  2,843

  1,501

  4,344

  5 AB Bde

  4,599

  208

  4,807

  15 (NE) Bde

  2,401

  8,865

  11,266

  19 Mech Bde

  6,029

  0

  6,029

  24 Airmob Bde

  5,200

  0

  5,200

  42 (NW) Bde

  1,870

  5,690

  7,560

  43 (Wx) Bde

  1,597

  3,221

  4,818

  49 (E) Bde

  2,170

  8,852

  11,022

  51 (H) Bde

  883

  3,183

  4,066

  52 (L) Bde

  1,654

  3,862

  5,516

  143 (WM) Bde

  1,676

  3,069

  4,745

  145 (HC) Bde

  4,525

  3,980

  8,505

  160 (W) Bde

  1,630

  3,584

  5,214

  The figures for service personnel include uniformed non-regular permanent staff. The figures for two-star commands include in total some 8,000 service personnel working in headquarters and other units which are distributed throughout the United Kingdom and do not feature in the figures for one-star commands.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the proposed capital expenditure for United Kingdom Land Command 2nd Division over the next five years. [24795]

  Dr. Reid
  It has been the policy of successive Governments not to publish detailed information on the outcome of the Department's long-term costings, of which planned capital expenditure forms a part. I am, therefore, withholding the information requested under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of maintaining the (i) Land Command United Kingdom Divisional Headquarters in Edinburgh, (ii) the Brigade Headquarters at Perth and (iii) the Brigade Headquarters at Edinburgh. [24792]

  Dr. Reid
  The estimated cost of maintaining these headquarters next financial year will be:

  (i) HQ Scottish District, Edinburgh: £5,598,000

  (ii) HQ 51 Brigade, Perth: £648,000

  (iii) HQ 52 Brigade, Edinburgh: £930,000.

  These figures include pay and running costs of the headquarters, and maintenance of the buildings. In the case of HQ Scottish District, the figures include the costs of not only the Headquarters but its supporting camp.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) regular and (b) territorial army soldiers are based currently in (i) Scotland and (ii) the 2nd Division; and how many would be based in the English part of the proposed Northern District with its headquarters at Edinburgh being considered by Land Command United Kingdom. [24797]

  Dr. Reid
  Land Command has 2,596 regular and 7,084 territorial army personnel currently based in Scotland; and 10,704 regular and 17,737 territorial army personnel in the 2 Division area. A region covering the North of England would at present include some 10,258 regular and 15,730 territorial army personnel.
  26
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) service and (b) civilian personnel are employed at the Army Brigade Headquarters in (i) Perth and (ii) Edinburgh; and what is the total number of regular and territorial troops under their respective commands. [24790]

  Dr. Reid
  Headquarters 51 Brigade in Perth has an establishment of 12 Service, and nine civilian personnel; Headquarters 52 Brigade in Edinburgh, 12 Service and 15 civilian staff.

  The total established strength of Land Command units under command or administrative control of Headquarters 51 Brigade is 883 regular and 3,183 Territorial Army personnel; and of Headquarters 52 Brigade: 1,654 regular and 3,862 Territorial Army personnel.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) service and (b) civilian personnel are employed at the headquarters of 15 and 49 Army Brigades; and what is the total number of regular and territorial troops under their respective commands. [24798]

  Dr. Reid
  There are currently 33 service and 37 civilian personnel employed in the Headquarters 15 Brigade at York; and 38 service and 37 civilian personnel in the Headquarters of 49 Brigade at Chilwell. The authorised strength of units under command or administrative control of Headquarters 15 Brigade is 2,401 regular and 8,865 territorial army personnel; and of Headquarters of 49 Brigade, 2,170 regular and 8,852 territorial army personnel.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) service and (b) civilian personnel are employed at the United Kingdom Land Command Divisional Headquarters in (i) Edinburgh and (ii) York; and what is the total number of regular and territorial troops under their respective commands. [24791]

  Dr. Reid
  Headquarters Scottish District in Edinburgh has an establishment of 91 Service and 60 civilian staff. The equivalent figures for Headquarters 2 Division at York are 104 and 171 respectively. I regret that the figures for Headquarters 2 Division given in the answer from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on 16 January 1998,Official Report, column 349, excluded a number of staff who should have been included.

  The total established strength of units under command or administrative control of Scottish District is 2,596 regular and 7,084 Territorial Army personnel. The figures for 2 Division are 10,704 and 17,737 respectively.

  Defence Council Instructions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Defence Council instructions have been issued since 1 January 1996; and how many were unclassified. [24507]

  Mr. George Robertson
  A total of 1,920 Defence Council Instructions have been issued since 1 January 1996, of which 1,609 were unclassified.

  Peacekeeping Forces
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries where British peacekeeping forces are currently operating. [25008]
  27
  Dr. Reid
  United Kingdom armed forces are currently deployed in Cyprus, Iraq/Kuwait, Georgia, Bosnia/Herzegovina and Croatia on peacekeeping operations under specific United Nations mandates. UK forces are also engaged in monitoring activities in Northern and Southern Iraq and in the Gulf of Oman and the Gulf, as part of a wider coalition force to monitor Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

  Trident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions were held on the co-ordination of patrols of Trident and Triomphant submarines at the Anglo-French summit in London in November. [24606]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 22 January 1998,Official Report, column 628.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the impact of the introduction of Trident on(a) the availability of the United Kingdom's ballistic missile-carrying submarines to fire their missiles and (b) the number of submarines that can be deployed on patrol at any one time. [24602]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The introduction into service of our Trident submarines has not resulted in any change in the United Kingdom's policy of maintaining continuous deterrent patrols. Submarines on patrol are at a reduced alert state reflecting improved strategic conditions.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's present policy towards disclosing the number of nuclear warheads deployed on Trident submarines and the date they entered service; and if he will make a statement on changes in Government policy in respect of disclosing such information. [24604]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Details of the exact number of warheads deployed on our Trident submarines are covered by exemption 1 of the code of practice on access to government information relating to defence, security and international relations. The Government are considering, in the Strategic Defence Review, whether we can in future be more open about aspects of our nuclear capabilities.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of the(a) current and (b) future capacity of Russia to track and determine the whereabouts of the United Kingdom's Trident submarines when on patrol; and if he will make a statement. [24603]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Although the most modern Russian submarines might be theoretically capable of detecting UK Trident submarines at close range, the operating arrangements for UK Trident submarines are designed to ensure that they remain undetected.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of warheads currently deployed on each of the United Kingdom's Trident submarines relative to the original estimates of the number of warheads required. [24605]
  28
  Mr. George Robertson
  The original requirement for Trident was drawn up at the height of the Cold War based on 16 Trident C4 missiles on each submarine capable of carrying a total of 128 warheads. The previous Government announced in 1994 that they would not deploy more than 96 warheads on each Trident submarine. We are considering future warhead requirements in the Strategic Defence Review.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the relative accuracy of the Trident D5 missile against the Polaris/Chevaline system; and what are his Department's requirements in respect of the accuracy of nuclear weapons. [24594]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Trident missile system is inherently more accurate than Polaris reflecting technological advances in missile system design. The greater accuracy of Trident has allowed us to plan on our Trident force also undertaking the sub-strategic role allowing the withdrawal of our air delivered WE-177 nuclear bombs without replacement. Details of the performance of Trident are covered by exemption l of the code of practice on access to government information relating to defence, security and international relations.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the warheads on the Trident D5 missile deployed by the United Kingdom are independently targetable. [24596]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Trident warheads are independently targetable within constraints imposed by the missile system and its trajectory.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the relative capability of the anti-missile defence technology employed in the Trident D5 missile system against that of Polaris/ Chevaline. [24597]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Chevaline and Trident utilised different technologies to overcome anti-ballistic missile systems precluding direct comparisons. We are satisfied that Trident could meet any foreseeable requirements against such systems.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the range of the Trident D5 missile system as deployed by the United Kingdom relative to that of the Polaris system. [24595]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Polaris missiles had a range of up to 2,500 miles. The maximum range of the Trident D5 missile is in the region of 6,000 miles. The additional range of the Trident missile ensures that our strategic submarines can operate within a wider area and are therefore less vulnerable to detection.

  Nuclear Arms Control Treaties
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which nuclear arms control treaties that place restrictions on the level of nuclear weapons capability measure that capability in terms of megatonnage. [24592]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We are not aware of any nuclear arms control treaties that place restrictions on the level of nuclear weapons capability which measure that capability in terms of megatonnage. However, the 1974 Treaty on the Limitation of Underground Nuclear Weapon Tests and the 1976 Treaty on Underground Nuclear
  29
  Explosions for Peaceful Purposes limited the yield of underground nuclear weapon test explosions and other underground nuclear explosions. These were both bilateral Treaties between the United States and the Soviet Union, and had no other members. Both are effectively superseded by the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, signed by all the Nuclear Weapon States, which bans any nuclear weapon test explosion and any other nuclear explosion in any environment.

  Nuclear Co-operation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the last four years(a) representatives and (b) contractors of the Delegation Generale pour l'Armement, and the Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique have visited (i) the United Kingdom to discuss the furtherance of nuclear co-operation and (ii) the atomic weapons establishments at (1) Aldermaston, (2) Burghfield, (3) Cardiff and (4) Foulness. [24608]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Details of the total number of visits are as follows. More precise information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Financial year

  Aldermaston

  Burghfield

  Cardiff

  Foulness

  1993–94

  4

  3

  0

  0

  1994–95

  3

  1

  0

  1

  1995–96

  4

  3

  0

  1

  1996–97

  8

  0

  0

  0

  April 1997 to 21 January 1998

  6

  0

  0

  0

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what activities have been undertaken by the Anglo-French Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy and Doctrine since May 1997; [24609]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the Anglo-French Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy and Doctrine approved at the Anglo-French summit in London in November. [24610]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Discussions within the Franco-British Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy and Doctrine and reports of the Commission to Ministers are confidential between our two Governments and are covered by exemption 1 of the code of practice on access to government information relating to defence, security and international relations.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the last four years members of the French armed forces have visited the United Kingdom to discuss nuclear co-operation. [24607]

  Mr. George Robertson
  My Department has regular contacts with members of the French Armed Forces and French officials on defence nuclear matters. These include meetings of the Franco-British Joint Nuclear Commissions, biannual staff talks and visits to the United Kingdom on an ad-hoc basis.

  Sub-strategic Nuclear Capability
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of the United Kingdom's sub-strategic nuclear capability; and if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's future sub-strategic nuclear capability. [24601]

  Mr. George Robertson
  A sub-strategic capability enhances deterrence by demonstrating that the United Kingdom has a range of nuclear options available for self-defence in extreme circumstances. Our sub-strategic capability will in future be provided solely by our Trident force.

  Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account his Department takes of the relationship between megatonnage and destructive effect when assessing warheads of different explosive yields. [24600]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Assessments of our deterrence requirements take into account a range of factors that might affect the destructive effect that would result from the use of a nuclear weapon, including the explosive yield.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of the comparative explosive yields of the warheads currently carried on strategic ballistic missiles deployed by Russia relative to those deployed in the 1960s. [24593]

  Mr. George Robertson
  By the end of the 1960s, we assess the Russian strategic ballistic missile force comprised (approximately) 1,050 single warhead Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) with a total yield of 1,380 megatonnes (Mt), and 215 single warhead Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) with a total yield of 395 Mt. The total explosive yield of both was 1,775 Mt.

  By contrast, in 1997, the Russian strategic ballistic missile force comprised (approximately) 755 ICBMs with single and multiple (3,580) warheads giving a total yield of 2,330 Mt, and 524 SLBMs with multiple (2,314) warheads giving a total yield of 670 Mt. The total explosive yield of both was 3,000 Mt.

  Anti-ballistic Missile Defence Systems
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many anti-ballistic missile defence systems capable of use against strategic ballistic missiles are deployed world-wide, where they are located; how many launchers are involved; and what is his Department's assessment of how soon other states will be capable of deploying such defences. [24599]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Russia has the only deployed strategic ballistic missile defence system. This has up to 100 launchers in the vicinity of Moscow. No other state is known to be developing such systems.

  Agricultural Holdings
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the regional lists of his Department's agricultural holdings, indicating respectively,(a) the number of hectares used for agricultural production and (b) the number of agricultural tenancy agreements involved. [24694]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of agricultural holdings by Region for my Department is given in the table:

  Number of tenancies

  Number of hectares

  Southern Eastern Region

  78

  2,944

  South Western Region

  155

  24,230

  Eastern Region

  123

  7,342

  Northern Region (including Wales)

  186

  3,863

  Scotland

  13

  1,933

  Total

  555

  40,312

  Anglo-Bahrain Defence Talks
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest Anglo-Bahrain defence talks. [25031]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The last round of UK-Bahrain defence talks were held on the 18–19 November 1997 in Bahrain. The UK delegation was led by my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. The talks addressed issues of mutual defence interest and bilateral defence relations.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications of the Amsterdam Treaty for the future of the Western European Union. [25033]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Treaty of Amsterdam provides for closer practical co-operation between the Western European Union and the European Union but makes clear that the two organisations will remain separate unless all Member States, in accordance with their national constitutional requirements, agree otherwise.

  Missile Defence (Russia)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's current assessment of the efficacy of Russia's missile defence system around Moscow; what is the extent of the geographical area protected by that system; and what is his assessment of Russia's future modernisation plans for that system. [24598]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We assess that the Moscow Anti Ballistic Missile system comprising the short range GAZELLE and longer range GORGON interceptors remains operational and effective. The range of GORGON extends to several hundred kilometres. Deployment of any significant upgrades in the near future appears unlikely.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many project licence applications for animal procedures at Porton Down have been(a) approved unamended for submission to the Home Office, (b) approved in amended form for submission to the Home Office and (c) rejected for each year from 1990 to date. [24832]

  Mr. Spellar
  These are matters 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 26 January 1998:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) I have been asked to reply to your question about the progress of project licence applications for animal procedures at Porton Down submitted to the Home Office in each year since 1990.
  DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) at Porton Down has had a formal, internal, ethical review process for all project licence applications since March 1995. Prior to that date the review process was conducted on a much less formal basis which was not documented. I can, therefore, only provide you with accurate details of the progress of licence applications, prior to submission to the Home Office, since 1995.
  Each project licence application is submitted to an internal, peer group, ethical review meeting which is open to all members of staff. After hearing the licence application details the staff discuss both scientific and ethical issues. The review can result in an application being held over subject to revisions being made, approved without further amendment for submission to the Home Office or it is possible that a licence application could be completely rejected.
  Since the internal ethical process was formalised in 1995, no applications have been totally rejected prior to submission to the Home Office, but all have been amended to a greater or lesser extent. The table below shows the number of project licence applications submitted to the Home Office since March 1995.

  Year

  Number of applications

  1995

  6

  1996

  11

  1997

  13

  I hope this is helpful.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reviews he has undertaken into the location of search and rescue helicopters in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [24584]

  Mr. Spellar
  The provision of search and rescue capability, along with every other aspect of defence, is being considered as part of the Strategic Defence Review. No decisions have yet been taken.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 31 July 1997,Official Report, column 472, on RAF Menwith Hill, if a copy of the report resulting from the internal US review was sent to his Department; and which Department within the United States Government carried out this review. [24542]
  33
  Dr. Reid
  The review was conducted by the National Security Agency and looked into US security practices at the site. As such, there was no requirement for the report to be made available to Her Majesty's Government. However, my Department was made aware of the broad recommendations of the report at the time.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the European Commission report Assessing the Technologies of Political Control, and its application to RAF Menwith Hill. [24579]

  Dr. Reid
  I am aware of the report referred to by my hon. Friend, which is not a European Commission report but one that has been prepared for, although not endorsed in any way by, the European Parliament. I have no comments to make on the contents of the report, other than to say that no activity considered inimical to British interests is, or would be, permitted at RAF Menwith Hill, which operates with the full knowledge and consent of Her Majesty's Government.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to establish a defence diversification agency or similar organisation; and if he will make a statement. [24838]

  Mr. Spellar
  I expect to announce soon the publication date of a consultative Green Paper setting out our proposals for defence diversification.

  Nuclear Weapons (Transport)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 November 1997,Official Report, columns 580–81, when his Department expects to produce a new edition of the Local Authority and Emergency Service Information on Nuclear Weapon Transport Contingency Plans. [24541]

  Dr. Reid
  It is planned that the 3rd edition of the Local Authority and Emergency Service Information on Nuclear Weapon Transport Contingency Plans (LAESI) will be published this year.

TREASURY

  Corporate Taxation
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of corporate taxation. [25282]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  We are consulting widely with business and other interested parties on the proposed changes to corporation tax announced in the pre-Budget report. The consultation period ends on 30 January 1998. We shall then take decisions in the light of the responses received.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if officials were present at the 34
  time agreement was reached at Amsterdam on what voting arrangements will operate for opting into the Schengen area. [25134]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Officials do not attend formal sessions of European Councils. As far as handling of this issue at Amsterdam is concerned, I refer the hon. Member to previous statements I have made to the House, in particular my answer to his question on 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 466.

  Death Penalty
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dependencies of the United Kingdom that(a) have legislative provision for and (b) carry out the death penalty. [24875]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  All the Dependent Territories have legislative provision for the death penalty, but, with the exception of Bermuda and St. Helena, only in respect of those offences which remain capital offences in the UK. Like the UK, none carries out the death penalty. In Bermuda, where murder remains a capital offence, the death penalty has not been carried out since 1977. In St. Helena there is still provision for the death penalty for piracy.

  Algeria
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press for an international investigation into(a) massacres and (b) human rights abuses in Algeria. [24841]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I pressed the Algerians to accept a visit by the UN Special Rapporteurs for Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions and for Torture during the EU Troika visit to Algiers on 19–20 January. We regret that they were not ready to agree to this.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last had discussions with the Algerian authorities about the human rights situation in Algeria. [24843]

  Mr. Fatchett
  When I visited Algiers from 19–20 January with my Austrian and Luxembourg colleagues we discussed human rights with the Foreign Minister, Mr. Attaf, and the Prime Minister, Mr. Ouyahia.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had on(a) the future of and (b) support to St. Helena. [25028]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Six St. Helena Councillors visited Britain late last year at my invitation. During their visit they had discussions on the future of the island with my noble Friend Baroness Symons, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and myself.

  A review of policy towards the Dependent Territories, including St. Helena is underway. Separately a team of Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for

  35
  International Development officials are in St. Helena now to review the Country Policy Plan which shapes our aid support.

  Club of Three
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the aims of Club of Three; what was the United Kingdom's financial contribution to the meeting of September last, and what arrangements have been made for the projected London meeting of mid-1998. [25129]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Club of Three is an informal private gathering, not a governmental or intergovernmental organisation. It would not therefore be appropriate for me to make a statement on its aims. We did not make a financial contribution to the meeting in September 1997. The arrangements for meetings are a matter for the organisers.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the participants in past Club of Three meetings; and if(a) minutes or (b) conference papers are circulated or deposited. [25128]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Club of Three is an informal private gathering, not a governmental or intergovernmental organisation. We are not therefore in a position to answer the question.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has received concerning the expected shipment of high-level nuclear waste from Cherbourg to Japan. [25060]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Formal representations on the high level nuclear waste shipment presently sailing from France to Japan have been received from the governments of Colombia and the Dominican Republic. Our diplomatic posts have relayed to them, and to the governments of all those countries on its route, details of the voyage and the measures taken to ensure the safety of the ship and its cargo.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Television Licence
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans his Department has to review the present levels of television licence charges; and if he will make a statement. [24653]

  Mr. Fisher
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 11 December 1997,Official Report column 636, the Government have considered the five-year television licence fee formula announced by the previous Government in December 1996, and have concluded that it remains appropriate. The formula, based on advice from independent consultants, provides for cumulative fee increases of just below RPI for the five years from April 1997. The RPI-linkage in individual
  36
  years reflects anticipated spending pressures and, in the latter years, the benefits of BBC efficiency savings and the development of alternative sources of revenue.

  The Government's Agreement with the BBC provides for a review of the arrangements for funding the BBC after 2002. The Government intend to conduct such a review well before that date and to include in that review a detailed consideration of the question of concessions.

  Parthenon Marbles
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many E-mail messages were received in his Department on 5 December calling for the return of the Parthenon marbles to Greece. [24820]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 23 January 1998): On 5 December the Department received 2,666 such E-mails.

  Public Buildings (Design)
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress he has made in his plans for an inter-departmental strategy to ensure good quality design in public buildings. [24571]

  Mr. Fisher
  Departments are responsible for their own building programmes and will recognise that good design brings hard economic benefits in better use of space and in low energy and maintenance costs. Well-designed buildings contribute to the public realm and improve the quality of our lives. The main commissioning bodies meet in the Government Construction Clients Panel to share their experience on all aspects of becoming better clients. My colleagues have agreed that this and other review bodies must take account of design quality as a factor in achieving value for money.

  Performing Arts
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has for increasing the proportion of lottery finance for the Arts which is made available for running costs, with particular reference to the performing arts. [23524]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Government have made it clear in the White Paper "The People's Lottery" that they intend that Lottery money should be used increasingly to focus on people—and in the arts on revenue support for the art and artists—rather than buildings and capital developments.

  HMS Cavalier
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what export licences(a) currently apply to HMS Cavalier and (b) have been applied for; [24416]

  (2) what valuation has been placed on HMS Cavalier. [24415]

  Mr. Fisher
  If HMS Cavalier were to be exported from the UK it would first require an export licence from the Department of Trade and Industry. Depending on its value, it might also need one from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. It is not yet clear whether the vessel requires an export licence from my Department since there is no firm value for the ship. Whether or not licences have been applied for is commercially
  37
  confidential information. If it is decided that a licence from my Department is required, HMS Cavalier will be subject to the normal considerations as to whether one should be granted or the decision deferred.

  Film Festivals
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the film festivals(a) he and (b) the Minister for Film and Tourism have attended since 1 May 1997. [25550]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have attended the Cannes and London film festivals since 1 May 1997. My right, hon. Friend the Minister for Film and Tourism has attended the Cannes, Venice, Edinburgh, Dinard, London, Bristol and Sundance film festivals.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many official engagements the Minister for Sport has undertaken since his appointment(a) in London and (b) outside London. [22669]

  Mr. Banks
  Since my appointment as Sports Minister, I have attended 81 official engagements in London, and 23 official engagements outside London.

  The number of racial incidents reported to each force in 1989 and each year since 1994

  Forces

  19891

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Avon and Somerset

  71

  159

  286

  318

  310

  Bedfordshire

  25

  60

  41

  43

  77

  Cambridgeshire

  60

  100

  75

  160

  141

  Cheshire

  0

  98

  62

  27

  92

  City of London

  0

  1

  6

  2

  10

  Cleveland

  55

  50

  62

  112

  68

  Cumbria

  4

  17

  24

  27

  37

  Derbyshire

  20

  221

  291

  192

  208

  Devon and Cornwall

  3

  14

  44

  73

  82

  Dorset

  12

  25

  37

  41

  67

  Durham

  23

  32

  26

  23

  24

  Dyfed-Powys

  0

  0

  3

  23

  18

  Essex

  26

  133

  127

  178

  116

  Gloucestershire

  20

  28

  37

  34

  34

  Greater Manchester

  40

  658

  637

  776

  595

  Gwent

  4

  21

  22

  32

  60

  Hampshire

  2n/k

  212

  210

  279

  178

  Hertfordshire

  49

  117

  183

  234

  295

  Humberside

  52

  79

  75

  58

  55

  Kent

  81

  160

  173

  129

  256

  Lancashire

  93

  262

  222

  320

  337

  Leicestershire

  190

  315

  366

  270

  299

  Lincolnshire

  2

  4

  2

  0

  7

  Merseyside

  123

  155

  131

  130

  162

  Metropolitan Police

  2,697

  5,124

  5,480

  5,011

  5,621

  Norfolk

  22

  33

  39

  41

  56

  North Wales

  1

  2

  3

  5

  4

  North Yorkshire

  6

  22

  30

  37

  43

  Northamptonshire

  72

  102

  146

  214

  195

  Northumbria

  217

  405

  508

  475

  488

  Nottinghamshire

  27

  264

  259

  362

  330

  South Wales

  94

  400

  517

  443

  357

  South Yorkshire

  52

  115

  156

  194

  169

  Staffordshire

  44

  117

  164

  253

  225

  Suffolk

  62

  73

  73

  74

  74

  Surrey

  7

  79

  39

  77

  55

  Sussex

  141

  214

  247

  263

  260

  Thames Valley

  128

  166

  233

  266

  233

  38
  Of the engagements attended: 45 are speaking engagements at conferences, photocalls and launches of sports centres, 15 are official lunches and dinners, nine are engagements which involve the disabled, 17 are awards ceremonies and 18 are attendance at various sporting occasions.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Racial Incidents
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by police area, the number of reported racial incidents in 1989 and each year since 1994 for which figures are available. [24664]

  Mr. Michael
  Racial incidents figures are submitted by each police force to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary at the end of each financial year. The incidents are recorded under the Association of Chief Police Officers' definition of a racial incident:"any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation, or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person".

  The information requested is given in the table:

  39

  The number of racial incidents reported to each force in 1989 and each year since 1994

  Forces

  19891

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Warwickshire

  21

  87

  114

  99

  66

  West Mercia

  6

  100

  35

  46

  64

  West Midlands

  169

  487

  375

  489

  725

  West Yorkshire

  306

  244

  254

  355

  623

  Wiltshire

  19

  51

  64

  37

  35

  England and Wales total

  5,044

  11,006

  11,878

  12,222

  13,151

  Provincial total

  2,347

  5,882

  6,398

  7,211

  7,530

  1 Until 1993–94 figures were submitted to HMIC every calendar year.

  2 The figure for Hampshire in 1989 is not known.

  It is difficult to be precise about the extent to which rising figures may be partly due to the increasing willingness among ethnic minority communities to report these incidents and an increasing confidence that the police take these matters seriously. Police forces are also taking steps to increase the reporting rate of racial incidents taking place and to discover when and where they are taking place and on whom. Such developments are also likely to be influencing both public confidence and the number of offenders reported.

  Internet (Racially Inflammatory Material)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of the Internet for the promotion of anti-semitic propaganda. [24661]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government deplore the distribution—via the Internet or any other medium—of anti-semitic or racially inflammatory material.

  Material passing over the Internet is subject to the same laws, providing that it falls within our jurisdiction, as material being distributed by other means. The Public Order Act 1986 makes provision to deal with material which is threatening, abusive or insulting and intended or likely to stir up racial hatred.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what experimentation procedures are undergone by animals classified as experiencing the most severe category of suffering and pain. [24418]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the assessment of severity is provided in the Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, sections 4.4 to 4.20. Section 4.11 states that:"Procedures will be regarded as being of substantial severity if they result in a major departure from the animals' usual state of health or well-being. These are likely to include acute toxicity procedures where significant morbidity or death is an endpoint; some efficacy tests of antimicrobial agents and vaccines; some models of disease and major surgery where significant post-operative suffering may result".

  The assessment of severity is a complex matter, as it involves not only the type of procedure involved but the effect of any measures that can be taken to reduce suffering—the use of analgesics or anaesthesia, for example.
  40
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals were classified as experiencing the most severe category of pain and suffering during animal experiments in each of the last three years. [24417]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Figures for the number of animals which suffer adverse effects in each of the severity bandings are not collected.

  The number of projects classified as being of substantial severity is published annually in the report of the Animal Procedures Committee. Of the 3,869 project licences in force on 31 December 1996, 66 (1.7 per cent.) were classified as being substantial. The figures for 31 December 1997 are currently being collated.

  Not all animals used in substantial projects will, however, suffer substantial adverse effects, and some animals used in projects classed as being of mild or moderate severity may suffer substantial adverse effects. Section 4.14 of the Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 explains that:
  "The assessment of the overall severity of a project will reflect the cumulative effect of each procedure; the number of animals used in each procedure; the frequency of use of each procedure; the proportion of animals that are expected to be exposed to the upper limits of severity in each procedure; and the length of time that the animals might be exposed to the upper limits of severity".

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) announced and (b) unannounced visits have been made by inspectors to Porton Down under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 for each year from 1990 to date. [24833]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of visits(a) to the Chemical and Biological Defence (CBD) establishment at Porton Down, (b) to Departments within CDB that were by appointment and (c) to Departments on an unannounced basis were as follows:

  Year

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  1990

  5

  15

  11

  1991

  9

  34

  10

  1992

  8

  25

  11

  1993

  7

  13

  12

  1994

  6

  9

  5

  1995

  13

  16

  50

  1996

  13

  20

  30

  1997

  11

  18

  31

  Handguns (Compensation)
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total paid out to date in compensation under the terms of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 compensation scheme; what are the projections for future expenditure; and what additional compensation will be given to those whose payments have been delayed. [24511]

  Mr. Michael
  As at 16 January, £30.3 million had been paid. The estimate for the total cost of the compensation schemes under the two 1997 Acts, including administration costs, is £166 million. No payments have been "delayed". It has been made clear from the start that the size and complexity of the compensation arrangements would make this a long process and this Government, like the previous Government, argued in the debates that no guarantees could be given that payments would be made within a particular timescale. The House accepted that position, and accordingly there are no arrangements in the schemes for the payment of additional sums if claims are not settled within a given time.

  Everything possible is being done to process claims in the shortest possible time. Weekend overtime is being worked, casual staff have been appointed and data processing staff have been introduced to enter the payment details on to the computer system, allowing the trained examiners more time to spend on processing the claims.

  We can understand the impatience of those awaiting settlement of their claims, but the position is not helped by the volume of inquiries pressing for early payment, which simply divert staff from their primary task of processing claims, thereby hampering the efforts to reduce turn-round times.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will defer the surrender date of handguns under the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, until all outstanding compensation has been paid for handguns surrendered under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997; [25198]

  (2) what action he is taking to expedite the payment of compensation for owners of handguns; and if he will pay interest on all sums not paid within 30 days of surrender. [25072]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: It has been made clear from the start that the size and complexity of the compensation arrangements would make this a long process, and this Government, like the previous Government, argued in the debates that no guarantees could be given that payments would be made within a particular timescale. The House accepted that position, and accordingly there are no arrangements in the schemes for the payment of additional sums if claims are not settled within a given time.

  Everything possible is being done to process claims in the shortest possible time. Weekend overtime is being worked, casual staff have been appointed and data processing staff have been introduced to enter the payment details on to the computer system, allowing the trained examiners more time to spend on processing the claims.
  42
  We can understand the impatience of those awaiting settlement of their claims, but the position is not helped by the volume of inquiries pressing for early payment, which simply divert staff from their primary task of processing claims, thereby hampering the efforts to reduce turn-round times.

  Arrangements for the surrender of small-calibre pistols during February are well advanced and by now most certificate holders and dealers will have received details about where and when to hand in their firearms. There are no plans to defer the surrender period. There is no reason to do so and it would cause massive confusion for the police, for shooters and for the general public.

  Police (Disciplinary Inquiries)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list by police authority the number of police officers suspended from duty(a) pending and (b) during a disciplinary inquiry in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97; [24588]

  (2) if he will list by police authority the average length of time taken in respect of inquiries into police discipline since 1995; [24589]

  (3) if he will list by police authority the number of police officers taking early retirement (a) during and (b) following an inquiry into disciplinary matters relating to them since 1995; [24590]

  (4) if he will list the cost of inquiries into disciplinary matters and complaints against the police by police authority in (a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [24587]

  Mr. Michael
  Police disciplinary and complaints procedures are managed locally by individual police forces. At present, the information requested is not available centrally. I have today requested this information from each of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. When I have the responses, I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  New Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new prisons are at present under construction; where they are sited; and when they are due to be completed. [25436]

  Ms Quin
  There are no prisons under construction at present: construction of the most recently built prison, Her Majesty's Prison Lowdham Grange, which is situated eight miles north-east of Nottingham, was completed on 23 January. It is due to receive prisoners on 16 February 1998.

  Prisoners (Drug Tests)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the results of random mandatory drug testing of prisoners for April to June 1997 and July to September 1997, showing for each establishment the number of tests done, the number of prisoners testing positive for opiates and the number of prisoners testing positive for cannabis in the 13 prisons in which an interview based survey about injectable drug use and HIV risk behaviours was carried out in 1994–95. [25056]
  43
  Mr. George Howarth
  The tables give the results of random mandatory drug tests for the 13 prisons in which the survey about injectable drug use and HIV risk behaviours was carried out in 1994–95.

  Number of tests

  Number positive for opiates

  Number positive for cannabis

  April to June 1997

  Belmarsh

  155

  3

  4

  Bristol

  170

  4

  39

  Cardiff

  215

  2

  57

  Highpoint

  51

  3

  13

  Kingston

  35

  0

  2

  Lancaster

  72

  8

  23

  Liverpool

  219

  22

  32

  Maidstone

  173

  8

  28

  Stafford

  193

  9

  38

  Wealstun1

  149

  9

  45

  Whitemoor

  153

  10

  21

  Woodhill

  198

  9

  50

  Wymott

  168

  18

  12

  July to September 1997

  Belmarsh

  162

  0

  10

  Bristol

  170

  11

  36

  Cardiff

  119

  1

  30

  Highpoint

  0

  0

  0

  Kingston

  24

  0

  3

  Lancaster

  67

  9

  22

  Liverpool

  360

  38

  49

  Maidstone

  166

  5

  13

  Stafford

  155

  11

  18

  Wealstun1

  168

  4

  44

  Whitemoor

  152

  3

  9

  Woodhill

  195

  13

  36

  Wymott

  122

  6

  10

  1 Rudgate has amalgamated with Thorp Arch to form Wealstun prison since the survey was conducted.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the results from random mandatory drugs testing of prisoners for April to June 1997 and July to September 1997, showing for each establishment the number of tests done, the number of prisoners testing positive for opiates and the number of prisoners testing positive for cannabis, for the eight prisons that are participating in willing anonymous salivary HIV/Hepatitis B surveillance studies. [25055]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The tables give the results of random mandatory drug tests for the eight prisons that are participating in the willing anonymous salivary HIV/Hepatitis B surveillance studies.

  Number of tests

  Number positive for opiates

  Number positive for cannabis

  April to June 1997

  Dartmoor

  194

  5

  39

  Feltham

  136

  2

  27

  Ford

  152

  5

  22

  Holloway

  146

  4

  10

  Leyhill

  127

  2

  17

  Littlehey

  161

  1

  31

  Manchester

  349

  27

  63

  Wakefield

  165

  0

  6

  44

  Number of tests

  Number positive for opiates

  Number positive for cannabis

  July to September 1997

  Dartmoor

  168

  5

  21

  Feltham

  129

  1

  25

  Ford

  139

  1

  8

  Holloway

  163

  13

  7

  Leyhill

  126

  4

  15

  Littlehey

  196

  6

  35

  Manchester

  333

  23

  33

  Wakefield

  190

  0

  4

  Special Constables
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the role of special constables. [24583]

  Mr. Michael
  Special constables are unpaid volunteers who serve as police officers in their spare time. They are fully trained and have the same powers as a regular constable.

  The Special Constabulary exist to assist the work of regular officers, not to replace them. They are an additional resource, which also encourage the public to get involved in tackling crime. Special constables are principally deployed on foot patrol, providing a higher visibility on the streets, but they also undertake a wide variety of policing duties.

  The Government fully value the contribution made by these men and women who give up their free time for the benefit of their communities. They play an important role in the partnership between the police and the public in the fight against crime. Building on that partnership is fundamental to the Government's proposals for joint action by police and local authorities in reducing crime and disorder. We are taking forward the recommendations of the Special Constabulary Working Group to improve conditions of service, training and the equipment of special constables.

  12–19 January was also dedicated as "Specials Week" and I visited police forces around the country raising the profile of special constables and encouraging people to volunteer. During "Specials Week", I visited projects in South Yorkshire, Cleveland, Hampshire, Essex, Northamptonshire, Greater Manchester, Gloucestershire and South Wales. I also took part in a recruitment seminar held by Cumbria Constabulary via video link. This launched a three-month long advertising campaign to promote the Special Constabulary. At each event, I was impressed by the demeanour of the Special Constabulary and the very positive relationship they enjoy with regular police officers.

  Prison Visitors (Illegal Drugs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons visiting prisons during 1997 were(a) found to be in possession of illegal drugs and (b) subsequently charged with an offence; and if he will make a statement. [25437]
  45
  Mr. George Howarth
  In 1997, 1,179 arrests by the police of people visiting prisons in connection with possible drug-related offences were reported to Prison Service headquarters. The Prison Service does not record what action was subsequently taken by the police.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications he has received for licences for research into the therapeutic use of natural cannabis in the last five years; how many have been granted; and to which bodies; and if he will indicate whether each application is for clinical or laboratory research. [24524]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Five; all were granted as listed. Licences do not distinguish between clinical and laboratory research.

  Professor A. Smith, University of Oxford

  Mr. D. Todd, James Paget Hospital

  Dr. R. Pertwee, University of Aberdeen

  Dr. P. Taylor, Bethlem Hospital

  Dr. A. Holdcroft, Hammersmith Hospital.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what form the cannabis supplied by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and the University of London is made available to medical researchers. [24666]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I understand that the Laboratory of the Government Chemist no longer supplies cannabis in any form to medical researchers, although it has done in the past. The University of London has supplied cannabis extract in capsule form to one medical researcher.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 1998,Official Report, columns 326–27, in respect of the licences granted for medical research of cannabis, if he will make it his policy to collect information on the results of this research. [24735]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No. This is not a licensing requirement.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 1998,Official Report, column 326, concerning the origin of supplies of cannabis, if the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and the University of London grow their own cannabis plants. [24730]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Yes.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 1998,Official Report, column 326, what steps are taken by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist and the University of London to ensure that cannabis offered to medical researchers is of a consistent standard and quality. [25116]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Standard and quality are not matters for the Home Office.

  Police Misconduct
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he proposes to make to the current position whereby the police investigate allegations of police misconduct. [24668]

  Mr. Michael
  We are committed to finding ways of increasing public confidence in the investigation of complaints against the police including examining the scope for introducing a greater degree of independence into the system. We are currently considering these issues in the light of the Home Affairs Committee's recently published report on the police complaints and discipline system.

  Voting Methods
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to modernise voting methods. [24799]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have set up a Working Party on Electoral Procedures which will examine and review current electoral arrangements, including legislation where relevant, in the light of the recent general election. The Working Party began this review under my chairmanship last week and will be advising the Home Secretary on recommended changes to electoral practice in due course.

  Young Offenders Institution, Colchester
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list those offences for which offenders have been sentenced to the Young Offenders Institution in Colchester indicating the number of offenders in each category; [24573]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Young Offenders Institution in Colchester; and if he will make a statement; [24572]

  (3) how many offenders have completed their service at the Colchester Young Offenders Institution; and how many of those have since been charged with a further offence. [24574]

  Ms Quin
  (i) The information requested is shown in the table:

  Offences committed by young offenders at Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution (HMYOI) Colchester

  Principal Offence

  Number of young offenders

  Burglary

  21

  Robbery

  16

  Actual bodily harm

  6

  Grievous bodily harm

  5

  Wounding

  4

  Theft

  4

  Arson

  3

  Affray

  3

  Car crime

  3

  Possession of drugs with intent to supply

  1

  (ii) At 20 January 1998, 36 young offenders had completed their sentence at Colchester YOI, and of those one is known to have been reconvicted.
  47
  (iii) I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Castlepoint (Ms Butler) on 22 January 1998, Official Report, columns 639–40.

  The Institute of Criminology at Cambridge has been carrying out an assessment of the experimental regime at Colchester YOI. Preliminary results show that the regime can have a positive effect upon the attitudes of young offenders but do not prove that it deters young offenders from reoffending. However, the test of the effectiveness of the regime will not be known until the recidivism rate on all those who have been released from Colchester is known and cannot be fully known until a considerable period of time has elapsed.

  Gaming Board
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects places on the Gaming Board to become vacant; and what procedure will be adopted for filling such vacancies. [24284]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Chairman of the Gaming Board is due to retire on 30 June 1998. The present terms of the other four Board members will expire on 31 December 1998, 31 August 1999, 31 December 2000 and 31 July 2001 respectively.

  In dealing with appointments to the Board, the Government observe the Code of Practice for public Appointments Procedures. A competition is currently being held to fill the Chairman's post.

  MI5 Files
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will release for public scrutiny the files held by MI5 relating to the Zinoviev letter. [24747]

  Mr. Straw
  The Security Service recently released its records dating from 1909 to 1918 to the Public Records Office. Work has now started within the Service on the review of its files relating to the Second World War, and in due course attention will turn to the records surviving from the inter war period.

  Primates (Imports)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the(a) longest and (b) average recorded journey time endured by non-human primates imported into the United Kingdom for research purposes during (1) 1996 and (2) 1997 from (i) China, (ii) Mauritius, (iii) Indonesia and (iv) Philippines. [24748]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Precise journey times are not available for 1996. When new measures were introduced early in 1996. The Home Office required only that an estimate of total journey time be provided prior to each acquisition and that, after each acquisition, confirmation be provided that the importation was in accordance with what had been authorised.

  The information requested is as follows:

  China:
  1996: Longest—54 hours; Average—not available.

  Mauritius:
  1996 Longest—31 hours; Average—not available.
  1997: Longest—38 hours; Average—31 hours.
  48
  Indonesia:
  1996: Longest—58 hours; Average—not available.
  1997: No importations.

  Philippines:
  1996: Longest—38 hours; Average—not available.
  1997: Longest—38 hours; Average—not available.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will incorporate into section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 measures to deal with the adverse effects which may be encountered by non-human primates during transport prior to arrival in the United Kingdom. [24745]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 requires that in determining whether and on what terms to grant a project licence, the likely adverse effects on the animals involved be weighed against the benefits likely to accrue. This is the cost-benefit assessment. It does not provide for measures to deal with adverse effects.

  There are no plans to amend section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Adverse effects likely to arise from the journey can be considered when carrying out the cost-benefit assessment. In advising the Secretary of State on the acceptability of overseas sources of non-human primates, the Home Office Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate takes into account any adverse effects which may arise during transport.

  Financial Regulation (Islands)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the terms of reference of the review of the system of financial regulation in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands enable it to recommend changes in the law of these territories by means other than legislation in Tynwald and the States. [25413]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is not part of the terms of reference for the reviewer to recommend changes in the Island law. The review is basically a mapping exercise to establish clearly with the Islands how the Islands' current laws and regulatory systems operate in practice.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he had with the Isle of Man government and with the authorities in Jersey and in Guernsey before his announcement on 20 January of a review of the financial legislation in Crown dependencies. [25415]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Official letters from the Director of the Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate of the Home Office were sent on 19 January to the Chief Secretary to the Isle of Man Government, the Lieutenant Governor of Guernsey and the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey (copied to the Bailiff of Jersey in the absence of the Lieutenant Governor) telling them about the review and giving its proposed terms of reference.

  Shortly before this, Home Office officials had informed the Lieutenant Governors of Guernsey and the Isle of Man, and the Bailiff of Jersey informally and in confidence about the review so that they could brief themselves in advance of the official notification.
  49
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has been appointed by the government of the Isle of Man and the authorities in the Channel Islands to participate alongside Mr. Andrew Edwards in the review of financial regulation in the Crown dependencies; and if their status in the conduct of that review will be the same as that of Mr. Edwards. [25414]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Mr. Edwards has been engaged as a consultant to conduct the review of financial legislation and regulatory systems in the Crown dependencies. The Island authorities will arrange for him to see all the officials and practitioners in each Island who can be of assistance to him. They have not appointed any particular person to work with him.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Licence to deal in game

  Volume

  1,825

  1,718

  1,538

  1,384

  1,626

  Value (£)

  7,300

  6,872

  6,152

  5,536

  6,504

  Licence to kill game

  Volume

  38,161

  37,331

  26,938

  22,872

  28,039

  Value (£)

  199,768

  196,184

  143,774

  118,946

  146,842

  Total

  Volume

  39,986

  39,049

  28,476

  24,256

  29,665

  Value (£)

  207,068

  203,056

  149,926

  124,482

  153,346

  Note:

  The licence to kill game includes gamekeeper's licence.

  Source:

  Post Office Counters Ltd.

  I will write to the hon. Member separately on the question of the administration costs of the game licensing system.

  Chelmsford Prison
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the procedures for searching for illegal drugs(a) within Chelmsford Prison and (b) in the visitors area of the prison; and if he will make a statement. [25288]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In the main prison, prisoners' cells and common areas are randomly searched by staff at frequent and irregular intervals. They are regularly aided by the prison's drug dog.

  All prisoners are strip searched when entering and leaving the prison. When leaving a wing or activity area, prisoners are subject to rub down searches. Staff, official visitors and legal representatives are subject to random rub down searches when entering the prison. If there are grounds for suspecting the presence of drugs in a particular area or on a particular person, a targeted search will be conducted.

  In the visits area of Chelmsford prison, social visitors are subject to rub down searches and their baggage is x-rayed before entering the visits area. A drug dog attends on a regular basis and sits with its handler in the entrance to the visits area. This dog is trained to detect discreetly and indicate to is handler if a visitor is carrying drugs. It

  Game Licences
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much the game licence system has cost to administer for(a) game shooters and (b) game dealers in each year since 1992; [24991]

  (2) how many game licences have been issued to (a) game shooters and (b) game dealers in each year since 1992; [24989]

  (3) what was the net revenue from the system of licences for (a) game shooters and (b) game dealers in each year since 1992. [24990]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the number of game licences sold in England and Wales by type, and the gross revenue, is as follows:

  will not attempt to retrieve the drugs or make physical contact with the suspect. Prisoners are subject to rub down or strip searches before leaving the visits area.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times illegal drugs have been found(a) within Chelmsford Prison and (b) in the visitors area of the prison in each of the last five years; and if he will list the types of illegal drugs that have been found. [25289]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Accurate records of occasions when drugs have been found at Chelmsford Prison are available for 1996 and 1997 only. Details are listed in the tables.

  Number

  Drug finds in the prison during 1996

  Cannabis

  47

  Opiate

  11

  Cocaine

  2

  Amphetamine

  3

  LSD

  0

  Methadone

  0

  Drug finds in the visitors area during 1996

  Cannabis

  11

  Opiate

  0

  Cocaine

  0

  Amphetamine

  0

  LSD

  0

  Methadone

  0

  Total drag finds in 1996

  73

  51

  Number

  Drug finds in the prison during 1997

  Cannabis

  73

  Opiate

  7

  Cocaine

  0

  Amphetamine

  4

  LSD

  0

  Methadone

  0

  Drug finds in the visitors area during 1997

  Cannabis

  11

  Opiates

  2

  Cocaine

  0

  Amphetamine

  0

  LSD

  1

  Methadone

  1

  Total drug finds in 1997

  99

  1 January 1996

  1 May 1996

  1 January 1997

  1 May 1997

  1 January 1998

  (a) Asylum

  (i) Applications awaiting initial decision Average waiting time in months for applications decided1:

  69,650

  67,730

  57,405

  54,020

  51,795

  Pre-1993 Act applications

  40.9

  42.6

  47.5

  51.2

  56.1

  Post-1993 Act applications

  9.3

  10.3

  12.4

  13.1

  14.2

  (ii) Appeals

  Awaiting determination2

  11,890

  15,415

  21,000

  24,350

  24,625

  Average waiting time in months for appeals determined3

  6.3

  7.9

  9.5

  10.4

  10.3

  (b) Citizenship

  Applications awaiting decision4

  46,708

  45,167

  58,596

  61,212

  74,328

  Average waiting time for applications granted5

  Naturalisations

  13.8

  14.7

  15.4

  15.6

  19.4

  Registrations

  5.8

  8.3

  7.3

  7.0

  6.9

  (c) Staff posts in IND6

  5,265

  5,327.8

  5,348.9

  5,282.9

  5,077.7

  1 Average of the preceding six months.

  2 Adjudicator and tribunal asylum appeals.

  3 Adjudicator asylum appeals only; average of the preceding six months.

  4 As recorded on the Nationality Directorate computer system.

  5 In the preceding months.

  6 Full-time equivalents.

  Fire Service, Derbyshire
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide the figures for the element within the Derbyshire standard spending assessment which relates to Derbyshire Fire Service for each of the last five years. [25337]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  1993–94

  117.067

  1994–95

  118.234

  1995–96

  17.592

  1996–97

  20.308

  1997–98

  21.441

  1998–99

  222.474

  1 Includes civil defence element.

  2 Provisional figure.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of(a) asylum (i) applications and (ii) appeals to be dealt with and the average waiting time, (b) applications for citizenship to be dealt with and the average waiting time and (c) full-time equivalent posts (1) in the Immigration and Nationality Department and (2) not covered by superannuation at 11 (A) 1 January 1996, (B) 1 May 1996, (C) 1 January 1997, 2 (D) 1 May 1997 and (E) 1 January 1998. [24680]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is given in the table. The number of staff not covered by the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme on the dates specified is not readily available and could be identified only at disproportionate cost.

  Lotteries
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will extend the period of consultation on the draft Lotteries (Frequent Draws) Bill; and if he will make a statement. [24995]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In the light of representations, I have decided to extend the consultation by two weeks, that is until 13 February.

  Prison Development Sites
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 514, if he will make available a list of the sites in the north-west assessed for possible future prison development, together with the results of those assessments. [25344]

  Ms Quin
  The majority of the 81 sites involved were rejected as unsuitable at an early stage. Those which offer potential are either being pursued publicly, such as at
  53
  Winwick, or have yet to be assessed in more detail. The Prison Service does not identify possible sites for new prisons until it has reached the stage where it has decided to pursue planning clearance. At this stage, the concerned hon. Member will be informed.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 330, if he will publish the programmes of Lady Williams when she accompanied her husband to (a) Jersey and (b) the Isle of Man at public expense. [25598]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  When Lady Williams accompanied her husband to Jersey, arrangements were made for her to visit the Islands' Crime and Drugs Strategy Unit and hold discussions on the misuse of drugs. This programme was disrupted by the party's late arrival in the Island, because of a defect in the aircraft, but arrangements were made for her to visit the Island's Police Headquarters Drugs Unit.

  In the Isle of Man, Lady Williams visited Santon Primary School and the Life Education Mobile Centre and was given a presentation on their work. After a working lunch, she visited Police Headquarters/Probation Offices and then two Elderly Persons' Complexes.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  China
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new inward investments to Britain she signed during her visit to China. [23710]

  Mrs. Beckett
  None were under discussion.

  Inward investment activities were not the principal purpose of my visit, the first visit by a cabinet minister to China since the handover of Hong Kong last June. At the invitation of the Chinese government, I chaired a meeting of the Joint Economic Commission with the Chinese Minister for Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation. I also met with other senior Chinese ministers including Premier Li Peng and launched a major new initiative, "Britain in China 1998", which will raise awareness of what Britain can offer China. I was accompanied on the visit by a team of senior business people from UK power, aerospace and chemical sectors.

  During my recent visit to China I also addressed audiences at inward investment seminars held in Beijing and Shanghai. Both seminars were chaired by Adair Turner of the CBI. These events, organised by the Invest in Britain Bureau (IBB) with the full support and encouragement of the Chinese government, form part of IBB's annual overseas promotional programme to promote the advantages of a UK location for manufacturing investment. The seminars in China, a new market for IBB, are a long term initiative aimed at raising awareness of the opportunities which the UK offers as an investment location as and when business in China looks to increase its investment overseas.

  Clean Coal Technology
  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when her Department applied to the European Commission for permission to use NFFO—non-fossile fuel obligation—funds for clean coal technology. [23794]

  Mr. Battle
  Policy on clean coal technology and new and renewable energy, including the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO), are under review. Accordingly, no application for permission to provide state aid for clean coal technology demonstration projects using NFFO-type arrangements or otherwise has been made.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to assist the progress of clean coal technology; and if she will make a statement. [24965]

  Mr. Battle
  We have already initiated a number of activities to support work in this important area. These include:establishing an industry-led task force as part of the Foresight exercise to identify the UKs research, development and demonstration requirements for the future. My Department is contributing some £50,000 to this £100,000 study by industry and universities which will be completed in the spring;
  supporting a number of trade missions, seminars and workshops in key export markets for UK clean coal technology expertise and components;
  both leading and providing financial support to a number of International Energy Agency initiatives to promote the development of clean coal technologies in developing countries which are expected to be the main market for these technologies over the next decade and beyond

  My Department has just completed a review of clean coal technology which examined what further support the Government should provide to research, development and demonstration. An announcement will be made about the outcome of the review once Ministers have had time to consider the review recommendations alongside those arising from the Department's wider Comprehensive Spending Review exercise.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many regulations have been abolished by her Department since 1 May; and if she will list them. [23797]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Since 1 May 1997 my Department has revoked the Unichem Limited (Allotment of Shares) Order 1989. In addition we have simplified primary legislation by exempting certain types of radio equipment from licensing under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and by removing unnecessary requirements from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the impact of the newly agreed sulphur dioxide targets on the amount of coal burned in power stations by 2001. [23708]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Environment Agency has issued a Consultation Document setting out proposals for new sulphur dioxide targets. My Department is currently considering these.

  Royal Greenwich Observatory
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has for Her Majesty's Nautical Almanac Office if the Royal Greenwich Observatory in Cambridge is closed. [24304]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 20 January 1998]: The work of the Nautical Almanac Office is carried out by the Royal Greenwich Observatory (RGO) under contract to the Ministry of Defence. The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) has confirmed that all the current contracts held by the RGO will be honoured. PPARC is discussing the future of this work with the Ministry of Defence, and with other potential suppliers of the service to the MoD.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she proposes to take with regard to the future of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and its facilities in Cambridge. [24306]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 20 January 1998]: I have asked the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) to explore every avenue for keeping the institution of the Royal Greenwich Observatory (RGO) alive. PPARC has declared itself satisfied that feasible options exist for a viable future for the RGO and is in the midst of detailed negotiations with interested parties over these options. These negotiations also cover the future of the current RGO staff, building and other assets.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will commission an independent assessment of the proposal made by the Royal Greenwich Observatory to the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council for its continuation as a company limited by guarantee. [24305]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 20 January 1998]: At its meeting on 12 December 1997, the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council concluded that given the costs, uncertainties and associated risks it could not support the proposal to establish a Company Limited by Guarantee as a vehicle for continuing some of the current functions of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and developing a commercial business of telescope design and manufacture. The decision was taken on the basis of the advice offered by PPARC's Implementation Oversight Committee, members of an Audit Group (which included members of its Audit Committee), and its independent financial advisers and does not consider that any further assessment is necessary.

  New Statesman Ltd.
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 14 January 1998,Official Report, column 216, on the New Statesman Ltd., if the company has filed its accounts. [24402]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 20 January 1998]: Accounts for New Statesman Ltd., in respect of period ended 31 March 1997, were delivered to the Registrar of Companies on 13 January 1998.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she plans to take to assist the coal industry after June. [24410]
  56
  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 20 January 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 10 December 1997, Official Report, column 1003, that we were using the opportunity of the supply arrangements for the period to 30 June 1998 to review the long-term energy requirements of the nation and make sure we have an energy policy consistent with a competitive industry and the long-term energy needs of the country. The role of coal, and the opportunities for the UK coal industry, will be considered in that context.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry was first informed of the Prime Minister's intention to announce an extension to coal contracts; [24408]

  (2) when the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry was first notified of the decision by the Prime Minister to ask the Paymaster General to negotiate agreement between the coal companies and the generators; and what consultations he had with the Paymaster General before the decision; [24406]

  (3) what consultation the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry held with ministerial colleagues prior to the Prime Minister's announcement of an extension of coal contracts. [24407]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 20 January 1998]: The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry has worked closely with ministerial colleagues and the Prime Minister at all stages in dealing with matters relating to the coal industry.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the likely job losses in the coal mining industry over the next two years. [25423]

  Mr. Battle
  Levels of employment in the coal mining industry will depend upon the commercial decisions taken by the private sector coal companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of the Prime Minister's pledge to cut CO2 emissions by 20 per cent. on jobs in the mining industry over the next five years. [25419]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government's review of energy sources for power generation will consider the role that coal can play in contributing to the United Kingdom's energy and electricity generation requirements in the context of sustainable development, including the meeting of environmental targets.

  Scott Inquiry
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to publish her Department's response to the Scott consultation documents. [24959]

  Mrs. Roche
  As I stated in a written answer to my hon. Friend, the Member for Cynon Valley,Official Report, 18 December 1997, column 310, we expect to set out the Government's proposals on the Strategic Export Controls Review during the current parliamentary session. This is likely to take the form of a White Paper.

  Copyright
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the loss of protection afforded by law to copyright holders by computer developments with particular reference to digital copying and Internet Jukebox. [24805]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  United Kingdom copyright law, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, already gives copyright owners protection for uses of their works based on new technology. In particular, the rights to authorise reproduction conferred by the Act apply to digital copying as to other kinds, and the Act also grants rights enabling control over transmissions of music and sound recordings to members of the public on request, as are involved in "Internet jukebox" services. We do not consider, therefore, that recent developments in technology have led to a loss of protection for copyright owners in the UK. Comparable standards of protection overseas also need to be established, however, especially in view of the global nature of the Internet, and accordingly we support EU and international initiatives aimed at achieving this.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what sums have been spent on the provision of renewable energy in the last financial year, giving details of each source of renewable energy. [24966]

  Mr. Battle
  Provision of electricity from renewable sources is primarily supported through the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO), funded by a fossil fuel levy placed on electricity consumers. At 31 December 1997, 221 NFFO renewable energy projects in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were operational, comprising 507 MW of electricity generating capacity. My policy proposals for a fifth (NFFO-5) Renewals Order for England and Wales were announced in November last year and I expect to make a NFFO-5 Order towards the end of 1998.

  Use of levy receipts for renewables amounted to £109 million in the financial year 1996–97. A breakdown of levy expenditure is as shown.

  £ million

  Renewable energy source

  Levy receipts

  Landfill gas

  20.8

  Hydro

  2.0

  Sewage gas

  7.9

  Waste incineration

  28.2

  Wind

  35.8

  Other (mainly poultry litter and tyre burning)

  14.3

  Total

  109.0

  The DTI's new and renewable energy programme supports research, development, demonstration and
  58
  technology transfer activities. Net expenditure on the programme in 1996–97 was £14.8 million. A breakdown of programme expenditure is as shown.

  £ million

  New and renewables

  1996–97

  Biofuels

  2.7

  Fuel cells

  1.0

  Hydro

  0.15

  Solar

  2.0

  Wind

  2.5

  Technology, transfer, programme management, strategy and evaluation and other technologies

  6.5

  Total

  14.8

  In addition, Government support or academic research is provided through the programmes of the Engineering Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and support has also been provided for the Foresight SCOLAR photovoltaic programme.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment the Government have made of the likely degree of restoration of differentials following the introduction of a minimum wage. [24758]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: Pay differential between groups of workers is a matter for them and their employers to determine in the light of their company's particular circumstances. However, I am sure that, as part of its consideration of the wider economic and social implications of the National Minimum Wage, the Low Pay Commission will consider any effect on pay differentials when formulating its recommendations to Government.

  Human Biotechnology
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on Government policy on limits to genetic manipulation in human biotechnology research. [24676]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: Human biotechnology research promises many benefits but can also raise questions of safety and ethics, as can other new technologies. The Government have in place a thorough system of controls to maintain human biotechnology research, including that involving genetic modification, within acceptable boundaries. A framework of expert committees, such as the Gene Therapy Advisory Committee, the UK Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority, and the Human Genetics Advisory Commission (HGAC), consider implications of new research.

  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 places strict limits on research involving human embryos, including the requirement for such research to be licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA).
  59
  The Government are also interested in wider views on such issues. For example, a consultation paper on the implications of human cloning is to be launched jointly by the HGAC and the HFEA at the end of this month, and the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry announced in November that he would be seeking views from the public on issues arising from developments in the biosciences.

  Telephone Call Charges
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what evidence the statement by the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry that it would soon be as cheap to telephone France or Spain as it currently is to make local calls in London was based. [24759]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: On 1 January this year, legislation came into force which liberalised telecommunicatins services within the European Union. Our experience on international routes where competition is already allowed has shown that prices can fall considerably—for example between the UK and US, consumers are now being offered calls at as little as 5p a minute. On that basis if there is effective competition and regulation throughout Europe, there is every reason to believe that it should be little or no more expensive to call the rest of Europe than to make a local call in the UK today.

  Arms Sales (Indonesia)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussion have taken place with the Indonesian Government about payments for arms sold to them with British Government support in relation to the devaluation of their currency; and what assessment he has made of the likely cost to public funds of export credit guarantees needed to cover the agreed purchase price. [25132]

  Mrs. Roche
  No discussions have currently taken place. The Indonesian Government have not indicated that they will not continue to make payments in respect of defence contracts/loans at due date. Payments are due in Sterling or other hard currencies. Consequently there are no rupiah payments which would result in an exchange loss to ECGD.

  Nuclear Waste (Reprocessing)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what technical conditioning and packaging specifications have been established as necessary by foreign energy utilities in respect of the consignments of radioactive reprocessing wastes due to be returned to countries of origin following reprocessing of foreign spent fuel. [25067]

  Mr. Battle
  Packaging requirements for operational wastes arising from reprocessing will be determined in detail by the specifications of the wastes to be returned. These vary according to the particular fuel reprocessed, although they are broadly similar for each category of waste. Details of individual waste specifications are confidential to the organisations concerned. However, all waste transport packages will comply with the relevant internationally agreed safety requirements.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what terms of acceptance were agreed upon by 60
  (a) British Nuclear Fuels and (b) the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority for the return of radioactive waste arising from reprocessing. [25068]

  Mr. Battle
  Details of the contracts between United Kingdom reprocessing companies and their customers are confidential to those organisations.

  However, all reprocessing contracts signed since 1976 contain options for BNFL to return operational wastes to the country of origin. Government policy is that the options should be exercised and that the wastes should be returned.

  Trade Mission (Japan)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she intends to announce the decision on the bid by North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce to organise a trade mission to Japan; and if she will make a statement. [25017]

  Mrs. Roche
  The President of the Board of Trade announced the first stage of the trade mission programme for 1998–99 on 29 September 1997. This first announcement comprised 159 trade missions.

  The announcement for the second stage of trade missions will take place as soon as possible and no later than the end of February.

  Gas-fired Power Station (BP)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement setting out the reasons for granting BP permission to build a 1,200 MW gas-fired power station. [24766]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: The reasons for granting consent to the Saltend project are recorded in the Department's decision letter to the Company of 7 August 1997 and the Department's press notice of the same date.

  Poor People
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will carry out an assessment of the impact of her Department's current policies on the(a) income, (b) employment opportunities and (c) living standards, of the poorest 30 per cent. of the population. [23343]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My Department's policies aim to support the endeavours of business to become as competitive as possible in order to generate higher levels of income and living standards and good jobs and opportunities for all of our people. My department is also working to ensure that the benefits of growth and prosperity are widely shared by, for example, promoting regional competitiveness and through the introduction of a national minimum wage.

  EU Presidency
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are her Department's main objectives during the British presidency of the European Union in 1998. [24075]

  Mrs. Beckett
  In November I wrote to the Trade and Industry Committee [Supplementary Memorandum to Minutes of Evidence, dated 4 November 1997] with a list
  61
  of dossiers on which I hope to make progress during the British Presidency of the Council of the European Union. These are the practical steps which underpin my key priorities for helping business during the UK Presidency.
  Improving competitiveness is a key element in our policies at home. In our Presidency we will bring this approach to Europe, working in partnership with the business community.
  Enhancing the scope and effectiveness of the Single European Market in line with the Action Plan agreed at Amsterdam will be a key objective. We shall also work with our partners in Europe to maintain progress towards greater liberalisation in trade in goods and services.
  Reducing the unacceptably high level of unemployment is one of the Europe's highest priorities. We shall pursue employability as offering better scope for individuals and greater flexibility in the European economy as a whole.
  Our Presidency will also cover a critical period in the negotiations for the next EU Framework Programme for RTD (Research and Technological Development). Our overriding objective will be to forge ahead with negotiations so that the timetable for introducing the new framework in 1999 can be achieved.

  Although the Presidency gives us the opportunity to highlight priority areas, as chair of the Council of Ministers the overarching objective is to manage the full range of European business constructively and impartially in all formations of the Council for which we are responsible (Industry, Internal Market, Research, Consumer Affairs, Energy and Telecommunications). My Department will also liaise with colleagues in other departments where we share responsibility.

  Official Cars
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many official cars are available for use by Ministers in her Department; and how many cars have been acquired for the use of Ministers in her Department since 1 May. [25166]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: There are seven official cars available for use by Ministers in this Department. All are operated by the Government Car Service. Two new cars have been acquired since 1 May 1997 to replace existing ones, one of which was ordered under the previous Government.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many times her husband has accompanied her on overseas visits; and what was the cost of his travel and other expenses. [25163]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 20 January 1998, Official Report, column 473.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what basis she will consider applications for combined heat and power stations during the moratorium on construction of conventional gas-fired power stations. [24321]
  62
  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 January 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend, the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) on 22 December 1997, Official Report, columns 519–20.

  Telecom Deregulation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the recent reported remarks by the Director General of Oftel about Britain's failure to give an international lead on telecom deregulation; and if she will make a statement. [24384]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 21 January 1998]: I am not aware of any such remarks about telecom deregulation.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what regular publications are produced by the Export Credits Guarantee Department; what is the purpose of each; how often each is produced; and what is the security classification of each. [24543]

  Mrs. Roche
  Details of ECGD's regular publications are as follows:

  Title

  Purpose

  Frequency

  Annual Report and Trading Accounts

  To report on business supported and ECGD's financial position.

  Annual

  ECGD Newsletter

  To provide customers and potential customers with up to date information on ECGD cover availability and developments.

  Quarterly

  Global Explorer: The Official ECGD Yearbook1

  To provide comprehensive coverage of ECGD's products, cover availability and general background information.

  Annual

  Risk

  In-house staff magazine

  2–3 times a year

  1 Global Exporter is published by Newsdesk Communications Ltd. on behalf of ECGD, at no cost to ECGD or its customers. Advertising revenue covers the costs.

  In addition to the above ECGD produces 16 product information brochures which are updated as and when required. All ECGD's publications are unclassified.

  Lackenby Picton Electricity Line
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she will announce her decision on the planning application for the Lackenby Picton overhead electricity transmission line. [24512]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend will reach her decision as soon as she properly and practically can.

  Debt (Late Payment)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she is taking to ensure that the Government pay interest on debts outstanding for more than 30 days. [25073]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: It is important that Central Government lead by example in creating a better payment culture. Government

  63
  Departments and their agencies are obliged to pay all valid invoices within 30 days or other agreed credit terms and are required to publish their payment performance in their annual or departmental reports.

  The Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill, which was introduced in the other place on 10 December 1997, will provide suppliers with a statutory right to claim interest on late payments of commercial debts. The Government's commercial debts will be subject to the legislation.

  Utility Regulation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she will complete the current review of utility regulation; and what plans she has to publish its conclusions. [24323]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 21 January 1998]: I hope to be in a position to publish the conclusions of the review of utility regulation in the near future. Following publication there will be a period of consultation during which all interested parties will have the opportunity to submit representations on any proposals for change.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if those young unemployed people who take up the Welfare-to-Work employer option will be paid the full national minimum wage. [23089]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  It is expected that New Deal employees will receive the normal rates paid to comparable employees of the company.

  We have asked the Low Pay Commission to consider separately the issue of lower rates or exemptions from the National Minimum Wage for all those aged 16 to 25; New Deal participants would be included within this age band.

  Coal (Emission Standards)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the likely impact on total coal-burn in the United Kingdom of the new emissions standard which will operate by 2001. [25485]

  Table 2: Reinstatements ordered tribunal regional office for 1993–97

  Office

  Birmingham

  Bristol and Exeter

  Bury St. Edmunds and Bedford

  Cardiff and Shrewsburry

  Leeds and Sheffield

  London North

  London South (including Ashford)

  Number of reinstatements

  1993–94

  0.00

  3.00

  0.00

  2.00

  1.00

  0.00

  2.00

  1994–95

  3.00

  0.00

  4.00

  1.00

  0.00

  2.00

  2.00

  1995–96

  3.00

  0.00

  4.00

  1.00

  5.00

  3.00

  1.00

  1996–97

  0.00

  3.00

  0.00

  2.00

  7.00

  5.00

  1.00

  Office

  Manchester and Liverpool

  Newcastle

  Nottingham and Leicester

  Southampton and Reading

  Stratford

  Number of reinstatements and re-engagements

  1993–94

  3.00

  0.00

  0.00

  3.00

  0.00

  1994–95

  3.00

  3.00

  2.00

  2.00

  2.00

  1995–96

  1.00

  2.00

  1.00

  0.00

  0.00

  1996–97

  6.00

  2.00

  0.00

  3.00

  0.00

  64
  Mr. Battle
  The Environment Agency has issued a consultation document setting out proposals for new sulphur dioxide targets. My Department is considering these.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect an answer to his letter to her of 28 October on behalf of his constituent Mrs. Tomayan. [25285]

  Mrs. Beckett
  A reply to the right hon. Member's letter was sent on 23 January 1998, after a delay caused primarily by reprinting of brochures.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many reinstatements have been awarded by industrial tribunals in cases of unfair dismissal in the past five years(a) nationally and (b) on a regional basis. [24504]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have consulted the Chief Executive of the Employment Tribunals Service who tells me that the number of reinstatements ordered by the Industrial Tribunals in the last four years in unfair dismissal cases are as detailed in table 1. Table 2 shows the figures for England and Wales broken down by the tribunal regional office.

  The Agency is able to provide a figure for combined reinstatements and re-engagements only for 1992–93 which is as follows:

  England and Wales: 64

  Scotland: 9.

  Table 1: Reinstatements ordered by the Industrial Tribunals, 1992–97

  Year

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Number of reinstatements

  in England and Wales

  14.00

  24.00

  21.00

  29.00

  in Scotland

  5.00

  17.00

  4.00

  2.00

  Electricity Generating Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the role of Her Majesty's Treasury in negotiating a recent agreement between a mining company and a generator; and on what previous occasions the Treasury has negotiated similar agreements. [24767]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Government have worked closely as a team on coal industry matters in recent months and the Paymaster General was able to help in facilitating discussions between the parties concerned. Ministers have acted as facilitators not negotiators.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will include in his proposed Freedom of Information Bill a provision to make available to public scrutiny all public access agreements to land and buildings issued since 1975 under the conditional exemption scheme. [23517]

  Dr. David Clark
  As explained in the White Paper "Your Right to Know", the proposed Freedom of Information Act will contain provision for access to official information generally. It will not list particular types of information. The information that my hon. Friend refers to will be within the scope of the Act. Its disclosure would depend, as for all information,(a) on decisions on the continuation of any relevant statutory prohibitions to disclosure and (b) on the substantial harm and public interest tests integral to the Act's access provisions.

  2 Marsham Street (Demolition)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when demolition of 2 Marsham Street will commence. [24782]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to Property Advisers to the Civil Estate. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. John Locke, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John C. Locke to Mr. Christopher Chope, dated 26 Janaury 1998:
  I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, to reply to your Question on the demolition of No. 2 Marsham Street because Property Advisers to the Civil Estate have responsibility for the building.
  2 Marsham Street is occupied by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Department is due to vacate the building in the Spring of 1998. Property Advisers to the Civil Estate are the owners of the building and advertised the demolition contract on 15 December in the Official Journal of the European Community. They expect to be in a position to let the demolition contract by 1 July 1998, provided that such a course represents best value for money at that time.

PRIME MINISTER

  No. 11 Downing Street (Refurbishment)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the most recent refurbishments of the living accommodation at No. 11 Downing Street; what was its total cost; when it was carried out; what was the tendering process; if he will list the companies to which contracts were awarded; and what was the country of origin of fixtures and fittings. [22024]

  The Prime Minister
  The repairs and refurbishment of No. 11 Downing Street are part of a continuing programme of work to Nos. 10 and 11, covering the domestic accommodation, the offices and the public rooms. Both buildings are Grade 1 listed and, given their historic role, have to be kept at standards appropriate to such buildings, as laid down by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in consultation with Westminster City Council and English Heritage as appropriate.

  Over the past five years, the total expenditure on No. 10 and No. 11 combined has been respectively £118,000 in 1993–94; £108,000 in 1994–95; £381,000 in 1995–96; £190,000 in 1996–97; and £126,000 in 1997–98. Over this period £155,000 has been spent on the flat in No. 10 and £105,000 on the flat in No. 11. This has included the reconstruction of kitchens in No. 10 and No. 11, redecoration of parts of the flats as part of the rolling programme of refurbishment, rewiring, scaffolding costs, the cost of removing debris, and additional security costs. Both work schedules have been designed to refurbish parts of Nos. 10 and 11, some of which had remained untouched for over 30 years, and in the case of No. 11 to accommodate the fact that previously unused rooms are now used as family bedrooms.

  In every case proper tendering procedures were followed. For security reasons it has not been the practice to name companies who work in Downing Street, but there has been no recent change to the existing list of approved contractors employed on the accommodation work in Nos. 10 and 11.

  No country of origin for materials, fixtures or fittings was specified in the contracts awarded. The only requirement placed on contractors is that all materials, fixtures and fittings should meet current regulations and the performance specifications.

  All expenditure is within existing budgets, both No. 10 and Cabinet Office, as inherited from the last Government.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if the term spouse has been replaced or complemented by the word partner in the terms of reference in the(a) ministerial code and (b) internal guidance connected with the code; and when the change in interpretation was made. [24535]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) on 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 483.

  Correspondence
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) when he intends to answer the letter sent to him by Mr. Graham Horwood of 66 St. Andrews Road, Shoeburyness on the subject of solar thermal projects on 17 August 1997; and if he will make a statement on the procedures which he adopts in dealing with correspondence from the general public; [24502]

  (2) when he received a letter from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East about the absence of a reply to his constituent Mr. Graham Horwood's letter of 17 August 1997; and what action was taken in consequence. [24503]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: The letter was forwarded to my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry for substantive reply. I understand a response has been sent.

  Welfare Reform
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the terms of reference and the membership of the new Cabinet committee on welfare reform; when the committee will have its first meeting; and if he will make a statement. [23953]

  The Prime Minister
  I am chairing a group of Ministers considering welfare reform issues. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Social Security and the Minister for Welfare Reform and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing are members of the group. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will also attend as his other commitments allow. The group had its first meeting on 22 January. We had an excellent discussion.

  Cabinet Members
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 19 January 1998,Official Report, column 402, if he will list the variety of factors he took into account when appointing the current Foreign Secretary. [25494]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 19 January 1988,Official Report, column 402.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is his Department's policy in respect of the class and type of air fares to be used when(a) Ministers and (b) officials travel on official business abroad. [24731]

  Mr. Mandelson
  In accordance with the practice of the previous administration, when travelling on official business Ministers of State normally use the best available class for flights lasting longer than 2½ hours. For shorter flights Ministers normally travel by Club or equivalent class, or economy class when an intermediate class is not 68
  available. The detailed rules covering officials' travel are set out in the Department's Management Code, but when travelling with Ministers on official business, officials will generally travel in the same class as the Minister they are accompanying.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on the current state of plans to use the centre of the Millennium Experience Dome as a space for theatrical performances. [23231]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The content of the Dome will provide a unique, once-in-a-lifetime experience for every visitor, on the theme that the millennium represents a "Time to Make a Difference". An integral part of this will be a central attraction which will provide an exciting multi-media event that can be shared by all who visit.

  The centre of the Dome will be opened up to create a large, informal piazza with views across the Dome from every vantage point, utilising to the full the natural contours and scale of this impressive space. The New Millennium Experience Company are still developing and improving the design with the aim of ensuring that maximum resources go into the content rather than the internal structure of the Dome.

  Earlier schemes involved creating an enclosed auditorium at the centre of the Dome, which would in effect have been a separate internal amphitheatre building. The revised plans will still offer people an uplifting central experience without the need for a large and costly central structure.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what kind of outreach participation and by what medium will be available to(a) schools, (b) museums and galleries and (c) the general public from the Millennium Experience. [23709]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company is in the process of establishing 12 regional offices whose staff will be responsible for developing and implementing a broad range of events, activities and programmes under the Millennium Experience theme "Time to Make a Difference". They will directly involve schools, museums and galleries and other agencies and groups across the country and will offer opportunities for everyone in the UK to participate in the Millennium celebrations.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio, pursuant to his answer of 15 January 1998,Official Report, column 286, what role he envisages for Norfolk within the Millennium Experience national programme on the theme, time to make a difference. [25281]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 15 January 1998,Official Report, column 286, to his previous question on this subject.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list the shortlisted candidates for the Board of the New Millennium Experience Company. [25554]
  69
  Mr. Mandelson
  A range of candidates were considered for the Board of the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC). All appointments have been announced; but to divulge the details of unsuccessful candidates would be a breach of confidentiality in respect of the individuals concerned.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on the Millennium Experience national programme theme, Time to Make a Difference. [24823]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: The New Millennium Experience Company is currently finalising the comprehensive range of events, programmes and activities which will comprise the national programme of Millennium celebrations under the theme that the Millennium represents a "Time to Make a Difference". Details will be announced in the spring.
  70
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is the theme and purpose of the Millennium Experience. [23714]

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will issue a mission statement for the Millennium Experience. [24824]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The overarching theme of the Millennium Experience and its associated national programme of events and activities will be that the Millennium represents "Time to Make a Difference".

  The Millennium Experience will create a focus for Millennium celebrations on a national scale and put the UK at the centre of world celebrations. The Experience will engage, inspire and involve the whole nation in a celebration of which it can be proud, and which will leave a lasting legacy.

HEALTH

  Health Spending
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the health spending per head of the population in the Greater London area in 1996. [24533]

  Mr. Milburn
  Provisional data for 1996–97 show that health spending per head of population in Greater London was £730.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the impact on revenue costs to the NHS over the next(a) 10 and (b) 20 years of all PFI schemes. [25472]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have prioritised 15 major Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes. The schemes at Dartford and Gravesham National Health Service Trust, Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust, South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust, and Norfolk and Norwich Health Care NHS Trust have reached financial close. Details of the unitary charge payable to the private sector in the remaining eleven schemes are being negotiated and therefore commercially confidential until financial close is achieved.

  Information on the revenue consequences of PFI schemes with a capital value under £10 million is not collected centrally.

  The unitary charge payable by the trusts will vary depending upon the level and standard of service provided by the private sector. The estimated unitary payments over the next 20 years are shown in the table.

  Estimated annual unitary payment

  £ million

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust1

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust2

  Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trust3

  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust1

  1998–99

  —

  3.7

  —

  —

  1999–00

  —

  5.0

  —

  —

  2000–01

  12.5

  8.2

  —

  9.1

  2001–02

  16.6

  8.2

  7.9

  10.9

  2002–03

  16.6

  8.2

  31.7

  10.9

  2003–04

  16.6

  8.2

  31.7

  10.9

  2004–05

  16.6

  8.2

  31.7

  10.9

  2005–06

  16.6

  8.5

  31.7

  10.9

  2006–07

  16.6

  8.5

  31.7

  10.9

  2007–08

  16.6

  8.5

  31.7

  10.9

  2008–09

  16.6

  8.5

  31.7

  10.9

  2009–10

  16.6

  8.5

  31.7

  10.9

  2010–11

  16.6

  8.5

  31.7

  10.9

  2011–12

  16.6

  8.5

  31.7

  10.9

  2012–13

  16.6

  8.5

  31.7

  10.9

  2013–14

  16.6

  8.5

  31.7

  10.9

  2014–15

  16.6

  8.5

  31.7

  10.9

  2015–16

  16.6

  8.9

  31.7

  10.9

  2016–17

  16.6

  8.4

  31.7

  10.9

  2017–18

  16.6

  8.4

  31.7

  10.9

  2018–19

  16.6

  8.4

  31.7

  10.9

  1 Figures in 1996 prices and are subject to indexation.

  2 Figures in 1997 prices and are subject to indexation. Figures assume that the scheme becomes operational during 1999–2000 with the delivery of facilities management service beginning in 1998.

  3 Figures in 1995 prices and are subject to indexation.

  72
  Notes:

  1. Payment for a PFI contract does not commence until the hospital is operational.

  2. The figures assume full availability and performance standards are met throughout.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the total cost of the Government's care in the community programme for 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [25345]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is for health authorities to determine the resources that they allocate to care in the community provision from their overall allocation, in the light of the priority accorded to mental health services in the National Health Service Priorities and Planning Guidance 1998/99 and local circumstances. Similarly, it is for local authorities to determine the level of funding they allocate to services for mentally ill people from their total resources.

  In recognition of the importance which the Government place on mental health, we have increased the Mental Illness Specific Grant by 9 per cent. to £73.3 million for 1998–99.

  These additional resources will be made available through a new £2 million fund for child and adolescent mental health services and through a £4 million local authority mental health partnership fund. This will be matched by a £4 million NHS mental health partnership fund.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to extend the range of residential care for mental health clients in the community; [25343]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on care in the community. [25346]

  Mr. Boateng
  The policy of care in the community has failed to realise the benefits held out to all at the time of its introduction. The majority of people with mental illness have benefited but for a significant number the necessary level of support has not been delivered. This has threatened both the safety of those vulnerable individuals and, on occasions, the public. We want to ensure that the full range of services are available to provide a balanced range of mental health services. This includes an appropriate mix of both hospital places and community support, including more 24 hour nursed care. Mentally ill people must be cared for in safety and security and we must rebuild public trust and confidence in mental health services.

  We have set up an Independent Reference Group to advise us. Its first task is to consider long stay psychiatric hospital closure plans to ensure that no more hospitals are closed without proper and credible alternative services being in place.
  73
  A review of mental health services is also underway, monitoring the level of service provision, and identifying importantly, where there are gaps. We will take the findings of this review into account in future policy developments.

  Bath Mental Health Care Trust
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors led to the appointment of Mrs. Christine Reid as Chairman of the Bath Mental Health Care Trust; and what assessment his Department made of the candidature of the previous incumbent. [24781]

  Mr. Milburn
  All candidates for the chairmanship of Bath Mental Health Care Trust were assessed according to guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. All new candidates for the post were seen by an interview panel which included an independent member. An assessment of the candidacy of the previous chairman was made by the South and West Regional Chairman. Following consultation with local Members of Parliament, the Regional Chairman then submitted recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of state, on the basis of which he decided to appoint Mrs. Reid.

  Hospital Bed Provision (Colchester)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds are available for drug addict patients in the Colchester constituency; how many such patients were treated in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and what was the cost in each year to the National Health Service. [24708]

  Mr. Milburn
  This information is not collected centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the Chairman of North Essex Health Authority for local information relating to drug addict patients.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the effect of the proposed social services budget for 1998–99 on the incidence of bed blocking in Shropshire hospitals. [24430]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have received a number of letters from members of the public, local councillors and health and social services professionals on the budget proposals of Shropshire County Council and the possible effects on the delayed discharge of patients.

  Contraception
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has for research into contraception and contraceptive methods. [24027]

  Ms Jowell
  As part of the Government's developing national programme to reduce the rate of unintended and unwanted conceptions, a task group has been established to consider the research necessary to underpin effective programmes to reduce the rate of unintended and unwanted conceptions, particularly among teenagers.
  74
  We collect regular survey information through the General Household Survey and Omnibus Survey. Both surveys include questions on contraception and contraception methods and are commissioned through the Office for National Statistics.

  The National Health Service Research and Development Programme is supporting a number of projects evaluating strategies to change health behaviours in children and adolescents, for example in smoking, drugs and unwanted pregnancies, including contraception. Another project is investigating the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and long-term tolerability of implantable contraceptives.

  University Tuition Fees
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the BMA concerning the issue of tuition fees for the fourth year of four year degree courses at Scottish universities. [19588]

  Mr. Brian Wilson
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]: I have been asked to reply.

  In July, The Scottish Office invited the British Medical Association to comment on the Dearing and Garrick reports. On 18 September, The Scottish Office received a response from the British Medical Association in Scotland. It made no specific mention of the issue of tuition fees for the fourth year of four year degree courses at Scottish universities.

  On 27 October 1997, I announced that the Government would ensure that the fees contribution from Scottish graduates is equitable with the contribution for comparable qualifications gained elsewhere in the UK. Since then, I have received no representations from the British Medical Association.

SCOTLAND

  Cairn Gorm Funicular Railway
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations had been received by the Government by 30 March(a) for and (b) against the development of the proposed funicular railway on Cairn Gorm. [15655]

  Mr. MacDonald
  [holding answer 12 November 1997]: My right hon. Friend had received 179 letters for and 2,689 letters against the proposed funicular railway development on Cairn Gorm by 30 March 1997.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the level of spending by Scottish local authorities in each year since 1991–92; and if he will indicate the annual percentage change in real terms. [19823]

  Mr. MacDonald
  [holding answer 9 December 1997]: The information requested is set out in the table:

  75

  Year

  Non-housing net current expenditure (cash terms inclusive of specific grant) £ million

  Percentage change on previous year in real terms

  1991–92

  5,498

  1992–93

  5,974

  4.27

  1993–94

  6,038

  -1.78

  1994–95

  6,206

  1.25

  1995–96

  6,593

  3.39

  1996–97

  6,605

  -2.51

  1997–98

  6,524

  -3.82

  Based on local authority reported final outturns for 1991–92 to 1995–96. Final expenditure figures are not yet available beyond 1995–96. Provisional outturn is given for 1996–97 and local authorities' budget estimates for 1997–98.

  No adjustments have been made to take account of transfers of responsibility to and from local government and therefore the real terms percentage changes do not compare expenditure in the relevant years on a like-with-like basis.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide figures showing the band D council tax increase in the next financial year for each local authority in Scotland(a) in cash terms and (b) in percentage terms, based on the assumption that all councils spend at the provisional capping limit. [22273]

  Mr. Macdonald
  On average, the council tax in Scotland should rise by around 7 per cent. in 1998–99, on the assumption that councils spend at their provisional capping limits. The council tax increase for each council will depend on local circumstances and decisions, and it is not possible to make reliable estimates at the individual council level.

  Consultancy Contracts
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the budget of(a) Scottish Enterprise and (b) Highlands and Islands Enterprise was spent on consultancy contracts in 1996–97; and what was the total value of these contracts. [19794]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]: This is a matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise respectively and I have asked the Chairmen to write to the hon. Member.

  Services
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the annual cost of abolishing ferry charges and fares for all public sector ferry services in Scotland. [19796]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]: As this matter is not under consideration, no estimate of the cost of abolition has been made. The costs of providing public sector ferry services are met through a combination of fares revenue and public subsidies made available by The Scottish Office and local authorities. If no income was raised from fares then all existing operating costs would have to be met by subsidy. In the longer term, the provision of ferry services free of charge to customers could be expected to lead to a substantial increase in demand, with the consequential problems of capacity
  76
  constraint and ensuing demand, for more frequent services, more and larger vessels and a higher requirement for operating subsidies.

  East Lothian District Council
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Controller of Audit requested the opinion of senior counsel concerning his Special Report 97/2 on East Lothian District Council; when that opinion was received at the Controller's office; and when information about that opinion was sent to the Chief Executive of the East Lothian Council. [20986]

  Mr. MacDonald
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: I understand from the Accounts Commission for Scotland that the Memorandum for the Opinion of Counsel was submitted on 24 September 1996 and the Counsel's Opinion was given on 10 December 1996. Information about the Opinion was given to the Chief Executive of the East Lothian Council on 16 April 1997.

  Chief Scientific Officer
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he plans to fill the post of Chief Scientific Officer for Scotland. [21153]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: I expect to announce a decision, on the Garrick recommendation that the Government should consider filling the vacant post of Chief Scientific Adviser to the Secretary of State, shortly.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of abolishing the nursery voucher scheme in Scotland. [22041]

  Mr. Wilson
  The cost to public funds of abolishing the pre-school education voucher system in Scotland will be part of the termination fee negotiated by Government with Capita Managed Services Ltd., the operators of the Pre-School Administration Agency. The amount is commercial in confidence.

  Waste Materials
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the entry of waste materials into the food chain through seepage. [22943]

  Mr. MacDonald
  [holding answer 15 January 1998]: The only project commissioned by The Scottish Office that addresses the entry of waste materials into the food chain through seepage is:
  Concentration of environmental oestrogens (xenoestrogens) in tissues of domestic animals grazing pasture treated with sewage sludge.

  This project is due for completion on 31 March 2000.

  Arts Sector (Legal Services)
  Ms. Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what guidelines have been issued to publicly-funded bodies in Scotland regarding the use of Scottish legal firms. [25201]
  77
  (2) what mechanisms exist for the assessment of the Scottish Arts Council's tendering process for legal services; what assessment he has made of the Scottish Arts Council's most recent tendering process for legal services; and if he will make a statement. [25202]

  Mr. Galbraith
  No such general guidelines have been issued. The Scottish Arts Council is, like other Non-Departmental Public Bodies, required to achieve best value for money in the purchase of goods and services, and is required to place contracts of an estimated value of £1,000 or more on a competitive basis unless there are good reasons to the contrary. The Council's compliance with these requirements is monitored through the audit process: no specific assessment has been made of the particular tendering process referred to.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on the development of sustainable support services for the film industry in Scotland with particular reference to legal services; [25199]

  (2) what instructions he has given to publicly-funded bodies in the arts sector in Scotland regarding the use of public funds to develop support services for the film industry, with particular reference to legal services. [25200]

  Mr. Galbraith
  No such instruction has been issued. Scottish Screen has responsibility for promoting and developing the film industry in Scotland and it is for it to assess how best this can be done and to allocate funds accordingly.

  Orthoptics
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for how many staff employed in the Scottish NHS in each of the last five years a degree in orthoptics was part of the requirement for their employment. [24563]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the table shows the numbers of qualified orthoptists employed by the NHS in Scotland in each of the last 5 years. Employment as a qualified orthoptist requires that an individual be registered under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960.

  Qualified orthoptists employed in the NHS in Scotland Headcount and Whole Time Equivalent (WTE): at 30 September

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Headcount

  Total

  76

  80

  87

  90

  89

  Head

  10

  12

  13

  15

  15

  Senior

  66

  67

  74

  75

  74

  Basic

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  78

  Qualified orthoptists employed in the NHS in Scotland Headcount and Whole Time Equivalent (WTE): at 30 September

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  WTE

  Total

  58.8

  63.2

  67.2

  67

  68.2

  Head

  9.8

  11.8

  12.8

  13.9

  13.8

  Senior

  49

  50.4

  54.4

  53.1

  54.4

  Basic

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students graduated with a degree in orthoptics from Scottish universities or colleges in each of the last five years. [24564]

  Mr. Wilson
  The numbers of students graduating in ophthalmics (which includes orthoptics and optometry) is provided in the table.

  Number of full-time first degree ophthalmics graduates from Scottish higher education, 1992–96

  Year

  Number of graduates

  1992

  28

  1993

  33

  1994

  42

  1995

  58

  1996

  52

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the recruitment benefits for Scottish hospitals of the Scottish-based degree course for the training of orthoptists. [24559]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Scottish Hospitals appreciate that professional education and training, including that of orthoptists, provided by Scottish universities is of the highest standard and so would wish to recruit graduates trained in Scotland. But it is for the Council for the Professions Supplementary to Medicine to ensure that orthoptists working in the United Kingdom are competent to practice whereever they train. Also, while it would seem probable that graduates from Scottish universities are more likely to seek initial employment within rather than outwith Scotland, many students who have studied in Scottish universities but who are not domiciled in Scotland return home on graduation.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the British Orthoptic Society concerning the future of the Scottish-based degree course for training orthoptists. [24560]

  Mr. Galbraith
  I have been in correspondence with the British Orthoptic Society on this matter and Miss Anne Jarvie, the Chief Nursing Officer, is arranging to meet with the Society in the next few weeks.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure the continuation of degree training for orthoptists in Scotland. [24558]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Scottish Office is currently engaged in assessing the numbers of orthoptists which Scotland requires.

  Once I have ascertained this, I will take steps to ensure sufficient orthoptists undertake degrees in orthoptics to meet the needs of the NHS in Scotland.
  79
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to (i) Caledonian University and (ii) the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine regarding the future of the orthoptic degree course at Caledonian University; and if he will make a statement. [24561]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Glasgow Caledonian University and the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine (CPSM) have kept Scottish office officials fully appraised of the situation regarding the orthoptic degree course at Glasgow Caledonian University.

  I have called for a review of the education and training of orthoptists in Scotland, the first stage of which is to seek information from Trusts on the current need for orthoptists and the need over the next five years. This information has now been gathered. Further stages in the review process will be decided after these data have been analysed.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish students received funding for an orthoptic degree course (i) at Caledonian, (ii) at Liverpool, (iii) at Sheffield universities and (iv) outside the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [24562]

  Mr. Wilson
  The number of Scottish students, funded by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland, on the BSc Orthoptics course, in the current academic session (1997–98) is contained in the table:

  University

  Number

  Glasgow Caledonian

  49

  Liverpool

  1

  Sheffield

  nil

  Outwith the UK

  nil

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the criteria which he applies for the purpose of establishing whether or not agriculture enterprises are separate businesses to determine their eligibility for assistance under IACS. [25420]

  Mr. MacDonald
  The criteria used by The Scottish Office are as follows.

  IACS SEPARATE BUSINESSES: CRITERIA FOR SEPARATENESS

  Background
  1. The Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department and other UK Departments have to be able to demonstrate to the European Commission and other auditors that all the IACS rules are being followed. This is a matter of complying with Community law and non-compliance can lead to costly expenditure disallowance penalties.
  2. The criteria for determining whether businesses are separate for IACS purposes have been developed on the basis of the definitions of "farmer" and "holding" contained in Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3508/92. In effect, an applicant under any of the main agricultural schemes, who may be an individual or a legal person, or a group of individuals or legal persons (regardless of the legal status of the group and its members), must submit a single Area Aid Application (AAA) for all the production units managed by him and within the UK. In other words, all land managed as one business, whatever the legal structure of the business, should be covered by one AAA. The criteria for
  80
  establishing whether one business is separate from another have been published in the annual IACS explanatory booklets which have been distributed to farmers each year since 1993.
  3. In order to form an assessment the practice is to consider four aspects of the way the business is run, namely—legal status, economic structure/organisation, commercial management and operational management. As indicated by the IACS explanatory booklets, no single aspect is paramount and it is the balance of factors which counts. Each case is therefore examined on its own merits to form a balanced judgement. The EC have subsequently endorsed the criteria.

  Legal Status
  4. If two or more businesses are to qualify as separate for IACS purposes, it will normally be required that each should have a distinct legal status, e.g. sole trader, partnership company etc. However, satisfying this requirement is not in itself sufficient to establish separateness, since businesses which are legally separate may still be regarded as operating together as a group (see paragraph 2 above). Similarly failing to meet this requirement is not in itself sufficient to be deemed to be one. Whether or not this is so can only be determined on consideration of the other three criteria.

  Economic Structure
  5. In considering the economic structure of a number of legally separate businesses in which certain individuals (or legal persons) have an interest, it is necessary to take account of:

  5.1 the share holding or the partnership interest or voting rights of the directors, shareholders, partners, individuals (or legal persons) involved in the businesses;

  5.2 who benefits from the profits/suffers any losses relating to the businesses.;

  5.3 who has ultimate responsibility for making the longer term policy decisions that affect the profitability of each business.

  Where necessary documentary evidence of the above will be sought e.g. partnership agreements. Where the same individuals (or legal persons)—

  (a) have a large majority shareholding or interest in, or

  (b) benefit from the profits or suffer the losses of,

  the business concerned, this may indicate that the businesses should be considered as economically one business for IACS purposes. However, the commercial and operational structure will still be carefully examined and taken into account.
  Where no particular individuals (or legal persons) are dominant in these respects throughout the businesses concerned, then it is likely that the businesses would be considered separate for IACS purposes. Again, however, the commercial and operational structure will be taken into account before a determination is made.

  Commercial Structure
  6. In considering the commercial structure of the businesses, which, though legally separate, may fall to be treated as one, it is necessary to ascertain:

  6.1 whether those with day-to-day management responsibility have complete discretion to buy or sell, whenever they choose;

  6.2 who has day-to-day management responsibility for running each business, and, in some cases, the extent of their authority;

  6.3 whether there are transactions for goods or services between the business and whether they are carried out at commercial rates (evidence of sales invoices/contracts may be required);

  6.4 whether there is any evidence of cross subsidisation between the businesses;

  6.5 whether the businesses have separate accounts, sales contracts, tax and VAT status.

  Business are unlikely to be commercially separate for IACS purposes where:
  there is an overlap in the way in which the businesses are managed;
  those who have responsibility for running the businesses on day-to-day basis, lack of commercial independence;

  81
  transactions of goods between the businesses are not accounted for in a way which would be expected from independent businesses;
  there is a lack of sound financial arrangements, which an independent agricultural business would be expected to have in place—e.g. itemised invoicing, and arrangements for invoicing and payment in good time;
  there is a lack of basic structures, which would be expected in running free-standing agricultural businesses—e.g. proper accounts, separate herd marks, separate land etc.

  Operational Structure
  7. It is necessary to consider the degree of operational separateness of cropping, stocking, machinery, labour, buildings and livestock housing, whether each legally separate enterprise has such things as its own supplies of food, fertiliser and land for grazing, livestock records, farm plans, registration and herd marks.
  Where businesses have very closely linked operational arrangements i.e.:

  regular movement of stock almost exclusively between the farms comprised in the business, and the dependence of one farm on another for overwintering or grazing, beyond what would be common elsewhere in the locality;

  lack of sufficiently separate arrangements for buying, making and storing stockfeed;

  reliance by one farm on the other(s) for housing, feeding and supervising livestock, and common arrangements for buying, selling and transporting stock;

  reliance by one farm on the other(s) for purchase of seed stocks, harvesting and storage of crops and common arrangements for dressing, sale and transport of crops produced;

  extensive use of interchange of the same labour force, beyond what would be expected from independent businesses;

  interchange of land, buildings and other fixed equipment;

  they are likely to be considered as operationally one for IACS purposes.
  A degree of co-operation in the use of some resources would be permissible, but this should normally be of a limited, seasonal nature. For businesses to be considered operationally separate, there should be independent management and organisation of any stock involved.
  8. Please note that it is a requirement in particular under Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 to ensure that the conversion of existing holdings or the creation of holdings after 30 June 1992 does not lead to the patently improper avoidance of the provisions relating to individuals' limits on eligibility for premiums or land set-aside requirements imposed under the main agricultural schemes.

  University Tuition Fees
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if a domiciled English student at a Scottish university who changes course after the first year and re-applies as a Scottish resident to the Scottish Office for funding, will be eligible to have his fourth year tuition fees paid. [25349]

  Mr. Wilson
  The residence eligibility criteria under the new student support arrangements will remain the same as under the existing schemes. The responsible award making body is determined primarily by a student's place of ordinary residence on 30 June of the year in which he or she starts the course. A period of residence wholly or mainly for the purpose of full-time education is not regarded as ordinary residence. Where a student changes to a different course of higher education during the academic year, or in the immediately following academic year, the responsibility for considering assistance for the new course remains with the original award making body.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Foreign Students
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of the charging of university fees to students from developing countries. [23184]

  Dr. Howells
  The Education (Fees and Awards) Regulations 1997 allow universities to differentiate between students for the purpose of fee charging. They are permitted to charge higher fees to students who do not fulfil the conditions described in the Schedule to the Regulations than to students who do fulfil the conditions. No special statutory provision is made for students from developing countries to be charged fees at the lower rate.

  The British Government and other United Kingdom organisations provide a number of scholarships and awards to help international students to study in the UK. The main schemes are described in a booklet produced in 1997 by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UKCOSA (The Council for International Education) and The British Council called, "Studying in the UK, Sources of funding for international students" a copy of which has been placed in the Library. In particular, the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, funded by the Department for International Development (DfID) and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), assists academically able students from Commonwealth countries to study in the UK. DfID also supports students from developing countries attending UK universities under Technical Co-operation Training arrangements. Students from developing countries are also eligible for FCO Chevening Scholarships.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to improve the access of students from developing countries to British universities. [23185]

  Dr. Howells
  Her Majesty's Government will continue to target resources on schemes which enable international students, including those from developing countries, to study in the United Kingdom.

  The main schemes are described in a booklet produced in 1997 by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UKCOSA (The Council for International Education) and The British Council called, "Studying in the UK, Sources of funding for international students", a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Many of these schemes are open to students from developing countries.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the percentage of parents voting in the ballot on grant maintained status who voted(a) in favour and (b) against for each grant maintained school. [24072]

  Mr Byers
  A list of the percentage of parents voting in the ballot on GM status who voted(a) in favour and (b) against for each GM school, has been placed in the Library.

  Schools (Lighting Standards)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many, and what percentage, of schools are not complying with Health and Safety Executive lighting standards; and what additional resources are being made available to ensure compliance. [23962]

  Mr. Byers
  Lighting standards for maintained schools are those set out in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996. The statutory responsibility for ensuring that these standards are met rests with local education authorities for schools maintained by them, and with the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools.

  Northumberland TEC
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the surplus achieved by Northumberland TEC on trading accounts was for the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97. [23990]

  Dr. Howells
  Surplus as achieved by Northumberland Training and Enterprise Council (Group) Ltd. are

  Year to 31 March 1996: £475,842

  Year to 31 March 1997: £1,151,765.

  Mr. Robbie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the amount allocated to Northumberland TEC for(a) training fees, (b) starts funding and (c) outcomes funding in the three most recent available years. [23989]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  (a) Training fees

  Youth Training

  7,008,711.00

  6,930,436.00

  6,720,457.00

  Adult Training

  2,516,662.00

  2,672,676.00

  2,062,880.00

  Total

  9,525,373.00

  9,603,112.00

  8,783,337.00

  (b) Starts funding

  Youth Training

  1,807,531.00

  1,729,842.00

  1,680,115.00

  Adult Training

  625,049.00

  584,719.00

  477,725.00

  Total

  2,432,580.00

  2,314,561.00

  2,157,840.00

  (c) Outcomes funding

  Youth Training

  5,201,180.00

  5,200,594.00

  5,040,342.00

  Adult Training

  1,891,613.00

  2,087,957.00

  1,473,717.00

  Total

  7,092,793.00

  7,288,551.00

  6,514,059.00

  School Inspectors
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with OFSTED on the recent errors made in selecting schools for inspection in the autumn term; and what steps are being taken to prevent such errors occurring in the future. [25278]

  Mr. Byers
  HM Chief Inspector of Schools wrote to my right hon. Friend on 19 January to apologise for an error which had resulted in around 500 of the 1,350 schools which had recently been notified of an inspection in the autumn term 1998 being incorrectly chosen, and to inform him of the action which had been 84
  taken to correct the error. I have asked HM Chief Inspector to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the library.

  "Partners in Europe" Resource Pack
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the cost of producing and circulating, "Partners in Europe: A Resource Pack for Schools." [23685]

  Dr. Howells
  The estimated cost of producing and circulating "Partners in Europe: A Resource Pack for Schools" is £223,988.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines he has issued to educational establishments on dealing with computer systems which are not millennium compliant; and if he will make a statement. [24703]

  Dr. Howells
  DfEE have mounted a year 2000 date change awareness raising campaign with representative educational and training organisations which work in partnership with my department. These organisations have been provided with material relating to risk analysis, contract compliance and contingency planning. Further work with the education sector is planned.

  British Academy
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many grants were awarded by the Humanities Research Board of the British Academy to students to undertake a masters and doctoral higher degree from(a) higher education colleges and (b) universities in the last five years. [23824]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of awards offered for Masters courses for 1993–97 was as follows:

  First degree

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Institution

  University

  557

  535

  553

  474

  474

  HE College

  21

  12

  17

  12

  10

  Total

  578

  547

  570

  486

  484

  The number of awards offered for Doctoral Study for 1993–97 was as follows:

  First degree

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Institution

  University

  527

  493

  511

  467

  522

  HE College

  23

  6

  7

  11

  4

  Total

  550

  499

  518

  478

  526

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what policy the Humanities Research Board of the British Academy operates in respect of funding for students wishing to undertake masters and doctoral higher degrees; what proportion of studentships have been allocated to mature students in the last five
  85
  years; and how many of the studentships were allocated to those who have graduated from colleges of higher education in the last five years. [23823]

  Dr. Howells
  The Humanities Research Board's (HRB's) policy is to allocate postgraduate awards through an annual competition. It does not allocate quotas of awards to specific institutions, courses, age groups or subjects. Rather, all applications are assessed and graded, and awards made down a list of rank order candidates until available funds are exhausted.

  Applications are submitted on students' behalf by the institutions at which they intend to study and are assessed by panels of senior academic staff in the relevant subject areas. Panel members are drawn from universities across the country and serve for a term of three years. In assessing applications, they take account of candidates' performance in examinations at first degree level; candidates' statements about their intended programme of study or research and their reasons for undertaking it; referees' reports and, where appropriate, reports on candidates' performance on postgraduate-level courses; and information provided by institutions about supervision arrangements, and the training and support it will provide. The Board's expectation is that applicants should normally have completed an initial year of postgraduate study before embarking on a three-year programme of doctoral research.

  With regard to mature students, the HRB monitors only those applicants who are aged 40 or over at the date of application. The percentage of awards offered to such applicants is shown in the table.

  Per cent.

  1993

  5

  1994

  3

  1995

  4

  1996

  4

  1997

  5

  The number of awards offered for Masters courses to applicants with a first degree from higher education colleges for 1993–97 was:

  Year

  Number from HE Colleges

  1993

  21

  1994

  12

  1995

  17

  1996

  12

  1997

  10

  The number of awards offered for Doctoral study to applicants with a first degree from higher education colleges for 1993–97 was:

  Year

  Number from HE Colleges

  1993

  23

  1994

  6

  1995

  7

  1996

  11

  1997

  4

  Examination Results
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the LEA area which achieved the best(a) A level results and (b) GCSE results in 1997, indicating the extent to which each operates a selective education system. [24074]

  Dr. Howells
  The 1997 Performance Tables show that the Isles of Scilly achieved the highest proportion of maintained school pupils gaining five or more GCSE grades A*-C or GNVQ equivalent, and pupils in Buckinghamshire maintained schools achieved the highest average GCE A/AS point score per examination entry. Forty-seven per cent. of all pupils in maintained secondary schools (excluding special schools) in Buckinghamshire attend schools with a selective admissions policy. The Isles of Scilly has one maintained non-selective secondary school.

  Student Placements
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what financial support his Department offers to full-time students on sandwich courses who are unable to find paid placements; [23961]

  (2) what proposals the Government have to assist students spending a year in an industrial placement. [23965]

  Dr. Howells
  Students who hold mandatory awards for a sandwich course are not normally eligible for maintenance support during their placements. They can expect to be paid for their productive work by the employer with which they are placed. Where students have unpaid placements in many parts of the public service they exceptionally continue to be eligible for means-tested maintenance support as part of their award in substitution for payment by the employer. Students in either category who are unable to find placements are not eligible for maintenance support unless their institution is able to make suitable alternative provision for them.

  Students on sandwich courses can apply for the appropriate rate of loan in any year in which there is a placement where the student and the course are eligible for loans. Provided that they are attending their course, whether at the institution or on a placement, when an application is made for a loan it can be paid.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the(a) private sector companies and (b) public sector departments which have provided jobs for the employer option of the Welfare to Work scheme, indicating the number of jobs each has provided. [24493]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The information requested is not held centrally. Nine thousand employers have expressed interest in taking part in the New Deal, the overwhelming majority in the private sector.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in the employer option of the Welfare to Work scheme are in jobs in the(a) private and (b) public sector. [24490]
  87
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: The large majority of jobs on the New Deal Employment option will be in the private sector, reflecting the balance in the workforce as a whole.

  An important feature of the New Deal is the provision of advice during the Gateway period, prior to taking up new deal options including the Employment option. The New Deal started in the 12 pathfinder areas on 5 January.

  In the first two weeks there have been 107 referrals to the private sector employment option and six to the public sector option.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds will be voluntary in circumstances where a claimant has been unemployed for six months and broken his claim for between one and 28 days. [25559]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Young people who would have reached six months on the Jobseeker's Allowance and would have entered the New Deal Gateway but for short breaks in their claim totalling not more than 28 days will be able to choose to join the New Deal early.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what would be the cost of extending the education and training options of the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds to allow those eligible to take a level 3 course or equivalent as set out in schedule 2 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and section 6 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992. [25566]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Although primarily designed for young people without N/SVQ 2 or equivalent level qualifications, the Full-Time Education and Training option of the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds also allows some young people to study towards a Level 3 qualification, where there is a clear link between achievement of the qualification and increased employability. The cost will depend on the bids by education and training providers. Young people may also study part-time for a qualification above Level 2 through the education and training element of the other three options.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if an 18 to 24-year-old who has completed a New Deal option and then claimed jobseeker's allowance for a further six months will be re-referred to the Gateway and New Deal. [25558]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We are making a major investment to help young people move off welfare and find sustained employment, and to avoid as far as possible (for example through a follow-through strategy for people who return to JSA shortly after completing an option) the circumstances described. Any young person who found themselves in this position would of course have the right to further help from the New Deal.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what circumstances a lone parent who claims jobseeker's allowance to enter the New Deal programme for 18 to 24-year-olds will be allowed to return to income support if they are issued with a jobseeker's allowance or New Deal sanction. [25557]
  88
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Any lone parent claiming Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) who would be eligible for Income Support would always have the option of terminating the claim to JSA and claiming Income Support instead.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places will be available in the next five years under the education and training options of the New Deal for the over 25-year-old long-term unemployed. [25555]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We have made provision for at least 10,000 additional opportunities, over the lifetime of this Parliament, for those aged 25 years or over, unemployed for two years or more, to undertake courses of full-time employment-related education and training for up to a year while receiving Jobseeker's Allowance.

  Further Eduction Colleges
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria will be employed in approving mergers and acquisitions involving further education colleges; what will be the consultation process for staff and local communities; and if he will make a statement on his policy. [23959]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will normally consider further education corporation mergers on the basis of a formal proposal from the Further Education Funding Council for England and following a statutory consultation process. He will consider each case on its merits. The Council assesses proposals against criteria which include educational and financial benefits, the likely success of the proposed reorganisation and the extent of consultation and the consideration given to alternative proposals. There are opportunities for the involvement of staff and local communities during preliminary consultations conducted locally and then following the formal issue of statutory notices by the Council prior to the submission of the proposal to my right hon. Friend for a final decision.

  Literacy
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to expand the literacy hour scheme(a) nationally and (b) in Leicestershire. [23565]

  Mr. Byers
  We expect the norm for all primary schools to be the implementation of a daily literacy hour from this September, as part of the strategy to meet our national literacy target for 2002.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many literacy schools(a) were in operation in summer 1997 and (b) are planned to be in operation in summer 1998 (i) nationally, (ii) in the East Midlands and (iii) in Leicestershire. [23563]

  Mr. Byers
  A pilot of 50 Summer Literacy Schools supporting 1,500 pupils was in operation last year. The scheme will be expanded in 1998 to cover 500 schools and 16,000 pupils nationally. Decisions have not yet been taken on where Summer Literacy Schools will be run this year, but we expect there to be a broad geographical spread.
  89
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools(a) in the East Midlands, (b) in Leicestershire and (c) nationally currently participate in the literacy hour scheme. [23564]

  Mr. Byers
  Around 500 schools in 14 LEAs are in the National Literacy Project. Although none of the LEAs in the East Midlands is part of the project, we know some schools in that region are trailing the project's literacy hour.

  Project Funding (Northumberland)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what projects have received funds from(a) the EU Social Fund and (b) the EU Cohesion Fund in the Northumberland County Council area. [23992]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The following table shows the number of projects that have received funding through the European Social Fund since 1990. Documentation providing details of each individual project which has received funds has been placed in the Library. Northumberland is not eligible for money from the EU Cohesion Fund.

  Year

  Number of successful projects

  1990

  19

  1991

  20

  1992

  31

  1993

  67

  1994

  41

  1995

  52

  1996

  78

  1997

  43

  New Deal (Environmental Placements)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding there is for materials in Home Energy efficiency programmes carried out under environmental placements on the New Deal. [25467]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Organisations which tender to provide placements on home energy efficiency programmes under the Environmental Task Force option of the New Deal for 18–24 year olds, may include in their bid an element to cover the cost of materials.

  Workskill Pilots
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if a participant in the workskill pilots who is aged 18 to 24 years will be automatically referred to the New Deal. [25561]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Every young person who has claimed the Jobseeker's Allowance continuously for six months will be referred to the New Deal. New Deal Advisers will discuss with young people studying under the Workskill pilot regulations how best to accommodate their course of study within the New Deal.
  90
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have joined the workskill pilots broken down by standard region; and how many of these(a) completed the course and (b) left early. [25562]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  As of 16 January, 1,049 people had started courses of education and training under the Jobseeker's Allowance Workskill pilot regulations.

  There are currently pilots in eight areas. Four of the pilots allow people to study full-time, and four provide additional concessions to allow people to study part-time while on JSA. The breakdown of course starts by pilot area is as follows:

  Number of course starts

  Full-time pilot areas

  Cardiff and Bridgend

  248

  Glasgow and Dumbarton

  45

  Lancashire and Cumbria

  175

  North Black Country

  144

  Part-time pilot areas

  Avon, Somerset and Wiltshire

  136

  Leeds

  93

  Liverpool South and Wirral

  64

  South and South East London

  144

  Information on the number of people completing, or leaving courses early, is not yet available, as many participants are currently in the middle of their course of study. However, the pilots will be fully evaluated.

  Veterinary and Architecture Students
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which Government Department is responsible for the funding of(a) veterinary and (b) architecture students' additional year tuition fees. [25338]

  Dr. Howells
  From 1998–99, new students on full-time higher education courses in veterinary and architecture studies will make a contribution to tuition fees of up to £1,000, depending on income, for every year of their course. There is no equivalent to the Department of Health scheme for meeting tuition fee contributions of medical and dental students after the first four years of their course. This is because the Government cannot take responsibility for the supply of professionals such as vets and architects who are employed predominantly in the private sector. The student contribution to fees in any year is a small proportion of the total cost of tuition, the rest being met in England from the Department for Education and Employment grant to the Higher Education Funding Council.

  School Budgets
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which local education authority holds back the lowest percentage of its school budget; and what amount per pupil, would be made available to schools if all local authorities held back the same percentage. [25339]
  91
  Mr. Stephen Byers
  Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council was the local education authority which delegated the largest proportion of its Potential Schools Budget for the financial year 1997–98, the percentage being 96.3. The table gives the information requested as a listing of local education authorities in England for the same year. The figures are derived from the budget statements produced by the local education authorities under section 122 of the 1996 Education Act.

  Extract—section 122 budget statements (England) 1997–98) Amount capable of being delegated per pupil if ASB were 96.3 per cent. of PSB for authorities

  £

  Corporation of London

  3,229

  Camden

  2,780

  Greenwich

  2,388

  Hackney

  2,551

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,673

  Islington

  2,432

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,010

  Lambeth

  2,776

  Lewisham

  2,485

  Southwark

  2,455

  Tower Hamlets

  2,513

  Wandsworth

  2,558

  Westminster

  2,583

  Barking/Dagenham

  2,228

  Barnet

  2,148

  Bexley

  1,823

  Brent

  2,182

  Bromley

  1,898

  Croydon

  2,053

  Ealing

  2,190

  Enfield

  2,121

  Haringey

  2,411

  Harrow

  2,251

  Havering

  2,030

  Hillingdon

  2,054

  Hounslow

  2,283

  Kingston

  1,979

  Merton

  2,127

  Newham

  2,171

  Redbridge

  2,072

  Richmond

  2,189

  Sutton

  2,036

  Waltham Forest

  2,253

  Birmingham

  2,142

  Coventry

  2,076

  Dudley

  1,840

  Sandwell

  1,898

  Solihull

  1,891

  Walsall

  1,947

  Wolverhampton

  1,877

  Knowsley

  1,999

  Liverpool

  1,897

  St. Helens

  1,954

  Sefton

  2,003

  Wirral

  1,881

  Bolton

  1,883

  Bury

  1,760

  Manchester

  1,956

  Oldham

  1,924

  Rochdale

  1,803

  Salford

  1,899

  Stockport

  2,722

  Tameside

  1,721

  Trafford

  1,737

  Wigan

  1,988

  Barnsley

  1,712

  92

  Extract—section 122 budget statements (England) 1997–98) Amount capable of being delegated per pupil if ASB were 96.3 per cent. of PSB for all authorities

  £

  Doncaster

  1,988

  Rotherham

  1,856

  Sheffield

  1,884

  Bradford

  1,807

  Calderdale

  1,791

  Kirklees

  1,862

  Leeds

  1,942

  Wakefield

  1,790

  Gateshead

  2,025

  Newcastle

  2,025

  North Tyneside

  1,879

  South Tyneside

  1,843

  Sunderland

  1,890

  Isles of Scilly

  3,486

  Bath and North-East Somerset

  2,100

  Bristol

  2,144

  North Somerset

  2,041

  South Gloucestershire

  2,458

  Hartlepool

  1,798

  Middlesbrough

  1,931

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,905

  Stockton on Tees

  1,906

  Hull

  1,901

  East Riding

  2,023

  North East Lincolnshire

  1,929

  North Lincolnshire

  1,953

  North Yorkshire

  1,983

  York

  1,904

  Luton

  1,843

  Milton Keynes

  1,807

  Derby City

  1,671

  Poole

  1,640

  Bournemouth

  1,812

  Darlington

  1,800

  Brighton and Hove

  2,016

  Portsmouth

  2,058

  Southampton

  2,043

  Leicester City

  1,954

  Rutland

  1,820

  Stoke on Trent

  1,794

  Swindon

  1,756

  Bedfordshire

  1,872

  Berkshire

  1,934

  Buckinghamshire

  1,853

  Cambridgeshire

  1,821

  Cheshire

  1,919

  Cornwall

  1,924

  Cumbria

  1,814

  Derbyshire

  1,721

  Devon

  1,894

  Dorset

  1,834

  Durham

  1,895

  East Sussex

  2,004

  Essex

  1,891

  Gloucestershire

  1,779

  Hampshire

  1,983

  Hereford/Worcester

  1,874

  Hertfordshire

  1,912

  Isle of Wight

  1,955

  Kent

  1,885

  Lancashire

  1,905

  Leicestershire

  1,941

  Lincolnshire

  1,998

  Norfolk

  1,975

  Northamptonshire

  1,836

  Northumberland

  1,841

  Nottinghamshire

  1,782

  Oxfordshire

  1,917

  Shropshire

  1,850

  Somerset

  1,918

  Staffordshire

  1,767

  93

  Extract—section 122 budget statements (England) 1997–98) Amount capable of being delegated per pupil if ASB were 96.3 per cent. of PSB for all authorities

  £

  Suffolk

  1,965

  Surrey

  2,020

  Warwickshire

  1,888

  West Sussex

  1,976

  Wiltshire

  1,829

  England

  1,958

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) men and (b) women are at present in apprenticeship schemes in England and Wales. [23805]

  Dr. Howells
  As at 2 November 1997 there were 111,900 people in training on Modern Apprenticeships, 58 per cent. of these were men and 42 per cent. were women.

  University Tuition Fees
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what university tuition fees will apply in respect of students who were offered deferred entry in 1998–99 on the basis of results which have now been re-marked on appeal to levels which could have secured an entry in 1997–98. [23939]

  Dr. Howells
  Students who were unable to enter higher education in 1997 because their results were inadequate, but who have had those results upgraded on appeal and who will now be able to enter in 1998, will be treated as 1997 entrants for student support purposes. This means that they will have their tuition fees met for the duration of their course, and receive the current 50:50 grants and loans maintenance support.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how university students' fees will be applied in the case of those students who were required to engage in a year's vocational work after A level, prior to consideration for entry to university, who were for that reason unable to secure admission offers for 1997–98. [23957]

  Dr. Howells
  Students who agreed a deferred entry place for autumn 1998 with their chosen university before 1 August 1997 prior to undertaking the required vocational work will not have to pay tuition fees for the duration of their course and will be subject to the existing grant and loan arrangements. Those applying after 1 August 1997 for places to start in autumn 1998 or later will be subject to the new tuition fee and maintenance arrangements being introduced in 1998.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if local authorities in England will be liable to pay fourth-year tuition fees for EU migrant workers resident within the boundaries of the local authority area, should they apply to a Scottish university; and if he will make a statement. [25335]
  94
  Dr. Howells
  In 1998–99, new mandatory award holders domiciled in England and Wales, including EU migrant workers, will be eligible for assistance with their fees for all years of their courses.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if future increases in the level of tuition fees will be limited to the rate of inflation. [25333]

  Dr. Howells
  In recognition of the need for safeguards, the Teaching and Higher Education Bill currently before the other place provides that an affirmative resolution of both Houses would be needed before the level of a student's contribution could be increased above the rate of inflation.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Produce
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent efforts his Department has made to promote local sourcing of food produce; and if he will make a statement. [24461]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are firmly committed to promoting the local sourcing of food produce, particularly through their grant aid scheme for the establishment of regional groups of speciality producers and the practical assistance provided to these and other groups by Food From Britain.

  I myself will shortly be opening the Food and Drink Expo 98 exhibition in Birmingham which will have a dedicated British speciality foods sector which is directly sponsored by FFB and MAFF. We have also ensured that food served in the VIP suite reflects regional foods.

  Further, as part of his personal commitment to this sector, my noble Friend Lord Donoughue of Ashton has recently announced that he will refuse to stay at hotels which do not serve locally produced food and drink and has challenged other business travellers to do the same.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his order of priorities for reform of Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome. [24455]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government objectives for the Common Agriculture Policy, as established under Articles 38–46 of the Treaty of Rome, are for reforms which provide a market oriented policy with less costly farm support decoupled from agricultural production; and more emphasis placed on targeted environmental and rural development objectives. Achieving these objectives does not require Treaty amendment.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reduce the use of pesticides; and if he will make a statement. [24453]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is Government policy to minimise the use of pesticides to that required for effective pest and disease control. This policy is pursued in a number of ways including a rigorous pesticide product approvals
  95
  process, a wide ranging R&D programme, and surveillance monitoring of pesticide residues in food. In addition, the Statutory Code of Practice for the Safe Use of Pesticides on Farms and Holdings, laid before this House on 12 January, will be published in March.

  The Government are also reviewing the role that economic instruments such as charges or taxes might play in reducing the impact of pesticides and aims to give organic farming a higher priority.

  Finally, the Government have given their full support to the recently established Pesticides Forum which, last August, published an Action Plan for encouraging responsible pesticide use, including plans to improve arrangements for technology transfer and promote techniques, such as integrated crop management, designed to minimise pesticide use.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of the presence of traces of DDT in(a) milk and (b) other dairy products imported from New Zealand. [24451]

  Mr. Rooker
  Milk is not normally imported into the United Kingdom from New Zealand. However, in 1993 and 1996 the surveillance programme of the Working Party on Pesticide Residues included butter imported from New Zealand. Residues of DDT at very low levels were detected on both occasions, but there was no cause for concern from these findings and no exceedance of maximum residue levels (MRLs).

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has evaluated into the long-term effects of pesticide residues in food; and if he will make a statement. [24452]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is standard practice for the possible effects of each active ingredient used in pesticides and its residues in food to be assessed before products containing that active ingredient are approved for sale. This assessment is undertaken on the basis of extensive testing of the active ingredient in animals, including long-term testing at much higher doses than would occur in the food supply.

  The results of assessments by Government scientists are reviewed by the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides who advise Ministers in six UK Government Departments on the approval of pesticides. The Working Party on Pesticide Residues undertakes an annual surveillance programme to ensure that residues in food remain at acceptable levels.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that those farmers who have been excluded from requiring a certificate of competence before using pesticides now have such certificates; and if he will make a statement. [24454]

  Mr. Rooker
  I propose to remove the age exemption to ensure that all users of agricultural pesticides are properly trained. This will require amendments to the Control of Pesticide Regulations 1986 (as amended) and the Plant Protection Products (Basic Conditions) Regulations 1997.

  We shall be consulting interested parties on this and related matters.

  Pet Foods
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce a more informative labelling system for pet foods; and if he will make a statement. [24464]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have no plans to make changes to the labelling system for pet foods. The Feeding Stuffs Regulations 1995 (as amended), which implement EC measures, contain extensive provisions for the statutory labelling of pet foods.

  Rabies
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of anti-rabies precautions within the Channel Tunnel. [24789]

  Mr. Rooker
  The controls in place to prevent animals from entering the channel tunnel, which include fencing, video recording, routine surveillance by service personnel, deterrent lighting, and routine baiting for small animals are considered to be very effective anti-rabies precautions. No rabies susceptible animal has ever succeeded in passing through the tunnel. There have however been considerable operational problems with the electrified grids within the tunnel. We are pressing Eurotunnel to get the grids back in operation which is a legal requirement.

  Butchers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to give grants to small family butchers to compensate them for the financial losses resulting from the ban on beef on the bone. [24700]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have no such plans.

  EU Fisheries
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the expected duration of MAGP V and the forecast reduction of EU marine resources available in that period, together with the forecast reduction in vessel capacity. [24685]

  Mr. Morley
  Council Decision 97/413/EC concerning objectives and detailed rules for MAGP IV covers the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001. Article 9 provides for the European Commission to present a report by 30 March 1999 at the latest on the state and evolution of fish stocks and an assessment of the effects of structural, conservation, control and other policy measures on the state of the resources and on the sector. In the light of this the Council has until 30 December 1999 to decide on any necessary adjustments to the targets for fishing effort in the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2001. Consideration of the position after 31 December 2001 has not yet been provided for.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of fishing already conducted in EU waters by boats of applicant nations for EU membership listed in phases one and two of projected EU enlargement, as based on the 1983
  97
  principle of relative stability; and what percentage per species catch is accounted for by each of these potential new EU members. [24684]

  Mr. Morley
  The only applicant countries which have current fishing quotas in EU waters are Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Under the terms of bilateral fisheries agreements with the EU, access by these countries to EU waters is limited to the Baltic Sea where the UK fleet does not fish.

  The fishing opportunities available to each of the applicant countries in EU Baltic waters in 1998 are summarised in the table:

  Quota

  Quota as percentage of EU share of TAC1

  Estonia

  Cod

  1,100 tonnes

  1.29

  Herring

  4,000 tonnes

  1.30

  Sprat

  4,000 tonnes

  2.00

  Latvia

  Cod

  2,500 tonnes

  2.93

  Herring

  2,500 tonnes

  0.81

  Sprat

  6,000 tonnes

  3.01

  Salmon

  2,000 fish

  0.50

  Lithuania

  Cod

  1,350 tonnes

  1.58

  Herring

  500 tonnes

  0.16

  Sprat

  4,000 tonnes

  2.00

  Salmon

  500 fish

  0.13

  Poland

  Cod

  400 tonnes

  0.47

  Herring

  5,000 tonnes

  1.62

  Sprat

  5,000 tonnes

  2.51

  Flounder

  400 tonnes

  n/a

  1 Total allowable catches are fixed by the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Scotland to produce a concordat setting out arrangements for relations between his Department and the Scottish Executive after the establishment of a Scottish parliament; and if he will make a statement. [25476]

  Mr. Morley
  Concordats cannot be finalised until after the Scottish Parliament is elected in 1999. However, our officials and those of the Scottish Office are engaging in preparatory work on some of the possible administrative working arrangements that might apply in the agriculture, fisheries and food areas after devolution. The White Paper, "Scotland's Parliament", makes clear the Government's commitment to the development of mutual understandings covering the exchange of information, advance notification and joint working to facilitate good communication after devolution.

  BSE
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in appointing experts to support Lord Justice Phillips in the inquiry into the emergence of BSE and new variant CJD. [25619]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The Government have now appointed Mrs. June Bridgeman CB, a retired senior civil servant and formerly Deputy Chair of the Equal 98
  Opportunities Commission to be the member of the Inquiry with experience in public administration and Professor Malcolm Ferguson-Smith, Professor of Pathology at the University of Cambridge, as the scientific member of the Inquiry.

  Abattoirs (Foreign Veterinarians)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many non-United Kingdom nationals are currently practising in the United Kingdom as official veterinarians in abattoirs; what assessment he has made of their level of competence in the English language; and what tests are used to ensure that the level of language competence is adequate. [22829]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) is responsible for Official Veterinary Surgeons (OVSs) working in abattoirs in Great Britain. Nine of the OVSs directly employed by the MHS are non-United Kingdom nationals. The Department of Agriculture is responsible for OVSs working in abattoirs in Northern Ireland. Three of its OVSs are non-United Kingdom nationals. In both cases, the selection process includes a formal interview during which communication skills must be demonstrated.

  The MHS also contracts out OVS services to veterinary agencies and practices. Seventy-eight (out of 486) are non-United Kingdom nationals.

  In liaison with the University of Bristol, the MHS is responsible for the management of the OVS training courses. The MHS has introduced an assessment for non-United Kingdom nationals to assess their ability to understand and communicate in English.

  Beef Imports
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to make spot checks on consignments of imported beef to ensure that SRM removal has been carried out to United Kingdom standards; [23598]

  (2) how he intends to monitor the removal of SRMs from de-boned imported beef; [23599]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the mechanisms by which the Government intend to enforce the restrictions on beef imports. [23597]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government's new unilateral controls to ensure that certain food and feed products do not contain and were not derived from specified risk material (SRM) require products to be certified as such in their country of origin by national veterinary services. Products produced before 1 January and products derived from animals born, reared and slaughtered in Australia or New Zealand, provided they are certified as such, are not subject to the SRM-freedom requirements. All consignments imported into the UK from third countries are checked at designated Border Inspection Posts. EU Single Market rules permit random spot-checks only at destination. Consistent with those rules, a daily sample of randomly selected consignments from EU member states are checked for conformity with the new unilateral controls.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the implications of his White Paper, "The Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change", for the location, continued employment prospects and managerial lines of accountability of the staff working for(a) the Meat Hygiene Service and (b) other divisions and agencies of his Department at his Department's offices at King's Pool, York. [24040]

  Mr. Rooker
  The White Paper proposes that the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) should continue to operate as a separate entity but report in future to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and through it to Department of Health Ministers, rather than to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as at present. The MHS is currently expected to retain its headquarters in York and its network of regional offices. There will be a continuing requirement for its staff to be based at meat plants throughout the country.

  The White Paper does not propose any changes to the location of the other divisions and agencies based at the Department's offices in Kings Pool, York.

  Livestock Tagging
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the forecast annual cost to the livestock industry of tagging and identification requirements. [23702]

  Mr. Rooker
  As regards the costs of the computerised Cattle Tracing System, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 4 December 1997,Official Report, column 356. The additional cost to the industry of the second tag required for cattle born or imported after 1 January 1998 is estimated at approximately £3 million per annum.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the forecast cost to the industry of the Meat Hygiene Service for the calendar year 1998; [23703]

  (2) what was the total cost to the industry of the Meat Hygiene Service for the calendar year 1997. [23704]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information regarding the cost of the Meat Hygiene Service to industry is not available on a calendar year basis. However, the income and expenditure of the Meat Hygiene Service(MHS) is published on a financial year basis in its Annual Report and Accounts.

  The total cost of the Meat Hygiene Service to the industry for 1996–1997 was £26 million. Certain MHS enforcement costs, such as for Specified Bovine Material controls, were met by Government.

  The latest estimate of the total cost to industry for 1997–98 is £28.7 million. This similarly excludes those MHS costs met by Government.

  The MHS budget for 1998–99 is currently being prepared. Figures for 1998–99 are therefore not yet available. However it is proposed that the cost of MHS enforcement of Specified Risk Material controls in
  100
  licensed premises should also be charged to industry from 1 April 1998. The estimated maximum cost to industry of this proposal is £48 million.

  Agricultural Charges
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a schedule of all government levies, charges and other financial impositions upon the agriculture industry and agricultural products together with their estimated cost in the most recent year for which figures are available. [23701]

  Mr. Rooker
  The details of levies, charges and financial impositions for which my Department or its agencies are responsible are shown in the tables. The figures provided in the tables show the most recent 12 month accounting period for which information is available but the dates of the accounting periods used vary according to the scheme. An estimated annual cost is shown where a charge has been imposed for less than 12 months.

  Table A: Charges imposed by MAFF and its agencies

  Description of charge

  Total annual cost (£ million)

  Export Certification of Plant Exports

  0.323

  Plant Health Propagation Scheme

  0.049

  Seed Potato Classification Scheme

  0.204

  Plant Passporting

  0.097

  Brown Rot Testing Imported Potatoes

  0.032

  Testing and Inspections of seeds under Seed Certification Scheme

  1.918

  Intellectual Property Register of plant breeders' rights

  0.818

  National listing of approved seed varieties

  1.304

  Dairy Products Hygiene Charges

  11.410

  Monitoring of Veterinary Medicines Residues

  2.261

  Meat Hygiene Service charges

  26.000

  Official supervision of salmonella testing under Poultry Breeding and Hatcheries Order 1993

  0.013

  Licences and approvals for artificial breeding of livestock

  0.186

  Cattle Health Scheme

  0.470

  Deer Health Scheme

  0.001

  Poultry Health Scheme

  0.047

  Swill Feeder Licensing

  0.059

  1 Estimate.

  Statutory levies, authorised by legislation for which MAFF is responsible, are charged on certain products. The income from these levies is used primarily for marketing and research to benefit the sector concerned. The rate of levy is proposed by the relevant sector. The cost of these levies is shown in the table:

  Table B: Producer levies

  Description of charge

  Total annual cost (£ million)

  Milk Development Council levy on milk producers

  4.858

  Apple and Pear Research Council levy

  0.300

  Horticultural Development Council levy

  3.362

  British Potato Council levy on potato producers

  16.500

  Home Grown Cereals Authority levy

  10.777

  Meat and Livestock Commission levy

  37.001

  Levy under The Sugar Beet (Research and
  Education) Order

  2.293

  1 Estimate.

  MAFF is also responsible for the legislation which leads to drainage charges paid by farmers to the

  101
  Environment Agency and the Drainage rates paid by farmers to Internal Drainage Boards. Together these lead to charges of some £13.7 million per annum.

  The Meat Hygiene Service is also responsible for enforcing Specified Risk Material controls in licensed premises. These enforcement costs are currently met by the Government. However it is proposed that these costs should be charged to the industry from 1 April 1998. The estimated maximum cost to the industry of this proposal would be £48 million per annum.

  Finally, the costs of the Cattle Tracing System will be recovered through a charge on cattle passports. The estimated running costs of the system for each of the first three years of operation are likely to be around £15 million per annum.

  Offal
  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who instructed renderers to stop treating offal with ether; and when the instruction was issued. [25035]

  Mr. Rooker
  The rendering industry was not to our knowledge instructed to stop treating offal with ether and other hydrocarbon solvents. The decision was primarily a commercial one.

  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effect on the BSE prion of treating offal with ether. [25034]

  Mr. Rooker
  MAFF has funded research into the capacity of the following hydrocarbon solvents to inactivate BSE: hexane, heptane, petroleum ether and perchlorethylene. These were the chemicals used historically in the rendering industry for the extraction of tallow. The experiment is due to be completed in March 1998 and cannot be evaluated until the final results are received.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  State Pension
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to make payment of the state old-age pension subject to a test of the recipient's means. [23069]

  Mr. Denham
  We stand by our manifesto commitment to maintain the basic State pension as the foundation of income in retirement and we will continue to uprate it at least in line with prices.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will take steps to link the calculation of the state pension to average earnings. [23081]

  Mr. Denham
  The future uprating of the basic pension is being considered by the Pensions Review. In the meantime we have met our manifesto commitment to uprate it at least in line with prices.
  102
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to apply an affluence test to the basic state pension. [23080]

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the merits of subjecting the state pension to a means test. [23082]

  Mr. Denham
  We stand by our manifesto commitment to maintain the basic State pension as the foundation of income in retirement and we will continue to uprate it at least in line with prices.

  We are concerned at widening inequalities between richer and poorer pensioners. That is why the pensions review is examining means of improving access to adequate second pensions.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the amount and percentage of(a) total benefits expenditure and (b) total expenditure on the state retirement pension accounted for by women qualifying for state retirement pension on the basis of their own independent contribution record in (i) 1981 and (ii) 1995. [24751]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested as there is no source of information that can identify all other Social Security benefits paid to women receiving Category A Retirement Pension (RP) in their own right.

  Such information as is available is shown in the table:

  1981

  1995

  Expenditure on RP to category A women

  £5.032 billion

  £7.491 billion

  Proportion of total expenditure on RP going to category A women

  21 per cent.

  25 per cent.

  Sources:

  1. Pension Strategy Computer System (PSCS) 10 per cent. sample for November 1981, 5 per cent. sample for September 1995.

  2. Social Security Departmental Report 1997 and earlier equivalent.

  Notes:

  1. RP expenditure figures include total expenditure on contributory basic RP, Graduated Retirement Benefit and Additional Pension for GB.

  2. Proportion of total expenditure on RP is calculated using PSCS figures for GB and overseas cases on average amounts of the total amount of RP (including payable Additional Pension, Graduated Pension, increments, age addition, Invalidity Addition, Attendance Allowance, but excluding increase for dependants and non contributory Retirement Pension) payable to women receiving any category A RP, including widows whose own category A entitlement is increased in respect of the late spouse's RP entitlement and those married women whose category A entitlement is topped up to the 60 per cent. married women's pension.

  3. The figures are expressed in 1995–96 prices.

  Violence Against Women
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans the Ministers for Women have to introduce measures to tackle violence against women. [23071]

  Ms Ruddock
  Action on violence against women is one of the key priorities for us as Ministers for Women. We are working with other Government Departments on drawing up a coherent strategy for tackling all forms of violence against women.

  Maternity Benefit
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to change the current arrangements for maternity benefit; and if she will make a statement. [23072]

  Mr. Denham
  We want working women to have confidence that the arrangements for maternity pay will help them balance their work and their family responsibilities. The current system is unfair and complicated and fails the lowest paid.

  Ms Hewitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the number of women currently in employment who would not qualify for maternity pay. [23074]

  Mr. Denham
  50,000 pregnant working women a year do not qualify for maternity benefits because their earnings are too low. This is out of 360,000 working women who become pregnant each year.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action the Government are taking to help the least well-off pensioners. [23076]

  Mr. Denham
  We are determined to get help to the million pensioners not claiming their entitlement to Income Support. We have commissioned research to investigate why they do not make a claim, and from April we will be running a number of pilot projects to find the best way of getting help to them.

  Landlord Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the Government's proposals to tackle organised landlord fraud. [23077]

  Mr. Field
  Fraud and abuse will be rooted out in our drive to modernise the Social Security system and rebuild public confidence in it. We introduced regulations last November to give local authorities additional powers to fight landlord fraud and tighten up the rules on paying benefit direct to landlords. We are carrying out—in conjunction with local authorities—a fresh survey to provide accurate and up to date estimates of the extent of Housing Benefit fraud, including landlord fraud. The survey report is expected by the end of March. Those who commit fraud will be vigorously pursued.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the working of child benefit. [23078]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Our manifesto commitment makes it quite clear that where Child Benefit is universal, from birth to age 16, we will maintain it and uprate it at least in line with prices.

  Child Benefit is payable for 16 to 18 year olds staying on in full-time education. The Government are reviewing educational finance and maintenance for this group, as we promised in our manifesto.
  104
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to reform child benefit. [23091]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Our manifesto commitment is to retain Child Benefit where it is universal today—from birth to age 16—and to uprate it at least in line with prices.

  An inter-Departmental review of all the arrangements for financial support for young people choosing to stay in education beyond compulsory school age is continuing. Child Benefit for 16 to 18 year olds is part of that review.

  Birth Certificates
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women did not name the father of the child on the birth certificate in the last year for which figures are available. [23079]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  In 1996, the latest year for which figures are available, there were around 650,000 births in 1996 in England and Wales, 60,000 in Scotland and 25,000 in Northern Ireland. The name of the father was not registered in 8 per cent. of these births in England and Wales, 7 per cent. in Scotland and 10 per cent. in Northern Ireland.

  Welfare Reform
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Minister for Welfare Reform plans to publish his report on welfare reform. [23083]

  Mr. Field.
  We will be publishing a Green Paper on Welfare Reform shortly.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much he estimates lone parents will be better off in work than on benefits following reform of their benefit entitlement. [23084]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The latest independent research by the Policy Studies Institute suggest that the average additional income for lone parents already in work and on Family Credit is over £50 a week above the estimate of their out-of-work income. No estimate is currently available for the likely impact on this figure of the changes to the Family Premium in the income-related benefits; changes to Child Benefit for lone parents; or the increase in the help available through the Childcare Disregard in the in-work benefits.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of the effect of lone-parent benefit reductions on the New Deal for Lone Parents. [23085]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents will identify any points which have affected the programme's success. We need to keep these benefit changes in perspective.

  Research suggests that lone parents in work and on Family Credit are better off than those on Income Support. To emphasise reductions in lone parent benefits is to underestimate the boost in morale, as well as the financial

  105
  gain, which the New Deal for Lone Parents can provide. The Government do not believe that the benefit changes will stop lone parents from moving into work.

  The changes will apply only to lone parents making new benefit claims. In order to preserve work incentives for most current claimants, lone parents who are receiving Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance with the lone parent rate of family premium will be able to claim the lone parent rate of Child Benefit when they move into work.

  We are addressing the real barriers to work with the New Deal for Lone Parents and the National Childcare Strategy.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the lone parent premium of an income support claimant will be protected if the claimant participates in a waged option of the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds and then returns to benefit at the end of the option. [25556]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Lone parents can choose whether to claim Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance. Those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance will have access to the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds. No specific protection has been built in to address these particular circumstances.

  Mrs. Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the numbers claiming lone parent benefits by(a) constituency and (b) benefit agency district office. [23525]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of Social Security benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Jackie Ballard, dated 23 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for the numbers claiming lone parent benefits for your constituency and Benefit Agency (BA) District Office.
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. The BA collates Income Support (IS) statistics by BA District Offices. These Districts do not correspond to constituency boundaries or specific geographical areas.
  From April 1997 the IS lone parent premium was replaced by the higher rate of family premium for lone parents. The available information is shown in the table. This information is the latest available, it is provisional and maybe subject to change. It does not include those lone parent customers who are pensioners nor those registered sick who qualify for a higher rate premium such as a pensioner or disability premium.
  Information relating to parents in receipt of the lone parent element of Child Benefit, formerly known as One Parent Benefit could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Number of customers in receipt of the lone parent rate of the family premium by Benefit Agency districts

  November 1997

  Barking and Havering

  7,892

  Cambridgeshire

  7,789

  City East

  5,698

  Essex South East

  6,398

  Essex South West

  10,335

  Hackney and Islington

  11,234

  Lea Roding

  10,613

  Leaside

  13,439

  106

  Number of customers in receipt of the lone parent rate of the family premium by Benefit Agency districts

  November 1997

  Newham

  9,899

  North Essex

  5,766

  Norwich

  7,377

  Suffolk

  7,784

  Barnet

  6,140

  Bedfordshire

  8,545

  Buckinghamshire

  7,831

  Ealing

  11,147

  Euston

  12,130

  Harrow and Hillingdon

  7,040

  Neasden

  8,393

  North and East Hertfordshire

  5,410

  Northamptonshire

  9,083

  Oxfordshire

  5564

  Thames Valley

  15,661

  West Hertfordshire

  4,667

  Bankside

  5,680

  East Kent

  9,385

  East Sussex

  5,712

  Hampshire North

  5,981

  London Central

  1,311

  North and West Kent

  18,059

  Palace

  13,123

  Solent and New Forest

  9,117

  South Circular

  12,313

  Central Sussex

  5,400

  South-East Hants and Isle of Wight

  8,832

  South West Thames

  9,752

  Surrey

  21,479

  Thameside

  10,678

  West Sussex

  7,746

  Bristol Severnside

  5,714

  Bristol Brunel

  8,449

  Cornwall

  6,107

  Dorset

  8,176

  Devonia

  6,892

  Gloucestershire

  6,450

  South Devon

  8,948

  Somerset

  6,909

  Wiltshire

  7,277

  Central Staffordshire

  4,811

  Chesterfield and Worksop

  4,984

  North Nottinghamshire

  4,848

  North Staffordshire

  7,091

  Nottingham Trentside

  12,349

  Derwent and Trent

  9,536

  Leicestershire

  11,880

  Mercia Operations East

  9,337

  Mercia Operations West

  7,499

  Birmingham Chamberlain

  12,167

  Birmingham Tame Valley

  11,786

  Birmingham South East

  5,393

  Coventry

  6,566

  Hereford and Worcester

  6,624

  North Worcestershire

  5,481

  Sandwell

  6,473

  Shropshire

  5,712

  Walsall

  4,793

  Warwickshire

  5,033

  Wolverhampton

  5,815

  Cardiff and Vales

  8,911

  South Wales Valleys

  14,807

  Gwent Borders

  6,243

  Gwyneddigion and Maldwyn

  4,239

  South West Wales

  11,501

  Wrexham and North West Coast

  7,266

  Blackpool

  4,998

  Knowsley

  6,677

  Lancaster and South Cumbria

  4,350

  Liverpool Mersey

  9,733

  Liverpool North

  5,697

  North Cheshire

  6,458

  107

  Number of customers in receipt of the lone parent rate of the family premium by Benefit Agency districts

  November 1997

  North Cumbria

  4,332

  Preston

  5,292

  Sefton

  5,612

  South West Lancashire

  5,565

  Wirral

  7,933

  South Cheshire

  6,339

  Greater Manchester Lancashire

  9,475

  Greater Manchester Centre

  15,236

  Greater Manchester West

  15,821

  Greater Manchester South East

  12,837

  Greater Manchester Pennine

  13,653

  Barnsley

  3,659

  Bradford

  8,303

  Doncaster

  5,115

  East Yorkshire

  3,612

  Hull

  8,809

  Kirklees

  6,225

  Leeds

  12,765

  North Yorkshire

  5,108

  Rother and Dearne

  6,431

  Sheffield East

  5,724

  Sheffield West

  3,228

  Wakefield

  5,620

  Yorkshire Pennine

  5,233

  Newcastle

  6,977

  Durham

  9,968

  Northumberland

  6,678

  Tees

  13,769

  South Tyneside

  7,685

  Wearside

  6,777

  Glasgow East

  5,799

  Glasgow South

  10,243

  Glasgow West, Lomond and Argyle

  6,345

  Clyde Coast and Renfrew

  6,727

  South West Scotland

  9,363

  Highlands and Islands

  4,336

  Glasgow North

  7,100

  Clyde Valley

  4,733

  Coatbridge

  3,032

  East Edinburgh and Borders

  8,503

  Fife

  5,475

  Forth Valley

  4,372

  Grampian and Shetland

  4,697

  Lothian West

  4,823

  Tayside

  6,842

  A live load figure is a snapshot in time count.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the percentage of the savings achieved by abolishing lone parent premium and one parent benefit borne by each decile of the income distribution in 1999–2000. [24678]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the form requested as it is not possible to forecast the position in a future income distribution of new claimants to Lone Parent Premium and One Parent Benefit. Such information as is available is set out in the tables:

  Proportion of group in sections of income distribution for lone parents recipients of income support

  Percentage

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Bottom 10 per cent.

  10

  13

  Next 10 per cent.

  30

  47

  Next 10 per cent.

  28

  22

  Next 20 per cent.

  21

  11

  Top 50 per cent.

  10

  7

  108

  Proportion of group in sections of income distribution non income support recipients of one parent benefit

  Percentage

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Proportion of group in sections of income distribution non income support recipients of one parent benefit

  Percentage

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Bottom 30 per cent.

  26

  25

  Next 20 per cent.

  34

  38

  Top 50 per cent.

  40

  38

  Notes:

  1. The data comes from the Department's Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series, based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS) for the 1995–96 financial year and covering Great Britain. The FRS data was used to achieve a large enough sample size to provide more robust information. All results are subject to sampling error.

  2. The income measure used in the answer is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income. The definition of income used follows that in the published HBAI series for FRS based results; figures are given both before and after housing costs in line with usual HBAI practice

  3. The measure of income used covers household income. A household can include more than one benefit unit, for example, a household containing a pensioner and their grown-up child or two single unrelated people sharing a household. The estimates assume that all of the people within a household have the same standard of living.

  4. Percentage figures may not add to 100 per cent. due to rounding.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reviews of disability benefit her Department has undertaken since 1 May. [23086]

  Mr. Denham
  Disability benefits are included in the Department's Comprehensive Spending Review, which was announced on 11 June last year. The review is a first step in our plan to modernise and improve the Social Security system, so that it helps people to work as far as they are able; provides appropriate support to those who cannot work; and makes the most effective use of the resources available.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her plans for the reform of disability benefits. [23073]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to modernising the Social Security system so that it helps people to work as far as they are able; provides appropriate support to those who cannot work; and makes the most effective use of resources available. We want to encourage people who are disabled, or who have long-term health problems, to play a full part in society and to help them to help themselves wherever that is possible. This means being positive about people's abilities and their capacity rather than negative about their disabilities and incapacity.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons no official record of the therapeutic work experience of claimants on disability benefits is made; when guidance to Benefits Agency offices on this matter was last issued; and if this matter is under review. [24352]
  109
  Mr. Denham
  It is estimated that 1 per cent. of Incapacity Benefit recipients undertake paid work on the grounds that it is therapeutic. Guidance to Benefits Agency offices about therapeutic work was last updated in April 1997. We are currently reviewing the information collected on benefit recipients undertaking therapeutic work and considering how this might be improved to provide a better picture of the effectiveness of current provisions.

  Sources:

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

  2. 1995/6 Family Resources Survey.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how participation in the welfare-to-work scheme will affect the status of those claiming disability living allowance. [23087]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government believe that work is the best form of welfare for people of working age, and have set aside £195 million to fund a programme improving opportunities for people with disabilities or long-term illness who want to work. Disabled people who are entitled to Disability Living Allowance can receive the benefit and participate in a welfare-to-work scheme, or undertake other work, without affecting their entitlement.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the total number of recipients of(a) disability living allowance, (b) disability living allowance with mobility addition, (c) disability living allowance with care allowance and (d) disability living allowance with both mobility and care elements in the last year for which figures are available. [23649]

  Mr. Denham
  On the basis of the latest available information, which relates to November 1997, the numbers are(a) 1,956,000, (b) 1,709,000, (c) 1,344,000 and (d) 1,098,000.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Figures do not sum as people can appear in more than one category.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time taken for an appeal to be processed where an applicant has been refused disability living allowance. [23652]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The vast majority of Disability Living Allowance appeals are heard by Disability Appeal Tribunals. In July 1997, the average time from date of appeal to date of decision-issue in an appeal heard by a Disability Appeal Tribunal was 30 weeks based on information provided by the Independent Tribunal Service. There are a few cases, however, which are heard by Social Security Appeal Tribunals and the average clearance time for these was 37.3 weeks for the quarter ending 30 September 1997 according to data provided from Departmental statistics. There are some difficulties with the robustness of the base data used for both sets of statistics. This is the best estimate available.

  It is not possible to distinguish from available data whether the appeals are from applicants who have been refused Disability Living Allowance or are on other grounds such as the rate of benefit awarded.
  110
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest estimated costs of the disability benefit integrity projects; and if she will make a statement. [23088]

  Mr. Field
  One of 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. Benefits should go to those who are properly entitled to benefit. This is why we have continued with the Benefit Integrity Project.

  The latest estimated total cost of the benefit integrity project is nearly £24 million over two years.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the available penalties for fraud in the benefit system. [23090]

  Mr. Denham
  We are determined to make the benefit system more secure and to penalise those who set out to defraud the taxpayer. As a result we are re-examining the policy and objectives with regard to enforcement. For too long defrauding the benefit system has been seen as a low risk, low punishment option and very often the only punishment suffered by fraudsters was to have to repay the overpayment they had fraudulently obtained.

  To ensure that more fraudsters face up to the consequences of their actions we have from 18 December 1997, under provisions in the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997, introduced administrative penalties. In future persons who fraudulently obtain benefit by deliberately falsifying or omitting information, may be offered the opportunity in addition to repayment of the overpayment, to pay a penalty set at 30 per cent. of the amount overpaid as an alternative to being prosecuted.

  We will continue to prosecute cases through the criminal courts where serious or persistent fraud is involved, or where a penalty offer is declined.

  Welfare Budget
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of(a) the number of women in the UK on a salary of over £100,000 and (b) the annual cost which they impose on the welfare budget. [23075]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available. The New Earnings Survey for April 1997 suggests that fewer than 2,000 women in Great Britain fall into this category.

  Maternity Pay
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate(a) the total expenditure on earnings-related statutory maternity pay, (b) the number of claimants of earnings-related statutory maternity pay in 1996 and (c) the number of such claimants in each quartile of the national earnings distribution. [24356]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is as follows:
  111
  The Departmental Report shows Government expenditure on Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) of £524 million during the tax year 1995–96. The Government Actuary's Department estimate expenditure on the earnings related component of SMP to be £340 million for that year.

  The table shows the number of people receiving earnings related SMP during the tax year 1995–96 in each quartile of the National earnings distribution for women:

  Weekly earnings

  Number of people receiving earnings related SMP

  Minimum to lower quartile

  98,000

  Lower quartile to median

  71,000

  Median to upper quartile

  70,000

  Upper quartile to maximum

  82,000

  Total

  321,000

  Sources:

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

  2. The national earnings distribution is from the Labour Force Survey Spring 1996, with a lower quartile of £70 per week, a median of £149 per week and an upper quartile of £240 per week. This is the earnings distribution at a point in time, and is not the distribution of earnings at the time of the individual's pregnancy.

  3. Figures are for Great Britain and are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. Weekly earnings are estimated from the amount of SMP during the tax year. This estimate is based on the SMP being paid for six weeks at 90 per cent. of pay and for 12 further weeks at the flat rate of SMP, and the whole period of SMP falling in one tax year.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate for each non means tested benefit the age distribution of present claimants; what are the age-related eligibility criteria for new claimants of each benefit; and if she will estimate the distribution of present claimants(a) individually and (b) by their household within the national income range for all households and individuals. [22974]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is set out in tables, copies of which can be found in the Library.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of disability living allowance have Multiple Sclerosis. [24067]

  Mr. Denham
  The total number of people receiving Disability Living Allowance where Multiple Sclerosis is given as the main disabling condition is 45,100. No figures are available for the number of people receiving the benefit who have more than one condition, including Multiple Sclerosis, but where that is not given as the main disabling condition.

  Fuel Costs (Pensioners)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the level of take-up of the money being made available to help 112
  pensioners meet their fuel costs this winter; and for what reasons she has decided to launch a national advertising campaign about this money. [25287]

  Mr. Denham
  The additional help of £400 million over this winter and next, announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer,Official Report, 25 November 1997, columns 773–98, demonstrates the Government's commitment to help keep the elderly warm in their homes.

  The level of take-up of Winter Fuel Payments is not an issue as they will be made automatically without the need to make a claim. Around one and a half million payments of £50 are currently being made to the poorest pensioners, those receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance.

  Other eligible pensioners will receive a payment of £20 or £10. Where there is only one eligible person in the household, or the eligible person is of no fixed abode, they will receive £20; otherwise, each person will receive £10. Almost 10 million payments will be made to over seven million pensioner households this winter. This programme means that the great majority of payments will be sent buy the end of March.

  We see it as important that pensioners should know as soon as possible how much they will receive, as well as how and when it will be paid. This will help them to plan, confident in the knowledge that they will receive extra money towards their fuel bills. The simplest and most cost-effective way to let them know that a payment will be made is through publicity. Therefore, a multi-media campaign was swiftly launched in conjunction with Help the Aged, Age Concern and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money the Government are spending on the advertising campaign about the money being made available to help pensioners with their winter fuel bills this winter. [25286]

  Mr. Denham
  The costs of the advertising and other publicity to inform pensioners about Winter Fuel Payments will be £1.7 million.

  We see it as important that pensioners should know as soon as possible how much they will receive, as well as how and when it will be paid. This will help them to plan confident in the knowledge that they will receive extra money towards their fuel bills. The simplest and most cost-effective way to let them know that a payment will be made is through publicity. Therefore, a multi-media campaign was swiftly launched in conjunction with Help the Aged, Age Concern and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureau.

  Welfare Reform Focus
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will recalculate the table on page 6 of Welfare Reform Focus File 1 on the basis of income distribution before housing costs. [24681]

  Mr. Field
  The information is set out in the table.
  113

  The proportion of benefit spending by 20 per cent. bands of the income distribution before housing costs

  Percentage

  Quintile

  1979

  1994–95

  Poorest

  42

  28

  2

  24

  32

  3

  15

  19

  4

  11

  12

  Richest

  9

  8

  Note:

  1. Figures do not sum exactly due to rounding.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate on the basis of the information used on page 6 of Welfare Reform Focus File 6 the percentage of employees earning above the lower earnings limit who are contributing to an occupational pension by(a) gender, (b) region (c) broad socio-economic group and (d) broad heading of industrial classification. [24682]

  Mr. Denham
  The information on gender and broad heading of industrial classification for employees earning above the lower earnings limit can be found in tables 2.1 and 2.2 of "Occupational Pensions Schemes 1991—the Ninth Survey by the Government Actuary", a copy of which is in the Library. The information requested on region is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Retirement pension

  Other State pensions

  Deciles of pensioner units

  Mean gross income (£)

  Mean net income (£)

  Mean (£)

  Per cent. mean gross income

  Mean (£)

  Per cent. mean gross income

  Bottom decile

  69.90

  63.10

  56.50

  81

  0.60

  1

  Decile 2

  92.40

  84.70

  64.00

  69

  1.40

  2

  Decile 3

  107.40

  98.70

  63.20

  59

  2.20

  2

  Decile 4

  118.90

  108.40

  68.10

  57

  0.90

  1

  Decile 5

  134.20

  121.80

  75.20

  56

  0.60

  negligible

  Decile 6

  154.30

  140.60

  83.00

  54

  2.90

  2

  Decile 7

  179.40

  163.60

  81.90

  46

  4.30

  2

  Decile 8

  218.40

  195.00

  87.40

  40

  6.70

  3

  Decile 9

  290.30

  252.30

  89.70

  31

  7.00

  2

  Top decile

  602.50

  473.90

  94.50

  16

  2.80

  negligible

  Notes:

  1. The estimates refer to all pension units. A pension unit is defined to be either a single (non-cohabiting) person over State Pension Age, or couples (married or cohabiting) where the man, defined as the head, is over State Pension Age.

  2. All figures are in July 1995 prices and rounded to the nearest 10 pence.

  3. The deciles are calculated on the basis of unequivalised net income before housing costs.

  4. Retirement Pension includes basic Retirement Pension, State Earnings Related Pension, Graduated Retirement Benefit, and any increments thereof.

  5. Other State Pensions includes Widow's Benefit and Incapacity Benefit.

  Source:

  The Pensioners' Incomes Series 1995–96, which is based mainly on Family Expenditure Survey data.

  Departmental Report
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date the DSS Departmental Report and spending plans for 1998–99 to 2000–01 will be published. [23954]

  Mr. Field
  We intend to publish a Departmental Report after the Budget which will include spending plans for 1998–99. Spending plans covering the period to 2000–01 will emerge following the Comprehensive Spending Review.
  114
  Information on the membership of current employer's pension schemes by sex and socio-economic group can be found in table 8.8 of "Living in Britain—Results from the 1995 General Household Survey", which is also in the Library. However, this table refers to all employees aged 16 and over, and not simply employees earning above the lower earnings limit.

  The Government are committed to support and strengthen the existing occupational pensions framework. We wish to raise standards, and encourage the best schemes to be emulated. As part of the Pensions Review, the Government are looking at how we might establish a Quality in Pensions award to mark the highest quality occupational provision.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate, using the information base shown on page 3 of Welfare Reform Focus File 6, the size of average(a) gross and (b) net pensioner incomes in each decile of pensioner incomes, the amount and percentage of total income accounted for by (i) retirement and (ii) other state pensions in each decile (1) on a gross and (2) on a net basis; and if she will indicate whether this information is presented on an individual or household basis. [24677]

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

  United Kingdom EU Presidency
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on her Department's plans and priorities for the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union. [23956]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Department's priorities will complement the key themes of the UK Presidency, including promoting employability and tackling unemployment, creating a more effective Single Market and bringing the European Union closer to the needs of its people.
  115
  In the Council of Ministers we want to work with our EU partners to reach agreement on Social Security measures which will improve the mobility of the European Union's workers and support the Single Market. The proposed directive on supplementary pensions which is before the Council offers sensible measures to protect pension rights for employed and self-employed people who move within the EU to take up a job in another Member State. We will also be working towards agreement on ways to modernise and improve the long-standing rules that co-ordinate the interaction of member states' statutory Social Security schemes in support of the free movement of workers.

  The theme of employability is central to the UK presidency and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women will therefore be chairing a meeting of EU Ministers for Women to be held in Belfast on 5–6 May to specifically look at issues which affect Women's Employability. This puts women at the heart of the plans for the UK presidency. The theme will be "Employability and Women—the importance of Childcare" and the meeting will also consider the importance of family friendly employment. We look forward to being able to share with Member States the initiatives that we are taking forward here on family-friendly employment as well as the National Childcare Strategy. We also expect to gain new insights and ideas from other participating members. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and my hon. Friend the Minister for Women will also address the Women's Rights Committee of the European Parliament on 2 February.

  Personal Pensions (Rebates)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the cost to the National Insurance Fund of rebates in respect of personal pensions in each of the years 1995–96 to 1999–2000. [24679]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Year

  Cost to National Insurance Fund of rebates in respect of appropriate personal pensions (£ billion)

  1995–96

  1.96

  1996–97

  2.00

  1997–98

  2.10

  1998–99

  2.13

  1999–2000

  2.22

  Notes:

  1. The figure for 1995–96 is in published accounts.

  2. The figure for 1996–97 has been taken from unpublished accounts.

  3. Figures for 1997–98 onwards are GAD projections.

  4. All figures relate to the amount paid out in that year rather than the year to which the rebates relate.

  5. All figures are rounded to the nearest £0.01 billion.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department (GAD).

  Executive Agency Business Plans
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will publish the DSS Executive Agency Business Plans for 1998–99 before the end of March. [23955]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Department's Agencies are currently developing work programmes for 1998–99 which will support the Government's agenda for modernising service delivery by developing a more integrated and simple service across the range of benefits the Social Security system provides. I anticipate that the business plans will be published towards the end of March.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what restrictions on the amount of study or training an asylum seeker may undertake who is in receipt of income support and who is not allowed to sign on as unemployed incurs. [25564]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Asylum seekers in receipt of Income Support are treated in the same way as any other Income Support recipient. They are allowed to undertake study if they fall into one of the exempt groups, for example lone parents and disabled people.

  SERPS (Contracting Out)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the effect on revenues from national insurance contributions in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01 of her decision to adjust the rebates for those who have contracted out of SERPS. [25545]

  Mr. Denham
  The proposed changes to the rebates for Contracted-out money Purchase (COMP) schemes are designed to protect the National Insurance Fund (NIF) from occupational schemes switching their method of contracting-out solely to take advantage of the higher overall rebate available to COMP schemes. This switching means that more is paid out in rebates from the NIF than was originally intended. The changes will reduce that loss.

  The information on the effect of increasing the rebates for Appropriate Personal Pensions (APP) is in the table.

  Tax year

  Cost to the NIF of increasing rebates to APP holders

  1998–1999

  Nil

  1999–2000

  Nil

  2000–2001

  £140 million

  Notes:

  1. As age-related rebates for APP's are not paid until after the end of the tax year to which they relate, the changes being introduced in April 1999 will not begin to impact on the NIF until 2000–2001.

  2. The figure for 2000–2001 has been rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department (GAD).

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the number of claimants of incapacity benefit in the Newcastle Benefits Agency
  117
  district; and if she will estimate the age distribution of such claimants in the age bands (a) up to 30 years, (b) 31 to 40 years, (c) 41 to 50 years (d) 51 to 60 years and (e) over 60 years of age. [23671]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Incapacity Benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 23 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the number of claimants of Incapacity Benefit (IB) in the Newcastle Benefits Agency District, and if the age distribution of such claimants in the agebands (a) up to 30 years, (b) 31 to 40 years, (c) 41 to 50 years
  (d) 51 to 60 years and (e) over 60 years of age.
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Number of claimants of IB in the Newcastle Benefits Agency district at 31 August 1997

  All ages

  19,160

  Up to 30 years

  2.080

  31 to 40 years

  3,140

  41 to 50 years

  4,380

  51 to 60 years

  5,580

  Over 60 years

  3,980

  Notes:

  1. The number of claimants of Incapacity Benefit include the category types of: Incapacity Benefit Short Term (Lower), Short Term (Higher), Long Term and National Insurance Credits only cases.

  2. Data is provisional and subject to change.

  Source:

  Five per cent. sample of the Incapacity Benefit computer system. This excludes a small number of clerically held cases.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Industrial Injuries Benefit
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for industrial injuries benefit in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema were made in Northumberland in the 10 years up to 1997; and how many were successful. [24030]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Industrial Injuries Benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ronnie Campbell, dated 23 January 1988.
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to recent Parliamentary Question asking how many claims for Industrial Injuries benefit in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema were made in Northumberland in the 10 years up to 1997; and how many were successful.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Chronic bronchitis and emphysema became prescribed disease D12 with effect from 13 September 1993. Figures are available for Benefits Agency (BA) offices and not for specific geographical areas. The figures provided are for the BA offices at Ashington, Berwick, Blyth and Hexham.
  The number of claims for Industrial Injuries Benefit in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema from 13 September 1993 to the end of December 1997 was 1,576, of these 109 were successful.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefits (Blyth Valley)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her estimate of the number of invalidity benefit recipients in Blyth Valley. [24028]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Invalidity Benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ronnie Campbell, dated 23 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the estimate of the number of invalidity Benefit (IVB) recipients in Blyth Valley.
  The information is not available in the format requested. IVB was replaced by Incapacity Benefit (IB) on 13 April 1995. The available information is shown in the table below:

  Number of IB recipients in Blyth Valley at 31 August 1997

  Number

  Short term (Lower)

  200

  Short term (Higher)

  120

  Long term

  3,280

  Total recipients

  3,600

  Notes:

  1. Source 5 per cent. of the Incapacity Benefit computer system. This excludes a small number of clerically held cases.

  2. The number of recipients of Incapacity Benefit include Incapacity Benefit Short Term (Lower) which replaced Sickness Benefit, Short Term (Higher) and Long Term which replaced Invalidity Benefit.

  3. Data is provisional and subject to change.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Blyth Valley are in receipt of disability living allowance. [23986]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ronnie Campbell, dated 23 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to recent Parliamentary Question enquiring as to the number of people in Blyth Valley who are in receipt of Disability Living Allowance (DLA).
  The number of people in receipt of DLA in Blyth Valley is 3,900, as at 30 November 1997. The figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and are based on a 5 per cent. sample which is subject to a wide margin of error.
  I hope you find the reply helpful.

  Benefits (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the Warrington, North constituency are(a) in receipt of family credit and (b) in receipt of income support. [24826]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of Family Credit and Income Support is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.
  119
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Helen Jones, dated 23 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many families in the Warrington North constituency 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.
  Warrington North forms a part of the BA's North Cheshire District this includes the offices at Warrington and Widnes. The available information is shown below:

  Families in receipt

  Family Credit, as at September 1997

  Warrington office

  3,062

  Widnes office

  1,913

  Income Support, as at November 1997

  North Cheshire District

  25,857

  Permanent

  Non-permanent

  Headcount

  Whole time equivalent1

  Fixed term contract headcount

  Casuals headcount2

  Casuals whole time equivalent

  31 March 1993

  3,230

  n/a

  3n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  31 March 1994

  4,997

  4,787.4

  138

  n/a

  n/a

  31 March 1995

  6,312

  5,974.3

  79

  470

  445.5

  31 March 1996

  6,770

  6,660.6

  352

  281

  275.9

  31 March 1997

  8,068

  7,880.4

  327

  533

  503.3

  31 December 1997

  7,678

  8,052.7

  948

  469

  452.2

  1 The permanent whole time equivalent totals include fixed term contract staff.

  2 Statistics for casual staff were not kept prior to 1995.

  3 The fixed term contract staff figure for 1993 is included in the permanent total.

  Information on current estimates for staffing in the Agency over the next three financial years are shown in the table below:

  Financial year

  Estimated staff

  1998–99

  8,344

  1999–2000

  8,319

  2000–01

  7,936

  These figures are based on whole time equivalents.

  All staffing figures exclude staff in the Belfast Centre, as these staff are Northern Ireland Civil Servants.
  The Agency's caseload comprises two broad categories, ie work-on-hand, where the case has not been cleared by assessment or by closure for other reasons, and live and assessed cases, where an assessment (either full or interim) has been made.
  The details of the Agency's live and assessed cases are provided by the DSS Analytical Services Division, and appear in the Quartely Summary of Statistic (QSS). Publication of QSS has
  120
  Figures are provisional and subject to change. This 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 annually.
  I hope you find this reply useful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been(a) the average number of employees and (b) the total caseload of the Child Support Agency in each year since the Agency was established; and what estimates she has made in each case for the next three financial years. [24988]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are looking for substantial and sustained operational improvements from the Agency, in particular on getting more maintenance paid, reducing the backlog and improving customer service.

  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 23 January 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the employees and caseload of the Child Support Agency.
  The information on the number of staff since the Agency was established is shown in the table:
  not always coincided with the end of the financial year; the figures quoted in the table below are therefore from the nearest year-end:

  Date

  Live and assessed

  Work on hand (less than 52 weeks)1

  Backlog (cases over 52 weeks)

  Total caseload

  June 1994

  203,600

  523,968

  727,568

  March 1995

  345,400

  212,780

  212,780212

  770,960

  February 1996

  460,800

  180,263

  223,382

  864,445

  February 1997

  579,200

  178,024

  240,345

  997,569

  December 1997

  706,800

  2183,440

  171,927

  1,062,167

  1 Includes cases from week 1 to week 52.

  2 The increased work on hand is due to a higher intake than anticipated.

  Current projections suggest a forecast for live and assessed cases as follows:

  March 1998: 730,000

  March 1999: 855,000

  March 2000: 950,000

  March 2001: 1,035,000

  121
  Between April 1998 and March 2002 the live and assessed caseload is due to rise by around 50 per cent, to reach a figure of 1,115,000. Of the number of cases cleared from the work available each year (current work on hand plus new intake), the proportion which will lead to assessment and join the live and assessed caseload
  122
  is expected to rise from 35 per cent. in 1997–98, and 1998–99, to 40 per cent. in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. This is due to improved clearanace times and 'cleaner' intake as a result of Closer Working with Benefits Agency.
  I hope this is helpful.

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

Domestic Workers:Treatment
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as an aid to the creation of more jobs, they have any proposals to treat domestic employment, particularly of those providing care for the elderly, the sick, the disabled or children, as fully tax-deductible positions for those employers in need of this assistance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, decisions on tax are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget, but the Government are committed to helping people into work and making work pay.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is he aware that when they introduced this type of system in France they created hundreds of thousands of new jobs? Further, does the noble Lord agree that it would quite probably be revenue neutral because most people who employ someone on that basis at present are just paying cash in hand?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as regards the noble Baroness's second point, I am not sure that I should respond about what is, after all, law breaking. Those who are paying cash in hand and not paying tax, or not encouraging their employees to do so, are breaking the law. I do not believe that we can calculate on the basis that any such change would be "revenue
2
neutral". The problem with the change proposed by the noble Baroness is that it would very much help the better off rather than those most in need. because it would only be accessible to those who can afford to pay the gross costs of employment.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, does the Minister see a possibility of using the situation to enhance the trade of domestic service? I ask that question because servants are no longer considered to be menial; indeed, they are highly valued, especially in households where the husband and wife have professional qualifications. I have an indirect interest in the matter. A daughter of mine, who lost her executive job, went into domestic service and now runs her own housework and gardening business.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord's daughter on her enterprise. Of course, I have the greatest respect for the honourable profession of caring, especially for disabled people and children. However, there is a risk that much domestic service, other than the kind to which I and the noble Lord referred, would be relatively short term, without qualifications and might not lead to full-time permanent employment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the serious lack of nurses, would this proposal not help to provide carers for the community. especially for very severely disabled people? Indeed, caring is very expensive to provide.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that the noble Baroness was going to refer to the nurses' need for childcare. I do not believe that the noble Baroness meant quite that, although, if I may anticipate questions on that point, the whole of the Government's New Deal proposals for getting young people into work and for after school childcare ought to help nurses, as well as others. As regards the noble Baroness's other

3
point, there is of course a gross shortage of skilled nurses and our welfare-to-work proposals ought to assist in tackling that problem.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the Minister accepts that there is a desperate shortage of nurses—and indeed there is—and suggests that the welfare-to-work proposals will help, can he say how they will do so? Must not something be done as a matter of urgency right now to enable these nurses to have a respectable recompense and to get the National Health Service running again as it should be?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord will not expect me to anticipate the findings of the review body or, indeed, the Government's response to them. I must apologise for shortening my answer too much when I referred only to welfare-to-work proposals. Indeed, a number of other government initiatives will help with the problem with regard to nurses; for example, the 10 pence starting rate of tax, the forthcoming minimum wage, reform of national insurance contributions and working families tax credit. All of those projects operate in the same direction to encourage this kind of work.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am not interested in these reviews? I am interested in what is going to be done now in a desperate situation to give a fair deal to nurses.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord has repeated his question. I must also repeat that he will not expect me to anticipate the report of the review body or, indeed, the Government's reaction to it. I fully agree with the noble Lord that a shortage of 8,000 nurses is a very serious problem for the National Health Service.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is not the Minister aware—
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords—
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, it is the turn of this side.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I think there is enough time for both the noble Baroness and my noble friend. Perhaps the noble Baroness will go first.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I support the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. The Minister said that we do not have enough qualified people and there is a risk that people who are not qualified will take up these jobs. Does he agree that at the moment the Government are planning to spend money to create more childcare facilities for working mothers? He must agree that it is wrong to double tax people. If we implemented the measure we are discussing, that would provide great
4
opportunities to reduce unemployment and would also teach young people how to run a home and how to look after a family. There is no reason why we should not set certain standards for these people before they are employed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I believe that I have already given sufficient indication of the Government's policies, including the childcare policies to which the noble Baroness referred. Those policies will help to get people into work, which is what we must be concerned with above all. However, I must repeat that the suggested relief would benefit the relatively well-to-do, who can afford to employ a carer in the home. It would be expensive to provide relief at a marginal rate on the gross salary cost of the carer and it would, of course, mean a windfall for those who already have domestic help.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware of some of the more savage financial penalties that were inflicted on those in the nursing profession by the previous government in the steep rises in the cost of accommodation that were inflicted on nurses without their having any say in the matter? I refer to rented accommodation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not disagree with my noble friend's analysis of past problems.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, on a slightly wider point, does not the Minister agree that it is now government policy that we should move away from these incredibly wasteful across-the-board benefits and move to benefits focused much more closely on need?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, much as I would like to answer that question, the noble Lord is going a good deal wide of the original Question on the Order Paper.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords—
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to rise so early but I believe that we have spent eight minutes on the first Question. I think that perhaps we should move on.

Post Office: Future
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to give the Post Office more commercial freedom.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, the options for granting greater commercial freedom to the Post Office are being examined in the context of the review announced by the Government last May.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but last May is a long time ago. It is reported

5
that the results of the review have been in the hands of Ministers since early November. When will the report be published and when will a decision be reached? Is the noble Lord aware that a number of other countries have commercialised their post offices with great success and that the British Post Office has been under inquiry since 1992? In particular there is the question of the excessive dividend which is taken, amounting to no less than about 80 per cent. of the post-tax profit. That is double what any normal company pays, as the noble Lord well knows from his own past experience. Not only is virtually the whole of that profit taken, but the Post Office is not allowed to borrow externally. When will those two issues be put right?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the noble Lord asks questions about international competition, dividend policy and indeed the time of the inquiry. It has to be said that the scope of any decision to change the competitive capacity of the Post Office has to be considered carefully. As was rightly said, it has taken a long time. At first it was difficult to reach agreement on how matters should be taken forward. That has now been achieved following an extensive consultative exercise. We shall shortly announce the terms of reference for the next review. I agree that international competition is growing. It is important that we meet that with the right kind of flexibility from our Post Office. As the noble Lord will know, the dividend policy will be decided as part of the next stage in deciding the right way to give commercial freedom to the Post Office.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the privatisation of the Post Office and the abolition of the monopoly status have been ruled out?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I do not think the purpose of the review is to decide whether it is privately or publicly owned, but rather whether the Post Office can act with greater commercial freedom to improve its service to customers and to compete in what is rapidly becoming a more international market. I do not think the status of the Post Office is in itself the key issue of the review.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a long running Treasury argument that changes to the PSBR would affect the exchange rate adversely? Now that many people, especially in industry, believe that the pound is too strong, does not that argument disappear out of the window, especially as regards the Post Office?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as we know, the funding of the Post Office is part of the overall government programme. I point out to noble Lords that the capital expenditure of the Post Office is already running in the range of £300 million a year. The issue is how best to target that as regards international competitiveness. The Post Office pays an extremely good dividend to the Treasury and is meeting its targets.
6
It is the future capacity that worries me. Getting that right is relevant only to the competitive capacity of the Post Office and has little to do with the PSBR.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the reason for the delay—this matter was a clear Labour Party manifesto commitment—is not that the Treasury wants to keep its hands on the significant dividend that comes from the Post Office?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, that sounds like surmise. The most important issue is to achieve the right shape and structure for the Post Office. I do not think there is anything in people's minds other than ensuring that very wide consultation—the widest ever undertaken in relation to this service—brings about a good commercial structure.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, am I correct in understanding from the noble Lord's second answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the likely outcome of the first review will be the announcement of a further review? If so, how long are we to expect the process to continue?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as long as it takes to achieve the right answer. The point I made was that the first exercise was scoping. The second exercise will be a review of the appropriate structure to meet the scope that has been defined.

Nuclear Weapons
2.51 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
In relation to their goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, what response they will make to the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, which called on the Government "to declare what steps it is taking towards the attainment of its own stated goal and what further steps it is proposing for the years leading up to the Millennium".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we are withdrawing Britain's free-fall nuclear bomb from service. We hope to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty this year. The Government are examining a range of nuclear issues in the strategic defence review and hope to be able to present the conclusions of the review to Parliament in the first part of this year.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Does my noble friend recall that at the end of a statement the bishops announced their intention of seeking to engage in a constructive dialogue on this subject with members of the Government? Will my noble friend be able to find

7
time during her busy programme during the next week or two to engage in a constructive dialogue on the subject with me?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, since the Government took office on 1st May, the noble Lord has submitted two Questions for Written Answer and three Oral Questions on the issue. We had a debate on 17th December. The noble Lord has two more Questions in the pipeline. I believe that I have been engaged in constructive debate with my noble friend on the issue on a number of occasions. I shall of course be delighted to see him in the course of the next week if he has something new to add to the debate.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the report referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, the Catholic bishops said that international treaties oblige states to promote the elimination of nuclear weapons. Will the noble Baroness confirm that there is no international agreement which calls upon anyone to promote the elimination of nuclear weapons except in the context of general and complete disarmament?
Is the noble Baroness also aware that the statement of the bishops states that the International Court of Justice had supported that view? Will she confirm that in its advisory opinion in July 1996, the International Court of Justice said that,
"the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would he lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would he at stake"?
If the noble Baroness engages in further constructive dialogue with anyone concerned in this matter, will she be prepared to advise that this casual and selective approach to the facts surrounding a most important international issue can be seriously misleading?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we should be in no doubt in your Lordships' House that Her Majesty's Government are for global elimination of nuclear weapons. We shall ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in multilateral negotiations when we are satisfied with verified progress towards that goal.
The noble Lord also refers to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. Her Majesty's Government welcome the court's recognition of the importance of the obligations under the non-proliferation treaty including nuclear weapon states' obligation on nuclear disarmament. The ICJ opinion does not require a change in the United Kingdom's entirely defensive deterrence policy. We would only ever consider the use of nuclear weapons in the extreme circumstance
8
of self-defence which includes the defence of our NATO allies. The court was unable to conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstanceof self-defence in which the very survival of the state would be at stake. On that point the noble Lord is entirely right.

Algeria: Massacres
2.56 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Avebury, and at his request. I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the following Question:
What they will do, while they hold the presidency of the European Union, to persuade Algeria to facilitate an investigation by the United Nations Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, M. Bacre Waly Ndiaye, into the massacres in Algeria.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the troika mission to Algiers on 19th and 20th January, led by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Derek Fatchett, urged the Algerian Government to invite the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Arbitrary and Summary Executions to visit Algeria. We regret that the Algerian Government were not ready to do so. The mission encouraged Algeria to adopt more openness and transparency which can only be in the Algerian Government's own interest.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does she agree that the European Union is unavoidably involved in the Algerian security situation since, in the event of a further breakdown of order in Algeria, a flood of refugees would seek to enter the European Union? Does the Minister still hold to the statement given by the Foreign Secretary to the European Parliament on 14th January that we have so far seen no evidence to support allegations of involvement in these matters by the Algerian security authorities?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of those allegations. However, the noble Lord is quite right. As yet we have no definitive evidence of such involvement from the Algerian Government. Dialogue between the EU and Algeria will continue. During our presidency, the UK will repeat encouragement to openness and transparency. Indeed even today, Foreign Ministers are discussing the troika report and the way forward at the General Affairs Council in Brussels under the leadership of my honourable friend Mr. Fatchett.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords. do the Government consider that France has any particular responsibility for the affairs of Algeria bearing in mind their long history together and the times—I remember them in Paris—when the cries were, "Algèrie française"?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, apportioning blame in the way that my noble friend

9
urges me to do is not helpful to the situation in Algeria. The UK continues to deplore and condemn the appalling violence that we have seen in Algeria. As the EU president, we registered the European Union's sympathy and concern with the fate of the people of Algeria; and we shall continue to do so throughout our presidency through the dialogue which I have described.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the troika mission found out more about diplomatic sensibilities than co-ordinated action to help resolve one of Africa's most bloody civil conflicts? As a constructive step to combat the violence which is clearly causing human misery on an appalling scale in Algeria, has the Foreign Secretary offered the Government of Algeria the assistance of the directory of counter terrorist expertise set up by the G7 to enable expert help to be made available immediately to countries which need it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the mission achieved much of what it set out to achieve—to express the concern of the European Union and its member states at the situation in Algeria, and to continue the political dialogue between the European Union and Algeria about the position in that unhappy country at present. The objective was not to undertake any investigation but to establish the framework for future dialogue to which the British Government and the EU are committed. We also wanted to maintain the impetus of the dialogue. The British Government have therefore invited the Algerian Foreign Minister, Mr. Attaf, to visit the UK during our presidency. I am happy to say that Mr. Attaf has accepted that invitation in principle.
We have spoken to the Algerian Government about the claims they make about terrorism abroad. We have asked them to give us their advice on how we may better help over these issues. We look forward to their response.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. referred to one French slogan. Does the Minister recall another, pronounced at the same time, "Le fascisme ne passera pas?" Is it not time that the European Communities and Britain encouraged the Algerian Government to hold free elections and then to implement the results?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Algerian Government have made some progress on this issue. We continue to press them to hold the free elections to which the noble Lord refers. We are also trying to encourage the Algerians in their democratic approach through a number of other means. Notably, a delegation of women members from the Algerian parliament is to come to this country next month. We have also urged the Algerians to grant better access to journalists so that there may be more freedom and transparency in the reporting of what is really happening in Algeria at the moment.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as far back as 1993, the Algerian Government invited the UN Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Arbitrary and Summary Executions to Algeria, but because of conflicting schedules he was
10
unable to attend? This is a matter that Algeria is perfectly willing to discuss but within the framework of the regular meetings it has with the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Earl is right to remind us of that point. The Algerian Government were not prepared to receive special rapporteurs before the annual commission on human rights, which will take place in Geneva in March and April. We shall continue to urge Algeria to adopt a much more open and transparent approach; and we will maintain our encouragement of allowing a visit by UN special rapporteurs which can only be to the advantage of the government. As the mission pointed out during the talks, openness and transparency are crucial if public suspicions are to be lifted.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister give the House any information as to whether the European Union is willing to use its economic relationship with Algeria as a source of sanctions if the situation worsens? Algeria, after all, has a very important economic relationship with the European Union.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords, I have no further information on that point. I suggest that if the noble Lord wishes to examine the issue further he should either write to me or raise it in the form of a Question after we have the benefit of hearing what happened at the GAC today.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the Government's relations with Iraq.

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Right of young persons to time off for study or training]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 19, line 8, leave out from ("education") to end of line 11.
The noble Lord said: Before speaking to this amendment, also standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Maddock, perhaps I may refer briefly to the serious concerns raised in Committee on Thursday evening regarding the legal basis on which the Government are acting. Over the weekend, my noble friend Lord Russell and myself have taken legal advice. That advice assures us that the information that we were given by the Government—I am sure in good faith—was not accurate.
I do not intend to pursue this matter further today—it is not appropriate in relation to this amendment, and I know only too well the maxim in politics: if you are in a hole, stop digging. I do not wish to cause the Government to dig any further today. I intend, instead, to write to the Minister within the next 24 hours, setting out the basis of the legal advice that we have received and give her an opportunity to consider it and no doubt to seek her own legal advice and respond to it. However, because of the importance of the issues raised, I intend today to table a Motion to recommit Part II of the Bill, and we shall consider the matter further in the light of the Minister's response. I apologise that this matter is not strictly connected with the amendment that I rise to move.
In moving Amendment No. 130, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 131. This amendment removes the limitation imposed by the Bill which means that only "low achievers" can benefit from the legislation. It has always been the Liberal Democrats' view that all young workers should benefit from such laws, and that is the intention of this amendment. It does not always follow that those who leave school at 16 have a low standard of achievement. Some are offered good opportunities by employers known to them or their school and decide that it is in their interest to take up such opportunities as a means of further training. Now that further and higher education are being made more expensive at the point of use—I refer, for instance, to tuition fees—more young people may well wish to earn and bank money between the ages of 16 and 18 in preparation for degree courses. They should not be excluded from the right to time off for study and training during that time.
I hope that the Government will feel able to support these amendments. I suspect, on past precedent, that I have had the only victory that I am going to have at this stage of the Bill, and that they may not—in which case, I hope that, in replying, the Minister will say a little more about what the Government have in mind as the "standard of achievement" (I quote the phrase used in the Bill) which the Secretary of State intends to set as a hurdle in the regulations. Perhaps she will give the Committee a better idea as to the type of youngster at whom this part of the Bill is aimed. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Since I was one of the first who set the hare running, which my noble friend Lord Tope has just taken a little further, and since the matter is of considerable interest to many noble Lords, perhaps I owe the Committee some further explanation. I thank the Minister for the courtesy that she has already shown in this matter.
12
I think it is now agreed that the authority to impose tuition fees on students is a matter of private law. It is to be done by the universities under their own authority and no authority is being conferred by statute to enable them to do so.
Section 1(5) of the Education Act 1962, which was cited by the Minister in her Written Answer to me on 21st January, creates an authority to deal with what has previously been a reimbursement of the fee and deals with the problems created by the Government's concession of last August on the gap year. It does not create any authority to levy money from the student.
That means that we have been considering Part II of the Bill under what is at least a misunderstanding. Following the Government's memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee stating that this power was to be imposed under existing legislation, we have been looking for some statutory authority behind this. Now that we know that there is none, rather different questions arise from those addressed in the amendments that we put before the Committee. For example, Clause 18(2), which allows the Government to stop the levying of any fee, now becomes a Henry VIII clause, though it was not so brought to the attention of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the department's memorandum. Moreover, it now authorises the Secretary of State, by regulation, to deprive the universities at a moment's notice of a major part of their income. That may be of concern to many noble Lords.
It will also be of some concern to discover whether universities have the right not to levy the tuition fee. If they have that right, we shall face the prospect at the end of the year, with unfilled places, of July sales, clearance sales and—God forbid!—closing down sales.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the noble Earl for giving way. Can he explain to the Committee the connection between what he is saying and the amendment on the Marshalled List which we are debating at the moment?
Earl Russell: I am explaining the point made by my noble friend. There is room for a division of opinion as to whether the discussion should have been on the Motion to go into Committee or now. It is not for me to resolve that but I hoped that it might be for the convenience of the Committee to take it now. If the Committee feels otherwise, I shall desist.
Baroness Blackstone: It would be helpful if we kept to the order in which amendments are put down and grouped. I would be happy to speak to Amendment No. 139 when we reach it. We are on a quite different amendment now. I should be grateful if the Committee would accept that it makes more sense to stick to the groupings in the agreed order than to take amendments out of order.
Baroness Blotch: I do not think it matters which order the amendments are taken in. The serious point being made is that we expended our opportunity during the Committee stage of the Bill to discuss Part II when we all had a full understanding of how the law worked. But we are all taking independent legal advice and

13
finding that the basis on which we have been discussing the Bill is different from the Government's basis. We believe that there is a case for re-committal. The point is not on the Marshalled List today in the form of an amendment because it is not an amendment. However, it seems to me to be a subject which must be aired.
Baroness Blackstone: I should be happy to respond to the questions that have been raised by the noble Earl. Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. However, it would be right for us first to deal with the time-off provisions. That is what we are meant to be discussing today. We should do that first and then come to the issue relating to Thursday's business when we have dealt with the issues involving time off, on which a number of amendments have been put down, including the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has just spoken.
Lord Monkswell: Before the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, responds to the amendment which we are debating, perhaps I may say a few words. I asked my son a question the other day at which he was flabbergasted. It was a question which I could have posed to workers outside digging up the road, the army of cleaners who come in after we have all gone home, workers in a whole range of industries with production lines and workers in the field. I should explain to the Committee that my son is currently working as a bricklayer's labourer. The question I asked him was: did he need to read and write to do that job? He said: "Of course not".
I am concerned about what might be described as the Weatherill factor in the clause. I should explain that the Weatherill factor is that declared by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill: the law of unintended consequences. The unintended consequences that I fear as a result of this clause and the way it is written concern, on the one hand, the young people whom the Government rightly seek to assist by ensuring that they get a basic education beyond school-leaving age. I fear that they will not be employed because there will be a penalty on employers if those young people are so employed. Therefore, they will not have the ability to engage in essential, useful and productive work that is an enormous part of the requirements of a decent society.
The other unintended consequence is that those young people who have the requisite educational qualifications may be employed but may not be allowed time off work by their employer for further studies or training. That group may have been dissatisfied with school and education. They may see no benefit from it and feel they do not need further education and training. They will therefore be dissuaded from using the provision.
I hope that the Government will take seriously the concerns that I have expressed, echoing those of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and reflect on what may be the totally unwitting and unintended consequences of the clause through the way in which it is drafted.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is a rare occasion when I rise with sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, says. However, I do so because there are unintended consequences in the proposals in the clauses. One is, sadly, that it will not be helpful to the very people whom the proposals purport to help.
I have some questions. I apologise profusely for not giving warning of those questions earlier but I realised only this morning that there are two papers referred to. I have seen neither. One is entitled Qualifying for Success; it deals with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The other is Targets for our Future which deals with England and Northern Ireland. They are both background papers which would be relevant to our discussions on the Bill.
My two questions are for information which will help us understand the proposals. The first is fairly straightforward: where an employer is challenged by a young person, taken to a tribunal and loses, Clause 24, new Section 63C(4) gives the penalty for the employer. It is:
"to pay to the employee an amount equal to the remuneration to which (the young man or woman] would have been entitled under section 63B if the employer or the principal had not refused".
My understanding is that the young person employed is paid by his employer for five days a week anyway, whether or not they go on training, whether or not they are given time off for training. Are we to understand from that penalty that the employer will not only pay for each of the five days worked by the young person but, as a punishment, will also have to pay a sixth day's pay to the young person if the employer loses at the tribunal?
My second question is this. Where an employer gives training on the job within the company which is effective for the purposes of working within that company and which also meets all the requirements of the job and the young person, and where such training conforms to the health and safety requirements but not to a qualification which is awarded externally or which meets the requirements of Clause 23(2)(c), will that company—medium-sized or small—be obliged either to alter the training programme or send 16 to 17 year-olds off site for study or training at the company's expense, even though the training within the company satisfies the company's needs? The employer may have to employ a substitute employee while that young person is off site.
The reason I ask that question is that a great deal of disquiet is building up on the part of industry in negotiating with the Government over the welfare-to-work programmes. We discover that the Government subjectively say: "We don't like your in-house training programmes" when it involves some of the medium-sized and bigger companies who provide effective, on-the-job training for their own employees. The Government are beginning to say that it does not conform. Therefore the employers are faced either with

15
not co-operating with the welfare-to-work schemes or they have to make costly alterations to the existing schemes at their own expense.
Baroness Maddock: I wish to add to the words of my noble friend Lord Tope. As has been said this afternoon, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that we have a provision that is inclusive. The way the Government worded the clause, the provision was exclusive. The noble Lord who spoke after my noble friend made that clear.
I wish to press the Government on this clause. It may be that this is just a beginning for them. We have heard throughout the proceedings on the Bill that it is intended to be evolutionary and that some of the proposals we have made in other parts of the Bill may be taken up by the Government later on. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches believe that all young people under the age of 19 who are not in higher education should have the opportunity while they are at work to get training at work, or to go away to an institution, or to use many of the modern techniques of gaining training and education.
We would be interested to hear whether the Minister sees it as just the beginning and whether the point we are making with the amendment is something the Government hope to see later on. We should very much like to see a timescale put on that if this is the case.
Lord Monkswell: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for agreeing with the argument I put forward. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the remarks she later tacked on. I hope that my noble friend will not give in to that kind of argument.
In my experience, even very small employers—good, responsible employers—will be glad to see that any training they give on the job, as she described it, will be externally assessed and accredited and will be part of transferable skills. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may have had responses from a small number of employers with a particular viewpoint. I am sure that good. responsible employers would not push the line that she pushed.
Lord Walton of Detchant: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has raised a number of issues of significance in relation to this clause and I can understand and appreciate her concerns. However, one of the most welcome developments we have seen in the field of education and training over the past seven or eight years has been the increasing development of vocational qualifications under the NVQ system, and more recently the GNVQ system, in order to develop that kind of high skill economy on which this country's future economic viability and competitiveness must depend.
For far too long in the United Kingdom we have had a low-skill economy, and far too many young people capable of benefiting from further education and training have failed to take advantage of such training, often for financial reasons, after leaving school at the age of 16. When the National Commission on Education
16
looked at this field it was very concerned to see the development of a mechanism whereby individuals leaving school at 16, for whatever reason, might take the opportunity of having at least a limited amount of time off work in order to acquire such qualifications or to build on qualifications such as NVQ I and 2 in order to achieve NVQ 3 and higher by a process of credit accumulation and transfer.
It may be that there are deficiencies in Clause 23 but I wholly believe that the objective underlying the clause is a worthy one. It is true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, that some of the major employers in this country—I think in particular of the motor industry but there are many others—have in-service training of a very high quality for their employees; and that is not just relating to the development of skills that they need in that industry but often education and training covering a much wider field. However, a large number of employers, particularly small and medium sized enterprises, do not make available such opportunities to their employees in order to capitalise on their skills and the opportunities they would otherwise receive if enabled to undertake such training. Hence, I greatly welcome the clause.
It may be that it needs considerable fine-tuning before it eventually becomes law. But the principle of requiring employers, where necessary, to give time off work, perhaps on the basis of one day per week, to individuals to undertake further education and training in order to work towards other qualifications is very much in line with the proposals of the Dearing Report—not the recent Dearing Report on higher education but the earlier Dearing Report on qualifications for 16 to 18 year-olds. It is crucial that we should develop a system to enhance the quality of the so-called vocational qualifications alongside those such as A-levels, which are regarded generally as academic qualifications. Indeed, many would say that the GNVQ is the vocational A-level. I believe it is right, in order to develop the high skill economy that this country needs for the future, that a clause such as this should become part of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, for his remarks because I find it difficult to disagree with him in principle about the policy aims of these clauses. There are 4 million businesses in this country. Ninety-seven per cent. of them are companies with fewer than 20 employees. Out of the 4 million businesses, 1.3 million are employers. They employ other people. The rest–2.7 million businesses—are sole traders or consist of the self-employed. They do not employ other people. We shall he imposing on very small businesses the strong arm of the law in order to implement these proposals.
A good deal of progress has been made by the present Government, carrying on from the previous government. in working with business and commerce to encourage them to take training seriously. Then along comes the provisions in this Bill saying, "If you do not comply with prescription set out in the Bill, you will find

17
yourself before an industrial tribunal". It is the method by which this policy is achieved that we take exception to.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When the noble Lord, Lord Tope, replies, can he tell the House whether he really thinks that employers will continue to take on the same number of 16 and 17 year-olds if anyone who is already well qualified can become even better qualified at the employer's expense, in both time and money? If he could tell us on what grounds he thinks that will improve the situation, I would be more convinced by his amendment.
I wanted to make my next point to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, but, sadly, he is not in his place. I listened to what the noble Lord said. It sounded as if you did not need to be able to read and write to be a bricklayer. I say to him—I hope he will read it in Hansard—that it is extremely dangerous nowadays not to be able to read and write. You cannot understand the instructions that are on machinery; you do not understand the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act; and you find it very difficult to understand notices from your union. Anyone who has suffered from bricks laid by someone who did not know what they were doing recognises that it is not as easy as all that to be a bricklayer. No doubt the noble Lord's son can read and write and is an excellent bricklayer, but it is nonsense to say that it is unimportant for people who are bricklayers.
Lord Monkswell: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The point I was making is that my son is working as a bricklayer's labourer and in that context he is just a carrier of bricks.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: He still needs to be able to understand the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and to follow instructions on the building site.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: While many large employers are extraordinarily good at providing on-the-job training and vocational training for their employees, one invariably finds that the focus is on middle management and upwards. If one examines the extent to which there is any training beyond pure vocational training for the job given to people at the bottom end in employment, one finds that it diminishes rapidly. Many of those losing their jobs tend to be at the bottom end rather than in middle management and upwards. They lack skills for wider training beyond on-the-job training.
A case can be made for greater opportunities for people working for large employers. They should have greater opportunities to undertake further education than exist at present. The proposed legislation will assist greatly in those areas by providing more mobility, greater skills and greater employment opportunities in future.
The number of small employers is growing. They need every possible assistance. They are the employers of the future who will provide greater employment opportunities than in the past. I could share some of the
18
views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, if the reality was that we had a high incidence of good quality training and high skills in those areas. Regrettably, the facts point to quite the opposite. It is in those areas that we, as a competitive nation, have been falling behind what has been happening, particularly in Europe. We need more training and opportunities than we have at present. We have to provide them for the growth area, particularly for those people who do not have such skills; for example. those in the lower end of employment. The way forward is to give them a chance to obtain training under arrangements of this kind. One would hope that the growing number of small employers would be prepared to embrace these new provisions and see the benefit for their companies. They will provide them with the opportunity to skill people so that there will be greater flexibility in future. Those whose jobs have disappeared will, if they have been retrained and re-skilled, be better equipped to look for jobs elsewhere.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I trust that the Committee will forgive me if I do not pursue the initial points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Earl. They will be dealt with later. Before I begin my reply, the two documents to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred are both public consultation documents. If she does not have access to them, we shall certainly make sure that she does. They should be available to all Members of this House.
The effect of these amendments needs to be clear. The effect of Amendment No. 130 would be to remove a most important power which the Secretary of State would need in order to make regulations. It would remove the key concept of standard of achievement and thereby undermine the most important effect of the Bill. To delete the phrase, "an academic or vocational" in Amendment No. 131, which comes from Section 24 of the Education Act 1997, would call into question the legal backing for controlling qualifications in the present context. Again, it would damage the quality assurance of the provision that we propose.
In considering Amendment No. 130, it is important to recall the wider context. The noble Lord. Lord Walton of Detchant, referred to the extension of training opportunities. As several Members of the Committee have said, there is a large number of young people who do not have the opportunity of training in their first jobs after school. We must turn to those young people. In particular, Members of the Committee may recall that our Investing in Young People strategy sets out our long-term aim that all young people who are able should achieve qualifications at least at Level 2 and thus improve their employability. That is the central intent of this clause. As I recall, at Second Reading noble Lords did not appear to be at odds with that primary intention. Indeed, I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that it was an aspect of the Bill to which he gave "an unqualified welcome". I believe that is right.
We need to ensure that as many of our young people as possible stay on in education and training, including those already in jobs. We want them to achieve qualifications at Level 2. That is in reply to the specific

19
point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. They should achieve higher qualifications if they can, but Level 2 is our primary objective. Many young people have taken advantage of the opportunities provided by modern apprenticeships, which have been devised and developed by employers who do provide decent training. We are also introducing national traineeships as a further high-quality work-based route to NVQs at Level 2.
But there is still a very large number of 16 and 17 year-olds who left school without any qualifications and who are well short of Level 2 qualifications. I understand the points made by my noble friend Lord Monkswell and others, but we have to prioritise. We must focus our measures on those who did not get much out of school. At worst, some of these young people end up in dead-end jobs for a few months with little prospect of anything better. The focus of this measure, and of our time and that of employers, including the prioritisation of resources, must be to bring those young people up to Level 2.
Amendment No. 130 could seriously undermine the way in which that is done. It would remove altogether the concept of the standard of achievement, and would remove key safeguards for both the young person and the employer. After all, the young person must be able to know what he or she is entitled to expect. Employers need to be able to plan ahead and take account of any implications in employing young people. They should not have to bear the burden of unreasonable demands.
At present only 70 per cent. of 16 and 17 year-olds have achieved Level 2 qualifications by the age of 19. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, pointed out, the achievement of that level is the basis on which all future qualifications can be built. But if the young people have not achieved even that level by the age of 19, then their long-term employability is extremely suspect. Therefore, our priority is at Level 2.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised the question of sanctions and what would happen were an employer brought to a tribunal for failing to provide time off in order for a young person to achieve Level 2. Clearly, there has to be a penalty if there is a breach of the requirement under this law. Obviously, we would hope, as far as possible, that the law was setting a standard and that industrial tribunals would rarely be brought in. However, undoubtedly a penalty would be involved were the employer to fail to carry out his legal obligations. The precise penalty is a complex issue and will depend on the particular circumstances. If the noble Baroness wishes, we can return to this in more detail and I can write to her as to the exact form the penalty will take.
As regards training provided short of Level 2, clearly much of it—and reference has been made in the debate to good companies providing quality training—would contribute to the achievement of Level 2. However, if the level of training was judged not to be sufficient to enable young workers to achieve Level 2, clearly that would not qualify under this clause.
20
I now turn to Amendment No. 131. It is helpful to bear in mind that the quality of provision is an important part of the legislation in general. Indeed, at Second Reading I gave an assurance to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who is not in his place today, that we would have,
"a proper method of certification".
The regulatory authorities, such as the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, will work within the provisions of the relevant legislation, such as Section 24 of the Education Act 1997, which defines the range of qualifications that may be authenticated. This definition encompasses the majority of qualifications offered both at work and outside it. If we were to open up the definition in the way suggested by Amendment No. 131, by deleting the words "academic or vocational", that would have adverse implications for the necessary quality assurance processes which, I believe, Members of the Committee would wish to see in place.
Clearly, some young people exercising their right to time off for study or training will at present have no qualifications at all. The qualifications that they would need span both academic and vocational qualifications. They would need to be included in the authentication process mentioned earlier. It is vital that both employers and young people have confidence in the quality of the qualifications available. Amendment No. 131 would undermine that intention. Therefore, I hope that Members of the Committee will reject this amendment, but, preferably, that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, will withdraw it at this stage.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for a very helpful reply. I reassure him straightaway that we still warmly welcome this part of the Bill. It was certainly not the intention of either of these amendments to undermine its provisions, but to extend them to a wider section of people. I shall consider what he has said and see how better we can achieve that at a later stage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked me whether I thought that smaller employers really would employ 16 and 17 year-olds. I acknowledge that there are many employers, perhaps mostly larger ones but by no means only those, who already make very good and proper provision for the further education and training of young employees. But that does not apply to all. I acknowledge that there are difficulties particularly for smaller employers. But if progress is to be made towards achieving a better educated, trained and skilled workforce for the flexible markets that we talk about there must be some stick as well as carrot. Those are the employers whom we should encourage.
I acknowledge that there are difficulties and understandable concerns, but I hope that we shall be able to make faster progress than is envisaged in the Bill. I do not believe that in his response the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to the timescale of the evolutionary process envisaged by the Government. We strongly support this part of the Bill and have no wish to undermine it. We shall consider the response received from the noble Lord. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 130A.
Page 19, line 14. at end insert ("and, if he is disabled, is entitled to be provided with appropriate support to ensure access to such training").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 130A and to speak to Amendments Nos. 131A and 132A. These amendments address the same point. It is the experience of the voluntary organisations who represent disabled people and work for their benefit that employers of disabled people who want to undertake part-time courses are frequently ready to find the course fees. They regard that as a very proper way of helping their employees to advance themselves. However, it is also their experience that employers are reluctant to find the appropriate support necessary to enable a disabled person to take advantage of a course that he or she proposes to take. It appears that the Disability Discrimination Act has not changed the situation to any marked extent. Therefore, perhaps this part of the Bill may provide a means to air the problem. These are probing amendments. I hope that the noble Baroness can provide me with some comfort.
I take as an example a deaf employee. He or she will require some form of sign language, which implies an interpreter or some other means of communication if he or she is to take advantage of the course. The National Deaf Children's Society, which has drawn my attention to this matter, informs me that some deaf people face barriers in gaining access to training because their employers are not prepared to help in this regard. The society quotes the case of a deaf woman who attends evening classes twice a week and is studying a foundation course in psychology without any communication support. Her employer found the course fees, for which she was very grateful, but not the necessary support. She has been struggling to follow the lectures and is considering withdrawing from the course. It is supposed to be a two-year course, and she continues to work full time. One may ask why she has not applied for a disabled student's allowance. It appears that part-time students are not eligible under that scheme.
For some years I was on the council of the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. I chaired a committee of that body which received applications from blind people, principally but not exclusively guide dog owners, for help to undertake training. The primary objective was and is to supply guide dogs. (I say "was" because I am no longer on the council, having been superannuated as a result of reaching a certain age.) In some cases we were able to help with grants so that blind people could take advantage of the educational opportunities available. Often what is required is new technology, whereby with the use of amazing machines with voice recognition patterns blind people can hear the spoken word when documents are inserted into those machines. The machines do not sound like Daleks but like real people. That is a remarkable technology but it has a certain cost. People require help if they are to take advantage of it.
Do the Government have any intention of extending the disabled student's allowance to cover part-time students on higher education courses? If so, these bodies seek clarification from the Government as to who will pay the cost of communication support for deaf and blind people or those who are otherwise disabled and find difficulty in gaining access to courses and are doing non-higher education courses. If disabled employees cannot claim the allowance for non-higher education courses, who will be responsible for paying the high cost of communication support? Often there is disagreement between employees and employers and the course provider about payment. My attention was drawn to a case in which an employer paid the course fee of £150 but the communication support cost £900 to enable the employee to undertake the course. That appeared to be an astonishing figure, but the employer felt that it was unreasonable to ask him to pay it.
There is a real problem here. If, as the Government have made clear, there is to be an extension of the right to time off to enable people to pursue educational training courses leading to higher qualifications, the provision for disabled people must include everything that allows them to take advantage of that opportunity. It is certainly not the case at present. I should like to know from the Government whether they envisage that that will be the case in future. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I support the spirit underlying these amendments. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether she is aware of the fact that some years ago the Department of Health established a series of communication aid centres throughout the country in different areas with the objective of producing and supplying communication aids to those in just the kind of situation referred to by the noble Lord? One wonders whether those aid centres are still in existence and whether they can help in the situations to which he has referred.
Baroness Blackstone: I am sympathetic to all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. It is important that all young employees take advantage of the education and training opportunities that are available to get the skills and qualifications that they need. This is doubly important for young employees with disabilities.
In considering Amendment No. 130A the Committee may wish to be made aware of the considerable range of existing provisions that can help young disabled employees to participate fully in education and training. In particular, some Members of the Committee may already know that the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 places a statutory duty on the Further Education Funding Council to have regard to the needs of students with disabilities when determining what provision to make. One of the key ways in which the FEFC has satisfied this duty is through its funding methodology. Colleges may claim additional funding units from the Further Education Funding Council for the direct costs associated with the support needs of individual students with disabilities.

23
More generally, access to work is available for anyone in paid employment, including 16 and 17 year-olds, to assist them to train for, or to retain, employment. Access to work helps towards the extra costs of practical support that disabled people need to overcome work-related obstacles caused by disability. It is available to people who are disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, who are in or about to enter paid employment, and who incur additional costs because of their disability. If training is undertaken as part of a young person's employment, then support provided under the access to work arrangements would cover that activity.
In addition the Disability Discrimination Act provides that employers are under a duty to make reasonable adjustment if their premises or employment arrangements place the disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled people. Members of the Committee will be aware that these provisions do not relate to an employer who has fewer than 20 employees, but they will also know that we are currently consulting on, and reviewing the question of, lowering this threshold.
The second amendment, Amendment No. 131A, calls for the provision of funding for appropriate support to ensure access to such training while the young person is for the time being not working for the employer but under contract to another person, "the principal." But it is not wholly clear whether it is intended that this should be an obligation on the principal, for whom the young person may be currently working, or on the employer, or on the state. The Committee may also recall that costs of this nature were not included in the regulatory appraisal assessment of overall costs either as costs to employers or as costs to government. So they would be new costs.
Turning to the third amendment, Amendment No. 132A, I can fully understand the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, to ensure that all young disabled employees are able to take full advantage of the education and training opportunities that are available to them. The amendment would provide for enforcement through industrial tribunals and, until the earlier issues have been carefully considered, it cannot be clear whether a new individual employment right is being considered and, if so, whether the Employment Rights Act 1996 would be the appropriate place to locate such a right. If the entitlements proposed earlier by the noble Lord took a different form, then a different enforcement procedure altogether might be required.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, also asked about the extension of disabled student allowances to cover part-time students in higher education. That is not relevant to this part of the Bill, which is about 16 and 17 year-olds who are not in higher education. I can say to the noble Lord that we are looking at the position of part-time disabled students. No decisions have been made because further work needs to be done in order to assess the numbers who might be involved and the costs that would arise. I hope it is helpful to know that the matter is very much on the agenda and that it is being looked at.
24
We are committed to ensuring that all young disabled people can play their full part in the labour market and therefore in society more generally. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising these important issues. However. the amendments need further careful consideration in the light of existing provision. We wish to ensure that young people with disabilities are able to take full advantage of what is to be made available. In particular we will look at ways of ensuring access to training and will say more on this important matter when the Bill reaches another place. I hope, in the light of that, that the noble Lord is able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before my noble friend responds, the noble Baroness said that the amendment does not make it clear on whom the costs would fall—the principal, the Government or the employer. That may be a problem with the amendment. However, if this scheme is to go ahead—and, with the Government's majority, the chances are that it will—the problem has to he resolved, if not by my noble friend, then by the Government. Unless that happens the young people who fall into this category could be left outside the scheme because neither the employer, nor the Government, nor the principal, would have an obligation to meet the costs. It is something that the noble Baroness and her Ministers should consider and then come back with an amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness is absolutely right. This would have to be resolved. As I indicated earlier, we will be looking at the question, among other issues which arise from acceptance of these amendments, and we will, if we can, bring forward amendments in another place to deal with them.
Lord Jenkins of Roding: I am grateful for the care with which the noble Baroness responded to the three amendments. It is clear that the Government regard this as an important part of the new provisions in Part III of the Bill. It is good to know that they take on board the need to make provision for the support costs. I shall wait to see what happens. We are becoming used to hearing of reviewing this, revisiting that and examining the other. It all sounds very sympathetic and friendly but not a lot appears to come out at the other end. Hopes are raised only to be dashed. I hope that that will not happen in this instance.
I, for one. have always been hugely impressed by the determination of people who suffer from considerable physical or sensory handicaps to make something of their lives. They are prepared to make efforts that people more fortunately placed would perhaps not feel it necessary to make. They deserve every encouragement and support. I hope, having heard what the noble Baroness said, that the review is seriously intended. Otherwise I fear there will be great disappointment.
These are probing amendments. I was about to withdraw them. Does the noble Baroness wish to address the Committee again?
Baroness Blackstone: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I reassure him that I

25
would not have said what I said just now if I did not seriously mean that we will be looking at these amendments and hoping that we will be able to come up with something at a later stage in the Bill's course through Parliament. He was a little unfair in saying that sympathy is expressed and then nothing comes of it in the sense that it is too early to say whether nothing will come of it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I take some comfort from that and the fact that there is someone looking over the noble Baroness's shoulder who has every possible reason for having sympathy with these amendments. I hope that she is justified in what she says and 1 therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 131 and 131A not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 20, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) References in this section to study or training are references to study or training on the premises of the employer or (as the case may he) principal or elsewhere.").
The noble Baroness said: I am pleased to introduce Amendment No. 132 which makes it absolutely clear on the face of the Bill that the phrase, "time off for study or training", which is required to enable young people to access the new right, does not necessarily mean time away from the workplace. The effect of the amendment will also be to re-emphasise that the Bill does not accord greater status to any particular route.
Members of the Committee will recall from Second Reading that some noble Lords raised the concerns expressed by the Confederation of British Industry about the perceived lower status of study or training undertaken at the workplace. We have listened to those concerns through our regular and very positive contacts with the CBI.
Amendment No. 132 sends a very clear message. The study or training can be undertaken in the workplace, whether actually on the job or elsewhere on site and, for example, via national vocational qualifications. Or it can take place in a college, or with an approved training provider, or elsewhere.
As I made clear at Second Reading, the time that a young person can have will be what is reasonable in all the circumstances, with account taken of the requirements of the study or training as well as the circumstances of the employer's business. This will be especially important for small and medium-sized businesses.
Amendment No. 132 confirms that this is a listening government, willing to work to accommodate the concerns of employers, to ensure that arrangements can be both sensible and flexible. This amendment has been warmly welcomed by the CBI and has its strong support. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Turning now to Amendment No. 138, noble Lords will note that this is a technical amendment to Section 58 of the Employment Rights Act, which sets out the right to time off for occupational pension scheme trustees. The amendment is not intended to change the
26
meaning of that section in any way. It is included solely to ensure that the amendment to Section 63A, Amendment No. 132, does not have any adverse effect on the interpretation of that section. Amendment No. 138 is a minor but important amendment which I now also commend to the Committee.
Lord Tope: I rise merely to say that we warmly welcome and support this group of amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4 p.m.
On Question, whether Clause 23, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: If it will help the Committee, in opposing the Question that Clause 23, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill, I should like also to oppose Clause 24. This is the same argument and may save time.
In order to warn any spin doctor who may wish to interpret otherwise, I make it clear at the outset that we entirely support the Government's policy aims that young people should have adequate education. training and skills with which to enter the workforce. We also support the setting of education and training targets to be achieved by young people as they leave school. The Government have our support in encouraging young people to remain in education and/or training to equip them for entering the workplace. Much of what the present Government are doing builds on the achievements of the previous Conservative Government, which were opposed root and branch by Labour Members of Parliament as those measures went through both Houses.
The previous government, for example, introduced the national curriculum, with concentration on the core subjects of literacy and numeracy. Our government also saw the introduction of formal assessments and testing; the introduction of a systematic rolling programme of inspections with a requirement for schools' governing bodies to produce follow-up action plans; the introduction of national education and training targets; the introduction of performance tables, the publication of which provides much of the information which this Government are now finding useful in focusing attention on areas of concern within the education service; the introduction and development of vocational qualifications, GNVQs and NVQs; an improvement in the school staying-on rate and an expansion of participation in further and higher education.
The number of young people entering higher education rose from one-in-eight in 1979 to one-in-three by 1997. Despite what has been said about funding, funding also rose throughout those years. We also secured all-party support for commissioning the Dearing report to address the issue of the financing of higher education into the 21st century. Therefore, that some young people aged 16 and 17 should leave or. in some cases, drop out of education is deeply regrettable and is a cause for concern.

27
However, the proposals contained in Clauses 23 and 24 do not address the problem. They have certainly not been thought through, just as so much of the Bill has not been thought through. One has only to recall the confusion over gap year students, and the Scottish Office concession over tuition fees to Scottish, Southern Irish and continental European students which disadvantaged students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
My two main reasons for opposing Clauses 23 and 24 are, first, that they represent yet another burden on business and, secondly, that the proposals will work against the interests of 16 and 17 year-olds. Therefore, my argument is that the proposals are well intended, but misplaced.
The balance is tilting quite significantly away from employers in favour of employees. European social legislation, as a result of the Government's signing up to the social chapter at the Amsterdam Summit, will create great tensions for all employers, public and private. I refer, for example, to the introduction of the minimum wage; compulsory recognition of trades unions; compulsory European works councils and the possible extension of works councils from large companies to much smaller companies; the introduction of maternal and paternal leave when a baby is born; equal rights for part-time workers; and to the shifting of the burden of proof in sex discrimination cases which will mean that in future an employer will be deemed guilty unless he can prove innocence. There is so much more—and this plethora of regulation represents additional costs and additional bureaucracy, together with a loss of freedom; a loss of choice; and a loss of competitiveness and of flexibility for all employers in the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister's hectoring and lecturing of the other European member states about competitiveness and flexibility in employment has a very hollow ring. Having abandoned the opt-out of the social chapter and the veto on social legislation which was secured by my right honourable friend John Major, the Prime Minister has opened the door to policies which will destroy the very competitiveness and flexibility which is so critical to a prosperous future for Europe.
Many companies—large, medium and small—provide training and regard it as essential to the success of their businesses. Some provide formal systems of training which dovetail very well into further and higher education qualifications and which are regarded as compatible by many of the accredited awarding bodies. Some, however, provide skills training but on a much more informal on-the-job basis, which serves the needs of both the company and the employee, and which is also consistent with all the workplace health and safety regulations but which may not conform specifically to the regulations and the bureaucracy which will be set out under Clause 23 in new Section 63A(2)(c), the details of which we have yet to see.
Paid time off will cost employers up to £130 million even if only 50 per cent. of 16 and 17 year-olds take up places. Businesses could be disrupted; substitute
28
employees may be needed to cover for absences, and productivity could be affected. Moreover, these proposals will impact disproportionately on smaller businesses which, according to the Government's own estimates, are the very companies most likely to be approached by this group of young people.
I believe that the proposals will work against the best interests of 16 and 17 year-olds who have no qualifications and who have dropped out of education and training. I should like to give to the Committee three examples of young people who could present themselves for work to an employer. I shall call the first John. He is aged 17 with five GCSEs and an NVQ level 2. Tom is my second example. He is aged 18 and on a New Deal welfare-to-work scheme. Tony is our third example. He is aged 17 and has only one GCSE. My first example, John, aged 17 with five GCSEs and an NVQ level 2, could be employed full-time at the cost to his employer of his salary. Tom, aged 18, on the New Deal welfare-to-work scheme, comes to the employer with a weekly bounty, paid for by the Government, of £60 plus £700 upfront costs to cover training. On the other hand, Tony, who is aged 17 and has only one GCSE, comes to the employer at full salary cost, but with a right to have time off regularly for education and training which could last for over a year at the employer's expense.
So employers will have a clear incentive to take on either qualified young people or the New Deal welfare-to-work 18 to 24 year-olds in preference to 16 to 17 year-olds with no qualifications and who carry a cost to the employer over and above their salary. Not only that—in the Government's own view, this group of individuals is unlikely to be motivated and is even alien to the idea of education and training. A great deal is being asked of employers.
If an employer provides training which does not conform to the prescribed conditions to be set out in regulations under new Section 63A(2)(c), he will be obliged under the law to adjust the company training programme at his own expense, although it may have been entirely satisfactory to the company, only to conform to a more bureaucratic system which must be monitored and assessed externally by an accreditation body. That applies to a company which may have only two people in its employ.
It is even more confusing in the area of work and benefits. As I understand it, if you are 16 to 18 years of age and taking part in a course of further education, you cannot claim state benefits; if you are part of the New Deal welfare-to-work scheme you can claim benefit; if you are 18 plus and on a further education course, you cannot claim benefits, and you must pay tuition fees for some courses; if you are 18 plus and part of the New Deal welfare-to-work scheme, you may claim benefits and be exempt from paying tuition fees for six months; if you are 18 plus and part of the New Deal welfare-to-work scheme, your employer will receive £60 a week, and £700 up front to pay for training; and if you are 16 to 18 and in a job your employer will be required to pay you and shoulder the full cost of a day

29
release programme. Is it any wonder that employers, particularly small employers, find this whole issue perplexing?
For some years now unemployment has been falling and continues to fall across all age levels. In addition, as the results and benefits of the education reforms over the past 10 years work through to school-leavers—the benefits are now beginning to show—more and more young people will leave with better qualifications. We all say "Amen" to that. But for those who do not, government should consider other alternatives; for example, to revisit Option 2 which was set out in the Government's paper Investing in Young People; that is, to continue to encourage employers without invoking the strong arm of the law against them. This is no way to work with and to win the hearts and minds of the private sector.
There must be a more effective way of achieving the policy aim of improving the education and skills of some of the most difficult young people who see no benefit in remaining in state-funded education or training to the age of 18. To pursue the policy in that way, using the strong arm of the law, especially against the smaller employers who need to use all their energies, talents and resources even to survive, is unacceptable.
I oppose these two clauses standing part of the Bill because of the anomalies created by them; the unbelievable complexity of provision for 16 plus young people, whether in or out of education, in or out of work; the inherent unfairness between one young person who receives bounties and benefits and another young person who represents a burden to an employer; the tensions that will result from unmotivated young people and their employer who will be pursued by bureaucrats, and possibly an industrial tribunal, if the employer fails to satisfy the, as yet, unwritten regulations; and they are ill-thought through. Most significantly, I oppose them because they will work against the interests of the very people that they are designed to help—young, unskilled school-leavers.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I listened with interest to the noble Baroness, and hear what she says about how her points of view will be viewed outside the Chamber. It will be difficult to convince people outside the Chamber that you are in favour of extending training to young people, given that you do not want the clause to stand part of the Bill. I place on the record once again that the Liberal Democrats support the right of young people to have time off from the workplace to ensure that they are properly trained. We recognise that that can happen in a great many other places as well and by many other means, especially with modern technology.
It is hard to believe that some of these arguments were taking place 30 years ago when we were discussing the setting up of the Open University. I have greatly enjoyed the book about Jennie Lee written by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. Some of the discussions we have had today and earlier in Committee about higher education and the different ways of learning and using modern technology were being held over 30 years ago. That is dreadful shame.
30
As has already been said this afternoon, all the evidence shows that if the British economy is to be competitive in the next century we must foster high quality, high value-added products. That must be part of our economy. We can achieve that only if we have a well-educated and highly skilled population. There must be flexibility within education and training.
We have seen rapid technological and economic change, which means that people will need a wide range of skills. They will need to be able to communicate, assess, adapt and work with others in this fast moving climate. Training in such skills demands a broad education, to which I believe we are all committed. In addition, we must ensure that more specialised competencies are included. That is what we are talking about in this part of the Bill.
For over 30 years successive governments have acknowledged the need to improve the training of our workforce, but our workforce remains poorly trained when compared with most other developed countries. As has already been said, only about one in seven of our employees receive any training from their employers, although we have made some strides in recent years.
In England and Wales—it is probably less true in Scotland—there has been a failure to straddle the gulf between academic and vocational education. Vocational education has been the poor relation. Training has often been short term and not of the highest quality. That has been the case since the country's good system of apprenticeships was dismantled. There must be parity of esteem between academic and vocational qualifications. That is an essential first step if we are to have a properly educated and trained workforce.
One of the other factors which is important, and which has been mentioned, is the funding of proper training. At the last general election I was proud to be able to put forward the Liberal Democrats' proposals for how that is to be achieved. I return to the noble Baroness's opening remarks, because we must engender a change of culture. The only way we will do that is by investing in the training of our young people. That is not happening at the moment. We have proposed that one way to fund it—this may answer an earlier question—is to have a training levy. We have proposed a levy of 2 per cent. on the companies' payrolls. Firms providing training opportunities would be able to make deductions against that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is anxious about what will happen to small businesses and the burden which will fall on them. Under a properly constructed training levy small companies employing a few people can be exempt. However, they can provide proper training for their employees. That is particularly important because the small businesses eventually turn into large businesses. Often when the economy is doing well small businesses engage the largest number of new employees. It would be wrong to introduce a system which did not enable small companies to afford to train their employees.
This is an important part of the Bill which we believe can be improved. We believe that all young people under the age of 19 should be included. There is a

31
recognition outside the House that we need to move forward in this respect. Despite the arguments explained most eloquently, as always, by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I do not believe that the message will be well received outside this House, and we support the Government.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I believe that people at large are more practical than the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, believes and they may well see problems with the plan. Many people who have done well at the Open University left school with no qualifications or just dropped out. The problem is how to motivate such people. I am thinking of those in the area which I know best; that is, north of the Border. The Bill applies to Scotland, too. There are many young people of 16 and 17 who leave school and are not at all interested in further educational training. Their one motivation is to find a job. Nowadays, they are usually successful after a short time. Many begin by working in a small business; for instance, a shop or a garage. They keep the job for a year or two and become motivated and interested. Often the employer suggests that it would be a good idea if they went to college on day release. More likely, they apply for a better job where training is provided. However, the start of the training is simply having a job.
I worry that if the clause is implemented, many of the small businesses in my area will be reluctant to employ young people. They will have to pay them not only for a full week's work—and they will be away for part of that—hut they will have to employ another young person as a replacement. Perhaps in time they will have to be paid for training.
I have devoted a large part of my life to setting up education and training for such young people—my thoughts go back to months spent setting up the youth training scheme. There was enormous opposition from the party opposite, who later destroyed it because it was not good enough. I realise that one must be realistic; we must start with what young people want, which is a job. Once they start work they will want training and we must provide every incentive for that. However, if employers are forced to provide such training, the jobs market for 16 and 17 year-olds, certainly in my area, will diminish. That would be tragic.
Baroness Blackstone: Clause 23, as amended, and Clause 24 provide that 16 and 17 year-olds who are in a job but who have not achieved a certain standard in their education and training, will be entitled to appropriate time off to pursue approved qualifications in the workplace, at college or elsewhere. I am grateful to Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches for their support for this part of the Bill. I am surprised by the opposition to it as expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and her party. Let us be clear about the importance that the Government place on the provisions. All young people are important and investing in young people is central to our thinking. The provisions fulfil a commitment made in the manifesto. They are about improving the employability of young people. We want
32
all employers, not just some of them, to provide good quality training for young people and by doing so to invest in the future.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that some of her comments amounted to reasons for supporting the clause rather than opposing it. Of course young people are motivated by having a job. Building on that motivation by providing them with good training, whether at work or on release to attend college, is a sensible approach to extending employability for all young people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, listed a large number of provisions which the previous government made. Some of them I support and am pleased they are successful. However, despite the changes, one in three adults have not had a single day's education and training since they left school. It is important that when 16 and 17 year-olds leave school and take a job we start them on the road of training so that they can be prepared for a world of lifelong learning.
As I explained on Second Reading, the measure is a key element of our "investing in young people" strategy. It is not an option. The measure will tackle the problem of under achievement among many 16 to 19 year-olds.
I recall that during Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Tope, gave a positive welcome for Clauses 23 and 24, which reflected the encouraging mood of the House towards this important legislation. I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised a number of anxieties about the effects of legislation on employers, and those are points to which I shall return. But as the government amendment tabled today shows, we take employers' views seriously and we shall continue to work closely with them.
We know that there are many excellent employers across the country who will already meet the requirements of the legislation through their first-class training and development arrangements for young employees. But our ultimate aim must be to change both attitudes and practices so that all employers, not just the good ones, provide quality education and training for their young employees—or if they cannot or will not, allow others to provide it in their stead.
Clauses 23 and 24 stem from one of the Government's manifesto commitments, so I shall take this opportunity to explain why the Government believe the legislation to be essential and why the clauses should stand part of the Bill. In the UK, at the end of 1996 there were an estimated 115.000 young people aged 16 to 17 in employment not qualified to Level 2 and not working towards a Level 2 qualification. While it is pleasing that the unemployment rate for 16 to 24 year-olds in Great Britain—using the ILO definition—fell from about 16 per cent. in the summer of 1997 to about 13 per cent. in the autumn of 1997, that rate remains at twice the national average. That seems to me to provide ample justification for the emphasis, and significant resources, that we are placing on improving the skills and employability of that age group as a whole.

33
I return to the 16 and 17 year-olds, who are the subject of this legislation. We are concerned that large numbers of young people in the UK each year will continue to fail to reach level 2, the very basic level of attainment which is an absolute prerequisite for sustained and future employability. Level 2 qualifications also provide the foundation for further learning and career progression. The consequences of failure for the young people, for employers and for the Government are clear: the likelihood of higher rates of unemployment in the future; a smaller pool of people who have reached the threshold of skill which makes them valued employees; and some young people withdrawing from the labour market altogether. More young people will therefore be at greater risk of being socially excluded. The cost to the individual young person, to the economy and to society would continue to be high and I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree that no one should be written off as a total failure at the age of 16.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised questions about the interaction of those provisions with the New Deal. Those two areas of policy cover different age groups. This legislation covers 16 and 17 year-olds; the New Deal is for 18 to 24 year-olds who have been long-term unemployed and claiming jobseeker's allowance for a minimum of six months and in many cases many months longer. The design of the New Deal—its gateway and assignment to personal advisers—recognises that long-term unemployed 18 to 24 year-olds need in-depth advice so that they may resolve any personal problems, set realistic occupational goals and overcome the many barriers that they face in relation to both self-confidence and motivation.
Another key difference relates to geographic spread. I understand that 16 and 17 year-olds in employment without training are far more geographically dispersed than the New Deal client group, who are much more heavily concentrated in relatively few areas. I understand also that an extensive survey of employers—small as well as large—undertaken by Manchester TEC showed that current employment of 16 and 17 year-olds was not expected to be affected adversely by the New Deal.
The Government recognise that there is a potential issue here concerning the interaction of two important commitments. But we believe that that will be a local rather than national issue. However, we shall monitor closely the impact of the New Deal and will be able to assess its possible interaction with other policies. Of course that is important, but it is quite right to give priority to those young people aged 18 to 24 who have been unemployed for more than six months. But we wish to ensure that that does not put at risk the opportunities for 16 and 17 year-olds, a group who have the benefit of other opportunities such as modern apprenticeships, national traineeships and other government supported work-based training. But it is a group also which does not always take up those opportunities.
We are looking for a culture in which all young people in work, or not, stay on in learning to acquire the skills and qualifications which will make them
34
employable in the long term. The focus of the New Deal is on unemployed 18 to 24 year-olds. The focus of this legislation is on very young employees aged 16 and 17. If we successfully help the 16 and 17 year-olds to achieve the skills and qualifications they need, there should be fewer who, a few years later, will need the help of initiatives like the New Deal. That is part of the focus of these measures.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has focused on the burdens and cost to businesses. And it is true that we have estimated that the compliance costs to businesses will be between £60 million and £130 million per year. The noble Baroness quoted the higher of those figures. But the House might wish to note that this will vary very much according to the rate of take-up on the part of young people; the time the young people are away from fully productive work and undertaking appropriate education or training; and on any absence cover that may or may not be required.
But it is essential to stress that those costs must he seen against the benefits to employers and to the economy at large of a more highly trained workforce. I am sure that the Committee will agree that training and education are an investment. They are a vital investment for the country's future prosperity, for improved business performance and for giving young people the skills they need in our rapidly changing labour market. The returns on the investment for employers are the higher skill levels of their current young employees and a better trained national workforce from which to recruit in the future.
It is only fair that employers contribute significantly to the investment, given the returns to them from better trained young employees. Wages, of course, will be a matter for the young person and the employer concerned. Time for study or training gives employers the opportunity to raise the skills of their young employees: and, as we have set out in the regulatory appraisal, the Government will also contribute significantly to the overall education or training costs.
The costs of not investing in young people's skills are high, both in terms of the economic costs to businesses and the costs to young people and society from denying some young people the opportunity to improve their skills and employability. And a lack of investment in our young people is felt even more acutely by small employers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made quite a lot of the position of small businesses. Small firms need better trained employees to sustain and improve their business performance. Many small firms already invest in training for their young employees. All small firms should seek to invest in training, rather than expect to benefit from training paid for by other small firms. That seems only fair.
The legislation represents an entitlement for the individual. Many young people work for small firms and it is essential that they are covered by the legislation: to do otherwise would carry the risk of denying these young people the opportunity to improve their skills and longer-term employability.

35
Sustainable employment in today's rapidly changing markets for goods and services requires more competitive businesses, with higher productivity levels and higher added value. This, in turn, requires more skilled, adaptable and flexible employees. Better education and training are vital to young people's employability in both the short and long term. Unemployment among 20 to 24 year-olds qualified to Level 2 is 40 per cent. lower than those with no qualifications.
It is surely better to give young people the opportunity to acquire now the skills they need for their longer term employability rather than have to seek to do it later and have intermediate years of young people moving in and out of short-term jobs and unemployment, with no long-term prospects to get the skills and qualifications they need.
On Second Reading, several noble Lords mentioned a letter that they had received from the CBI. I, too, have seen the letter and I should like to quote from the opening paragraphs of the briefing note:
"The CBI fully shares the Government's ambitious objectives for raising 16 to 18 year-olds' education and skills levels, and we have consistently argued that under 18 year-olds who have left full-time education must continue to receive opportunities for structured education, leading to nationally recognised qualifications. We therefore fully support the idea of a 'right to study' and accept the obligations this places on employers".
I am delighted to have received this enthusiastic support from the nation's employers. I do not know whether today the noble Baroness intends to press her opposition to Clauses 23 and 24 standing part of the Bill. However, I should point out to Members of the Committee that, if they were to decide that these provisions should not stand part of the Bill, the scope of the Bill would be fundamentally altered. The Long Title of the Bill would need to be reworked to reflect the narrower coverage of the legislation.
In practical terms, Members of the Committee should understand that the effect would be that when the Bill comes to be debated in the other place the change in scope would prevent any debate, or tabling of amendments, on "time to study". There would be no opportunity for those in another place to consider this vitally important manifesto commitment. An unelected Chamber would be dictating the topics upon which the elected Government could legislate. That is clearly an issue of some constitutional importance. Therefore, I urge Members of the Committee to consider most carefully the ramifications of their stance on this point.
At present. young people aged 16 and 17 have a very wide range of opportunities to help them to gain qualifications at Level 2, if they are not already there. If they enter into employment, we are determined that they, too, should have the chance to carry on learning. That is why the right to study was a manifesto commitment; that is why we are legislating; and that is why the success of Clauses 23 and 24 is so important.
36
I therefore urge Members of the Committee to agree that Clause 23, as amended, and Clause 24 stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Blotch: I should like, first, to say how grateful I am for the amazingly detailed and carefully thought-through reply that the Minister has given to the point. I shall repeat what I said in my opening remarks when I expressed my opposition to the fact that these clauses should stand part of the Bill. I agree with almost 70 per cent., 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of what the Minister said about the importance of improving the skills, education and training of this group of young people. They are people who already have a right to stay in education; they have a right to stay on at school; and they have a right to move into further and higher education.
I should like to narrow down my concerns about the clauses. They relate to the unfairness of the sharing of the burden of cost. It is interesting to note that the burden of cost is much less on the Government. For example, the Government, who already have an obligation to meet the financial costs of any young person staying in sixth form education or moving into further education, are bearing only £40 million of those costs for the education and training provision, with £12 million for the careers service and—Heaven forfend!—£700,000 for industrial tribunals to come down on those employers who do not conform. On the other hand, £60 million to £130 million represent the compliance costs if only 50 per cent. of young people take up the places. Therefore, I make no apologies for going to the upper end of that figure because when 60 per cent., 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of young people discover that they can get a full-time job with pay for five days a week, together with a day out, it may well become an attractive option.
As I said, I am concerned about the whole matter for different reasons. I am sorry that neither the Minister nor the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, are concerned about a most important point that I made in my opening remarks. What worries me is the following: an employer may be faced with the possibility of a young person coming to him with a bounty paid for by the Government; he could also be approached by a young person with all the qualifications, certainly beyond the minimum qualifications which will be set out in the regulations; but he could also be confronted by a young person with an obligation not only to pay him full time but also to give him time off at the company's expense, with the proviso that if the company does not comply it will be breaking the law. I believe that that would act against the best interests of 16 and 17 year-olds.
Neither the Minister nor the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred to the sadness of these young people, probably among the most difficult, who have not seen the benefits of staying on at school in education; the ones who are the most recalcitrant when it comes to going into any kind of formal scheme; and indeed the ones who will be the most difficult to handle. Employers will be required to give them paid time off. However, what do they do if these young people end up, as is so

37
often the case, wandering the streets of the local town? There is nothing in the Bill which confers anything other than a right to the young person; in other words, there is no responsibility imposed upon him in that respect.
Moreover, there is no ending to the time off for these young people taking such a course. In fact, it says in the paper, Investing in Young People, that they can even go into their 18th year as regards such courses if the stated level of education has not been achieved. Therefore, it could actually be a very long-term commitment for an employer. I have already mentioned that 97 per cent. of employers in this country employ fewer than 20 people and that 2.7 million of 4 million employers employ no one; indeed, they are self-employed, sole traders, and so on. We are talking about putting a very considerable burden on small businesses.
The Minister made a most important point and one which I actually support; namely, that what is needed is a change of culture. However, I believe that that is already coming about. I was very heartened both in my time at the education department and during my time at the Home Office by just how much businesses are now working with "Business in the Community", and taking part in many voluntary schemes. They are also introducing mentoring schemes and allowing people from their companies to twin with other young people in the community who have difficulties either in the mainstream education system or as they leave it. Indeed, they are doing so much to improve the lot of the group of people who are the subject of these clauses. As I said. 1 believe that that change in culture is already taking place. It is a great pity that the Government have chosen this time to use the strong arm of the law to enforce this particular proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, made a point earlier with which I absolutely agree. He said that there will be difficulties for small companies but that it is only right to encourage them. I entirely agree with that view. However, this is not encouraging them: it is using the law to make them comply. There is no flexibility and no allowance for understanding the difficulties of small companies. If the small company does not comply, it will find itself before a tribunal. That is another of my concerns.
As I said, I do not disagree with the issue which needs to be addressed here, but why should the cost of education and training for the most difficult of our young people be a responsibility predominantly placed upon the employer? Whenever the Government talk about business, commerce and consultations they refer only to the CBI. Indeed, the Minister did so today, as she has on many previous occasions. However, I have to tell the noble Baroness that the Institute of Directors is decidedly unhappy about these proposals. Moreover, I spoke only this morning to the Federation of Small Businesses which is most concerned about the matter. They have said what I have been saying; namely, they want to co-operate with the Government and they understand that there is a problem. They believe that the more young people who are better equipped, better trained and better skilled to enter the workforce the better it will be for everyone—for companies, for families, for communities and
38
for the country. But they are worried about the circumscription and compulsory nature of the clause. It may well be that some bureaucrat's interpretation of what is equivalent to NVQ Level 2 is not complied with.
I shall watch the end of the consultations. Some reputable, large companies in this country are in consultation at present with the Government on welfare-to-work schemes. Those companies have good in-house training schemes which serve the company and employee well and send young people out as well adjusted, trained young people. However, the training by those companies does not confirm specifically with the bureaucratic interpretation. In other words, external assessors will be allowed to insist on a change of those programmes in order to secure the co-operation of those companies with the welfare-to-work schemes. It would be deeply unfortunate if the outcome of these well intentioned proposals is that employers refuse to take on 16 to 17 year-olds simply because they come not only with an obligation but with a retinue of bureaucrats who will crawl all over the training and employment systems and job programmes. Those employers are doing a thunderingly good job in creating work and trade for this country and for the young employees.
I refer to the compulsory nature of this scheme and the unfair spread of costs to the employer, in particular as regards small employers. The proposal will surely promote discrimination against young people. Three young people come before an employer, one with no obligations other than for the employer to employ and pay him; one comes with a bounty from the Government; and one comes with a real obligation to the employer and, if it is not fulfilled, the employer will find himself on the wrong side of the law.
I conclude with these two questions. How many long-term unemployed 18 to 24 year-olds are there at present? How many 16 to 17 year-olds have a training or education level comparable with or below NVQ Level 2?
I take seriously the constitutional arguments put forward by the noble Baroness about this House removing a provision from the Bill which will mean that another place cannot debate the issue. It is right that the other place should debate it. It is right that the Government continue to justify this heavy-handed approach to small businesses in this country. The same ends could be achieved by working with industry and commerce, so that they co-operate with the Government on what we agree is an important policy.
I hope that the points are well made. The arguments relate to unfairness and discrimination against young people aged 16 and 17.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Iraq
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given to a Private Notice Question which has been asked in another place on Iraq. The Statement is as follows:
"The present regime of weapons inspections was put in place in Iraq following the Gulf War as part of the ceasefire agreement. Its objectives are to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and to prevent Iraq reviving the capacity to develop, produce, stockpile and deploy such weapons of mass destruction. Despite repeated obstruction from the Iraqi regime, UNSCOM's achievements have been significant. Since its inception, UNSCOM has destroyed 38,000 weapons with the capability to deliver chemical and biological agents; it has also destroyed significant quantities of production equipment and associated facilities. But serious gaps remain in Iraq's Full. Final and Complete Declarations, particularly in the field of biological weapons. Were UNSCOM's work to be halted now, Iraq would be able to generate biological weapons within a matter of weeks, and could achieve a chemical capability within months. It is vital for the continuing security of the region and more widely that UNSCOM be allowed full and unrestricted access to all sites that it wishes to inspect and as much time as it needs to complete its task.
"On 12th January UNSCOM began a new inspection aimed at uncovering concealed activities. The Iraqi regime blocked the inspection on the specious grounds of an alleged US bias on inspection teams. This particular inspection, led by Mr. Scott Ritter, a US citizen with a distinguished record of work for UNSCOM. consisted of 44 personnel from 17 different countries. UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler was in Baghdad last week for talks with Tariq Aziz aimed at resolving the crisis. The results were disappointing. Ambassador Butler's briefing to the Security Council on 23rd January immediately after his visit made clear that the Iraqis are determined to persist with their policy of obstruction. Iraq's attempt to impose a moratorium on inspections of so-called "Presidential" sites pending the outcome of technical evaluation meetings, announced during Ambassador Butler's visit, is unacceptable, as is the deadline given by Saddam Hussein for UNSCOM to complete its work. It is not for Iraq to dictate terms and conditions to the Security Council. Unrestricted access to all sites is essential for UNSCOM's work both now and for longer-term monitoring. The technical evaluation meetings, which will look at Iraq's declarations on its past programmes, are an entirely separate issue.
"We are actively pursuing a diplomatic solution to Iraq's latest attempts to obstruct the vital work of UNSCOM. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others are in regular contact with colleagues on the Security Council, in an effort to defuse the situation. But we cannot rule out military action if the diplomatic
40
approach fails to shift Saddam Hussein's stance. As a precautionary measure, HMS "Invincible" arrived in the Gulf on 25th January, and is engaged in work-up training with allied naval forces off the coast of Bahrain. We are keeping the situation under close review and have not ruled out further deployments should the crisis continue. There are no immediate plans to deploy extra forces. HMS "Illustrious", which is at present in Gibraltar, will embark a detachment of RAF Harriers tomorrow and will then commence work-up training in the Mediterranean.
"Iraq is fully aware of its international obligations and what it needs to do for the process of relaxing sanctions to begin: relevant Security Council resolutions make this perfectly clear. The Security Council is united in its demand for Iraqi compliance. There is no question of entering into negotiations with Iraq. Security Council resolutions are non-negotiable.
"The Government remain very conscious of the sufferings of the Iraqi people, with whom we have no quarrel. The UK has provided £94 million in aid to the Iraqi people since 1991. Much of this money has been used to fund projects by UK NG0s, including Mines Advisory Group, which is also involved in a major mine-clearing operation, and Save The Children Fund, which is focusing on water and sanitation projects aimed at helping children. The UK has also co-sponsored successive UNSC resolutions, allowing Iraq to export oil in exchange for humanitarian aid. For several years, Saddam chose not to avail himself of the opportunity to provide for his people under this scheme; since its implementation in 1996, oil-for-food has faced a number of cynical obstructive tactics by the Iraqi regime. For the sake of the people of Iraq. we remain prepared to discuss with Iraq ways of improving the scheme's effectiveness."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, the Opposition share the Government's deep concern about the current situation in Iraq. Likewise, we, too, deplore this latest attempt by Saddam Hussein to seek to defy the will of the international community by refusing to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. In government and now in opposition we supported the UN efforts to end President Saddam Hussein's programmes for the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction and to enforce the UN no fly zones over Iraq. These were the conditions laid down by the UN if international sanctions on Iraq were to be lifted.
The position is straightforward. The international community has guaranteed to lift sanctions when Iraq has been given a clean bill of weapons health: when a monitoring process is in place to stop such weapons being rebuilt; and when Saddam Hussein is no longer able to threaten his neighbours with germ warfare or with chemical and nuclear weapons. If Saddam Hussein wants sanctions to be lifted, the key to achieving this lies in his own hands: namely, full compliance with Security Council resolutions, including as a first step

41
unrestricted and unconditional access for UNSCOM inspectors, and an acceptance that it is for the chairman of UNSCOM to determine the composition of inspection teams, and not Saddam Hussein.
Faced with the current unacceptable situation, the Opposition welcome the Statement made today and welcome the statement made by the Security Council on 14th January. The latter deplored Iraq's decision to halt the work of UNSCOM's inspection team and determined that such a failure by Iraq to fulfil its obligations under Security Council resolutions was unacceptable and a clear violation. The Opposition also welcome the Government's policy to stand firm with the United States in taking whatever action is necessary to ensure that the Security Council's decisions are respected, and to make it clear that Saddam Hussein has no choice but to comply with UN weapons inspections in Iraq.
I take this opportunity to ask the Minister six short questions in connection with the Statement. First, given that Foreign Minister Primakov acted as an intermediary in the previous crisis, has the Security Council asked the Russians to take any action to help to resolve this present crisis, given their special relationship with Iraq? What indications have France, China and Russia given that, together with the United Kingdom and the United States, they too will not rule out any option to ensure that Saddam Hussein respects the will of the international community? Have any other members of the Gulf coalition taken the sensible precautionary defence measures of the United Kingdom? Does the Minister agree that one of the reasons we are able to play such an important role is because of our ability to project forces into the region at short notice, such as the deployment of the aircraft carrier HMS "Invincible"? Can the Minister confirm that the foreign policy based line of the strategic defence review recommends the retention of Britain's aircraft carrier capability?
In another place this afternoon the Minister indicated that he would consider a relaxation of the oil-for-food programme if used for humanitarian purposes. Can the Minister provide the House with details of what the Foreign Secretary might have in mind? Do the Government agree that the success of the Gulf operation in 1991 depended greatly on the support of Kuwait and Iraq's neighbours? In the event of military action against Iraq, does the Minister believe that such similar support would be forthcoming?
On the subject of the Arab League, does the Minister agree that there is a dangerous perception of an anti-American backlash among Arab states, some of whose views are based on the belief that the US will never lift sanctions while Saddam Hussein is in power, therefore giving him no incentive to comply; that sanctions have caused the Iraqis to suffer disproportionately; that the Americans operate a double standard in respect of the treatment of Israel and Iraq; and their fear that a severely weakened American President facing a domestic crisis might look to enhance his reputation on the international stage? What impact do the Government think the refusal of Arab states to endorse a military solution to the Iraqi crisis has had on US/Arab relations? What implications does this have for
42
the future security of the region and the influence and credibility of the United States to negotiate in a future crisis? From these Benches I assure the Government of our committed and unconditional support in the action they take to ensure that Iraq co-operates fully with the United Nations.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I rise to pledge the support of my noble friends on these Benches for the sombre statement the Minister has repeated to the House. Will the Minister remind the House that one of the reasons we have to press for completion of UNSCOM's mission is that Saddam Hussein has clearly demonstrated in the past that he is not to be trusted on the matter of weapons manufacture? Indeed, there have been several occasions when Iraq has declared that all has been revealed when we have discovered subsequently that all has not been revealed. That was particularly the case after General Hussein Kamal had fled to Amman and produced further information. That lack of trustworthiness is to be noted in the fact that when Hussein Kamal returned to Iraq under promise of amnesty he and his family were brutally murdered in Baghdad.
If anyone is in doubt about the nature of the regime they should note that only last week some eight people were brutally murdered in Amman—five of them Iraqi citizens and three of them not—presumably by agents of Saddam Hussein. It is because we are dealing with someone who is not open to the normal diplomatic niceties that we have to insist that UNSCOM is able to complete its mission.
On the question of humanitarian aid, as the Minister knows, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and I went to Baghdad a couple of years ago to study the situation. We were convinced of the dire need of the Iraqi people to receive more help in terms of medicine in particular but also food and other supplies. We have found our advocacy of the easing of sanctions positively frustrated by the attitude of Saddam Hussein and by his general behaviour. We also noted that while the Iraqi Government claim to be short of cash as regards the essential needs of their citizens, there appears to be no shortage of cash for the continued building of presidential palaces and monuments.
I refer to a point made by the Opposition spokesman. Will the Minister consider carefully whether there are ways to improve the somewhat bureaucratic process of delivering the oil-for-food programme to the people of Iraq? As the statement mentioned, we have no quarrel with the people of Iraq, but there is a need to use every possible avenue to help them while not helping their unfortunate ruler.
5.7 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Steel, for their support. I regret that it was a sombre statement that I had to repeat to the House this afternoon, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said. It is reassuring that the House is so united on these points. I thank both noble Lords for their comments.

43
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked a number of detailed questions which I shall now try to answer as best I can. He asked in particular about the role of Mr. Primakov as an intermediary. The Statement mentioned that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is in touch with our colleagues on the Security Council both collectively and bilaterally. As I understand it, all attempts will be made to resolve this crisis through diplomatic channels. I am sure that Mr. Primakov will take part in the discussions about the most suitable way of approaching such diplomatic channels.
As regards our colleagues in France. China and elsewhere, it is worth noting that the Security Council presidential statement of 14th January reiterates its demand that Iraq co-operates fully, immediately and unconditionally with the special commission. The council is determined that Iraq's failure to do so would be seen as a clear violation of the SCRs. The noble Lord also asked about other countries in the area. Of course other countries in the area have a part to play here. As we have seen before, Saddam's aggression to other countries in that part of the world has put them at times in a difficult position. We shall of course, through diplomatic channels, do everything we can to discuss the current difficult position with them.
The noble Lord also asked about the implications of the current crisis in terms of the Strategic Defence Review. I have had occasion previously to tell the House that the Strategic Defence Review will bear in mind the absolute necessity to safeguard the security of the people of this country. That is the obligation of all governments; it is one which Her Majesty's Government take quite as seriously as any of their predecessors.
The noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Steel, asked about possible negotiations around "oil-for-food". We are not ruling out an increase in the amount of oil sold, but first we need first to ensure that the present scheme is operating effectively. Benon-Sevan, the head of the UN 986 1111 and 1143 implementation unit is working on a report of that nature. We look forward to receiving that report—at which time we shall discuss the expansion with Security Council partners. The matter will come under active consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also talked about an anti-American backlash. I hope that we have made clear on other occasions in discussing the problems of the Middle East that these matters have to be addressed in a way that brings into play a number of different countries in that part of the world. It is essential to remember what we are dealing with in Saddam Hussein, who is attempting to dictate to the Security Council. Once again, the Government of Iraq have shown their utter contempt for the will of the whole international community. We must not lose sight of that point.
The questions raised by the noble Lord. Lord Steel, about the capability of Saddam Hussein to build up his arsenal of weapons must he matters for your Lordships' House to keep in constant view. UNSCOM has repeatedly stated that we do not as yet have the full picture. Iraq's declarations on its weapons of mass
44
destruction leave many questions unanswered. Particular concern ranges around the questions of biological and chemical warfare programmes. Prior to the Gulf War. Iraq produced enough chemical and biological weapons material to kill the world's population several times over. It continues to try to procure weapons technology. UNSCOM has destroyed more weapons than were destroyed in the course of the Gulf War. Its achievement should not be under-estimated. That is why the continuation of its work at this time is a matter of international importance.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, it must be very gratifying for the Government to have the support of both the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Party. I must confess that I do not feel quite so happy. I do not under-rate the difficulties facing the Security Council, and indeed leading members of the Security Council such as the United States and ourselves, in dealing with a dictator whose actions we know, which we deplore deeply and whom we would wish to see removed. But we may be about to embark on military action.
I have no difficulty with military action when I am quite clear that the cause is just and the objective is clear, but I am not yet certain about that. Is the purpose of military action, if it has to come about, to teach Saddam Hussein a lesson? Is it to re-open the means of inspection? Or is it to remove Saddam Hussein? We need some guidance about that if doubts are to be removed. In my judgment there is little doubt that military action of this sort will not only unite his people behind him but will also turn a certain number of Middle East countries which are not very happy about western Security Council policy at the present time towards moral support for him, with more consequences perhaps for the Middle East talks in which Israel and the other Middle East countries are now having a quite difficult time. I am sure that both countries will think very deeply before they embark on military action. However, as it is in the Government's mind, I should like to be a little clearer as to the objective.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in my opening Statement, I hope I made it clear to the House that every possible means through diplomatic channels will be taken in order to avoid the need for any military action. I say again to the noble Lord. Lord Callaghan, of course the importance of avoiding military action is uppermost in the minds of all of us. The Government will not wish to put the lives of British troops at risk if that is in any way avoidable. But the noble Lord asked: what is the objective?
The objectives are to secure compliance with the Security Council resolutions, not to remove Saddam Hussein. The Security Council resolutions were part and parcel of the way in which we ended the Gulf War. Undertakings were given at that time. The UN agreed as to how to go forward. We cannot now have Saddam Hussein flouting agreements reached at that time on the basis that there would be free access of inspection to ensure that weapons of mass destruction are not being

45
developed. That is the objective: not to allow such weapons to flourish in Iraq; not to allow at this time, perhaps very significantly near to the 10th anniversary of the dreadful events that happened in Halabja, the awful mass destruction that took place there. We must bear that in mind. The objective is to ensure that such weapons are not allowed to proliferate in Iraq.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, perhaps I may follow up the Minister's remarks in talking about the overall objectives, and to follow also the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, about the use of military force. I wonder whether the Minister can help the House a little more by spelling out what might be the military objectives. It is one thing to talk in overall terms, as she has; but as we found out only too clearly during the Gulf War, the military objectives had to be clearly spelt out. If we are going to put the lives of service men and women at risk, the country, as well as the services, needs to know what the military objectives might be.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question, but I do not think we are at the point where spelling out military objectives can be of any help—certainly not to our own forces, and 1 very much doubt whether it would be to the forces with whom we would wish to be talking through UN channels. Such military objectives would have to be discussed through the UN and through the proper channels. I do not think that a Member of Her Majesty's Government saying in public what those objectives might be would be in the interest of the soldiers, airmen and seamen who would be defending Her Majesty's Government's stance at the moment. It is hardly sensible to spell out military objectives at this juncture.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, my question relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said. Does the Minister remember that in our debate on 15th January I pointed out that one of the main factors in making the Palestinian peace process so intractable was the terror which exists in that part of the world because Saddam Hussein has the chemical and biological weapons? The Minister said that she would write to me about it. She did not do so. But she sent an aircraft carrier to the Gulf, and I take that as roughly the equivalent of a letter.
In that connection, in the diplomatic discussions going on with our friends and partners, particularly in Europe, is attention being paid to ensuring that no further help goes in the form of either expertise or equipment to Saddam Hussein which would assist in that programme? There is doubt as to whether the barriers to that have been altogether efficacious. It is sad for us that persons trained in this country appear to be playing a prominent part in the preparation of weapons.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord has not yet received a letter. I signed one to him in the past couple of days, and I apologise if it has not yet reached him.
46
The noble Lord mentions the position of our European Union partners. The European Union has been supporting the UN in its efforts to secure Iraqi compliance. Iraq has consistently been discussed at all levels in the European Union during the past month. Our partners are supporting the approach that the United Kingdom Government are taking.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness that we need to secure compliance with Resolution 688. But is she telling the House that a strike by a few Cruise missiles on whatever targets can be imagined within Iraq will persuade Saddam Hussein to toe the line when all diplomatic efforts have failed? Will she think carefully about the words of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and the consequences to our relationships not only with the Arab world but with other members of the Security Council, particularly France and Russia, if the United States and Britain were to take action unilaterally?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course Her Majesty's Government and all our allies will think very carefully before the use of any military force. I remind the noble Lord of what I said in my Statement:
"we cannot rule out military action if the diplomatic approach fails to shift Saddam Hussein's stance".
It is not an offer to move into the kind of military arena which the noble Lord described to us. Far from it. It is only something to be considered should actions and discussions which are going on at the moment through diplomatic channels fail.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, my noble friend said that the military objectives would have to be discussed later through United Nations channels. Does that mean that in the opinion of the Government there will have to he another Security Council resolution before military action can be taken, or will that be unnecessary?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Iraq's failure to comply with UNSCOM is a clear breach of its obligations under Security Council resolutions, particularly Security Council Resolution 687, which was the ceasefire resolution. Iraq has threatened regional peace and security many times over the past 20 years. Its weapons of mass destruction programme is a clear threat to regional neighbours. Past experience shows that Saddam Hussein would not hesitate to turn the weapons against his neighbours or his own people.
The question of exactly what would happen in relation to military action would of course depend on the circumstances in which Her Majesty's Government and our allies find ourselves, should our discussions through diplomatic channels fail.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's Statement informing the House of what action has been taken so far. Can she inform us what action has been taken to warn British citizens and other western European citizens working and living in Iraq?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government issue advice on a

47
day-by-day basis to places around the entire globe where there are difficulties because of the regime in power, because of geographical problems or because of natural disasters. Such information is available on a daily basis from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Gulf War ended too soon? A good deal of the trouble would have been avoided had it gone on for a little while longer. Will she ensure that should further military action be necessary—and I sincerely hope that it will not he—it is not circumscribed in the way it was previously? I hope that my noble friend will not answer that question!
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I wish to make one point on that. When the Gulf War ended agreements were made. There was a ceasefire agreement endorsed by a Security Council resolution. We all had reason to believe that we had secured the objectives. It is because Saddam Hussein will not stand by the ceasefire agreement that we are in the difficulty that we face today.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, would it help the Government's position if they were to make more of the humanitarian crisis within Iraq, especially with our European neighbours? We are talking about a country which has tumbled; 100 million dollars has been lost from the economy since the Gulf War. This is not the same situation as the Gulf War. There would have to be a lot of convincing of British people as well as our European neighbours. Will the Minister confirm the figures, for example, from UNICEF, that 960,000 children are malnourished? She mentioned humanitarian aid, but would it not he better to raise the humanitarian profile?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that the humanitarian profile of the suffering of the people of Iraq is well understood in the United Kingdom. We are very concerned about the suffering of the Iraqi people. but let there be no mistake about it: the suffering of the Iraqi people can be laid directly at the door of Saddam Hussein. He has made it clear that he has other priorities over and above the welfare of his people, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, reminded us.
Saddam Hussein has many palaces. Since the Gulf War he has built these luxurious presidential residences using money that should have been used to purchase humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. That includes Iraqi children, as we had cause to discuss in your Lordships' House some weeks ago. Saddam Hussein has spent the money on trying illegally to import weapons of mass destruction to replace those found and destroyed by UNSCOM. Again, the money should have been used to purchase humanitarian supplies.
No one in your Lordships' House should be in any doubt. Saddam Hussein has deliberately taken what we can only describe as a cynical, wicked decision to allow the Iraqi people to starve in order to increase pressure on the international community. The international community may be suffering from sanctions fatigue. He
48
hopes that as a result we will give in and lift sanctions. It is difficult to believe that any leader of any country could use his people in such a wicked and manipulative way, but Saddam Hussein has done so.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I wish to raise one point in relation to the Russian diplomatic initiative to which the Minister referred. While the Russians may have followed the letter of the United Nations sanctions as regards trade, are the Government aware that the Russians have over the past two years given a great deal of technical assistance to the Iraqis in the identification of major new oil reserves and their potential development? Is the Minister further aware that the return for this assistance will come with the ending of sanctions? Do the Government recognise that we should at least bear this in mind in assessing the role of the Russians in negotiating for a solution? It may be that it influences for the good; it may be that it does not.
Baroness Symons of Vernham DeanMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the points the noble Lord raises, but any Russia-Iraq deals have been essentially bilateral. They are not relevant to the United Kingdom or to the Security Council. I have made it clear that we shall try to pursue a resolution of this crisis through all diplomatic channels. If there are diplomatic channels through Russia that can be used. that is infinitely preferable to the military options which have been alluded to this afternoon.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sure the whole House subscribes to the Minister's description of Saddam Hussein and I am sure the whole House would be happy to see him deposed. But I think the whole House, too, would welcome the note of caution that was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. We have to think ahead. If Saddam Hussein calls our bluff. do we then proceed? Supposing we have exhausted all the diplomatic options, does the Minister believe that a process of bombing Iraq will achieve our objective? What is our objective? Our objective is our ability to examine the production of destructive weapons in Iraq. Does the Minister really believe that the military option will achieve that objective? It is much more likely to achieve a general conflagration in the Middle East, because the bombing of Iraq will inevitably rally substantial Arab support. Therefore, let us do everything humanly possible—I welcome her assurance that she will pursue diplomatic channels—but let us anticipate some of the consequences of the action we are threatening this afternoon.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I assure the House again that Her Majesty's Government will examine, as the noble Lord said. everything humanly possible to avoid the military option. However, we have to remember that Saddam Hussein could be described as a classic bully. The problem with bullies is that if one disengages too soon

49
they do not step back. They go on with their objective, which may in the end be very much worse than confronting them at an appropriate moment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House—
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sorry but the House has agreed that discussion on Statements should not exceed 20 minutes after the Front Bench speakers.

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
5.34 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 24 [Further provisions as to time off for study or training]:
[Amendment No. 132A not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 22. line 27, leave out ("section I 6(5))") and insert ("subsection (2A) below)").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 135 and 136. The amendments all hang together. We now return to a theme which became familiar on the first day of the Committee stage. I refer to the skeletal nature of the Bill and the amount of flesh that is to be put on the bones by way of regulations.
On the first day of Committee the Minister explained that we were having to do it this way round because it was desirable to take the legislative slot in the parliamentary programme, to present the Bill at the earliest opportunity and to carry out the necessary consultation at best consecutive with the legislative process and perhaps some of it after the legislative process. He said that, therefore, the regulations could not be made until the consultation had been completed. 1 hope that is an accurate paraphrase of the position. Concern has been expressed throughout the Committee stage about the apparent lack of opportunity to discuss the flesh that is to be put on the bones. The purpose of these amendments is simply to ask that those regulations come back to Parliament and that we have a chance to look at them again.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in replying to one of the many points made, described this as a cumbersome process. I am not at all sure that it is a cumbersome process. It is an important process, cumbersome or not, and one that we should return to. Otherwise, we are simply being asked to give the Government a blank cheque on what is a skeletal Bill. Others with much more parliamentary experience than I have said that it is the most skeletal Bill they have seen in their time in Parliament.
Amendment No. 133 paves the way for Amendment No. 135. Clause 1(3) deals with the regulations governing the general teaching council. which was a
50
matter of great concern to us on the first day of the Committee stage. Clause 5(1) deals with regulations the Minister may make giving additional functions to the GTC, which was again a matter of great concern to us. Clause 13(1) deals with regulations governing the induction period for newly-trained teachers, another subject of discussion on the first day of Committee. Clause 16 deals with the regulations concerning student loans and grants, a matter which I am sure is fresh in all your Lordships' minds.
I acknowledge straight away that the wording of Amendment No. 136 may need to be tightened up as I recognise that regulations are made by the Secretary of State. Indeed, there is a definition to that effect in the Bill. What we are trying to get at here—I am sure the intention is understood—is that the powers should lie with the general teaching council to decide on a whole range of matters—those we debated on the first day. If the Minister is able to accept our intention I am sure we can find an acceptable form of words to put that into practice.
This is a return to a familiar theme. We seek to give this House and another place an opportunity to look at the important and substantial flesh that still needs to be put on the bones of this skeletal Bill. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I have to point out that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 134
Earl Russell: My late noble friend Lady Seear used to describe widely-drafted regulation-making powers as clauses saying that the Secretary of State may do whatever he likes. There is substance in that description. The clauses to which the amendments of my noble friend Lord Tope are addressed have a very widely drafted power. For example, Clause 5(1) states,
"The Secretary of State may by order confer or impose on the Council such additional functions as he considers they may appropriately discharge in conjunction with any of their other functions under this Chapter".
Secretaries of State have considered many things in their time and some, shall we say, are a little unexpected. While the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments may describe something as an, "unexpected use of power", which is a valuable provision, I have known regulations carried in this Chamber despite such a finding from the joint committee. Therefore, it is important that we should look at what the Secretary of State does with these powers.
It is often said that, under the negative resolution procedure, Members of this House can put down a Prayer and scrutinise the Instrument. That happens much more often in this House than it does in another place. We should remember that any regulations should be properly scrutinised in both Houses. I have also known occasions in this House when it has proved impossible to get a Prayer on regulations debated simply because

51
there was not time. That is regrettable, but it happens. I believe that my noble friend has moved an important amendment and I am very happy to support it.
Baroness Blatch: I support this amendment. There is a plethora of advice about the powers to which the Government refer and claim to use in order to introduce tuition fees. It is questionable. So far we have had debates at Committee stage on false premises.
While the Government claim that Section 1(5) of the 1962 Act allows student or parental resources to be taken into account in making an award to a student, that section does not authorise the imposition of fees. As I understand it, Clause 18 of the Bill does that. That has never been divulged by the noble Baroness or the Minister. Clause 18(4) empowers the Government to force institutions to introduce fees at a specified level. Of itself the clause does not create a power to levy fees, but goes on to assume that higher education institutions already have the power to charge fees.
Therefore, the question is whether the Government have sufficient powers to make exemptions for those such as gap-year students to whom they undertook initially to apply the system of student support. I believe that the Government's difficulty is that Clause 16 does not provide an obvious route to make such exemptions. Clause 18(5) shows the level of fees controlled by the maximum amount of the grant. Under Clause 16(2)(b) students under the old system are entitled to a grant that covers any existing fee, plus a student maintenance award.
If the fee is set at £1,000, then the amount would be insufficient to keep the Government's promise to gap-year students. If the maximum grant is increased to keep the promise, then the level of the fee goes above that which the Government have announced.
It is our understanding—because we shall continue to take advice about this matter—that through the promise to the gap-year students the Government could have changed the structure of the Bill by breaking the link between the maximum grant and the prescribed fee. It is interesting to note that that link neatly achieves a number of objectives simultaneously, including the abolition of the maintenance grant, the imposition of the fee and the prevention of top-up fees. It is understandable and, I suspect, was why the Government were reluctant to adopt a more explicit structure that would have allowed extensive debate on each policy objective. We have not had an opportunity to discuss the policy objectives and that has caused great frustration.
Political policy proposals to abolish maintenance grants completely and to introduce tuition fees are a subject that should have been discussed in this and in the other place in terms of the policies they represent. Because of the misunderstanding, there should be an opportunity to have this part of the Bill recommitted. Parliament must have had in mind that any tuition fees payable by students to higher education institutions in 1962—
Baroness Blackstone: Can we discuss this issue when we deal with the next amendment, where it is somewhat more relevant than in connection with this amendment? I shall answer all the questions that the noble Baroness has put. It would be more appropriate, for the sake of orderly procedure, that we discuss these matters with the next amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I find it deeply regrettable that the noble Baroness has listened to three speeches so far, but has only just come in to say that she is not prepared to take these matters at this time. I do not intend to repeat what I have said. This is a matter for recommittal.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Lord. Lord Tope, was not discussing the issues now raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, discussed quite different issues. He briefly touched on this matter, but I assumed that he was going to speak at greater length on Amendment No. 139 in connection with the matters that the noble Baroness is now raising. I am trying to be helpful so that we deal with each amendment as it arises and in a way which makes it clear to everyone on all sides of the Chamber what is being discussed.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am in the Minister's hands here. I had been considering not moving Amendment No. 139. but since this matter has arisen and it clearly needs clarification, I will follow the Minister's preference as to whether we deal with it now or I move Amendment No. 139 to see whether we can get any further. What does the Minister prefer?
Baroness Blackstone: I believe I have made it clear. It would be more helpful and sensible if the noble Earl were to move Amendment No. 139 so that we can clarify the position then.
Lord Tope: I was going to give the Minister a few more minutes to contemplate the prospect of having my noble friend in her hands, to use his words. One of the reasons that we were contemplating not moving Amendment No. 139 corresponds with what I said at the beginning of the Committee stage today. I said that I intended to write to the Minister to set out the legal advice that we have had in order to give her the opportunity to consider it and seek further advice. We shall put down a Motion for recommittal. We shall consider what to do about that in the light of her response and those of the usual channels.
Of course we have no objection to pursuing the matter today, but I felt that we would make more progress when we have all had an opportunity to consider the legal advice that we are receiving, possibly even as I speak, but certainly the advice that we received over the weekend and earlier today. That is why my noble friend was considering not moving Amendment No. 139 today. It was not because we were going to drop the issue, but exactly the opposite.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may concentrate on the amendments which have been moved quite

53
unambiguously. They deal with the procedure for resolutions in this House and another place as regards regulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, we have had a number of lengthy exchanges on this issue earlier in the Committee stage. The other matters are either more appropriate to Amendment No. 139 or, if one likes, to a more informed discussion following the exchange of legal opinions.
The regulations arise as regards the GTC—that is to say, the references in these amendments to Clause 1(3) and Clause SO). During the debates last Tuesday the Committee indicated its concern about the regulations. We sought to reassure Members of the Committee by indicating that we agreed to consider the amendment about whether regulations on the GTC clauses should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We shall return to that.
At the same time, I recall seeking to reassure Members of the Committee that the regulations could set a framework within which the GTC would be empowered to make its own more detailed rules.
In particular, Members of your Lordships' House indicated their concern about Clause 1(3) which will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations about the composition of the GTC. Again, here, the regulations could be used to set out the framework for the composition of the GTC, but also allow the GTC scope to set out some of the detail of the future arrangements. This is the case with many other professional bodies.
We indicated clearly that one of the reasons for the timing is that before we finally propose precise regulations on issues such as the composition of the GTC, we want to engage in wide consultation to ensure that all interested parties have had an opportunity to comment on the arrangements.
The GTC will be a major public body. It is right, however, that regulations should set out the framework within which it will operate. The GTC will be an independent body, working with us to raise standards, and the power to make regulations does not give the Secretary of State powers to interfere in its day-to-day business, even if he wished to do so. I do not envisage that there will be any areas where we will not be able to achieve a broad consensus, so I expect the regulations will, following consultation, carry the support of the profession, the public, the council, and, indeed, this House. Nevertheless, we are considering the question of the affirmative resolution, as against the negative resolution, and shall return to that at a later stage.
On the point raised about Amendment No. 136 and the GTC making its own statutory instruments, we do not see a need for such a power. It would be odd if the GTC could make its own statutory instruments and we do not intend to provide for it to do so.
On the second batch of regulations which will be provided under the Bill—I refer to those relating to the induction of newly qualified teachers—we did not give a commitment. We do not think that it would be a good use of parliamentary time to make any regulations made under Clause 13(1) of the Bill subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The note we have placed in the
54
Library gives a clear indication of how we envisage the detailed arrangements for induction periods to be determined. I trust your Lordships find it useful.
Our intention is to consult next month on the detail of the induction arrangements as a basis for preparing regulations. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is the right way of ensuring that those regulations reflect the views of teacher trainers, employees and all with an interest in securing the highest standards of professional competence in our new teachers; and also that the new arrangements are manageable and unbureaucratic: and have strong support across the system.
In relation to the regulations on fees, we had a pretty full debate last Thursday on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which sought directly to implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I do not want to detain the Committee for any longer than is necessary, but I should like to repeat the commitments that we made then. First, we made the commitment to come forward with an amendment at Report stage which would make the regulations under Clauses 16 and 21 for the 1999–2000 academic year subject to affirmative resolution. Those regulations will bring about the effective change of system. We remain of the view that those are the key regulations, rather than those which deal with the transitional period and which will be made later this year.
Our second commitment, which I am happy to repeat, was that we would further consider the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that the choice of either affirmative or negative resolution should be left open for further regulations. It was probably in that context that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, thought that he heard me use the word "cumbersome", which may indeed have been the case. We see some difficulties with that recommendation, but will come back with a clear view on it at a later stage.
As drafted, these amendments would, if passed, make all future regulations under the relevant clauses subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In relation to Clause 16, new regulations will be made every year. The changes from the previous year will in many cases be very minor indeed—for example, they might simply uprate the levels of grant and loan in line with inflation. I do not believe that affirmative resolution is a good use of your Lordships' time in those circumstances; nor, I should add, did the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee insist on it.
Given the undertakings that I made last Tuesday, last Thursday and today, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment in anticipation of the Government returning to this at a later stage.
Lord Tope: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that response. The Government are clearly right to be carrying out extensive consultation and we would all support that. However, whether it is right to present the Bill to us before that consultation has even started is more questionable. Nevertheless, this is the Bill that we have before us and that is the legislative process in which we are engaged. As I have said, we are going

55
through a legislative process, not a consultative process. We are where we are because of the timetabling and because the Bill is now before us. All the important substance of the Bill—the "flesh" as we keep calling it—will come in the regulations. That is why so many noble Lords believe it is important that your Lordships and the other place should have an opportunity to consider what is going to happen as a result of the legislation that we pass. I am pleased to hear that consideration is being given to the affirmative resolution.
I was also pleased to hear the noble Lord's undertaking to return to this at a later stage. I hope that that later stage will be the next stage because I am certain that we shall continue to pursue this matter vigorously on Report. We would all be saved a lot of time, trouble and upset if the Government could give such an indication at an early stage. Although many of us find it unsatisfactory to be in this position, such an early undertaking would at least reassure us that we shall have a further opportunity to consider the matter when the consultation has taken place and when we have the much-talked-about "flesh" on the "skeleton" that is now before us. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [General interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 136 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 137:
Page 23, line 17, at end insert—
("sections 14 and 15,").
The noble Baroness said: It is not my intention to move this amendment today because during earlier Committee debates, it became clear that there are practical problems about the introduction of teacher training inspections. I tabled this amendment originally because I believe it is right that teacher training should be inspected and that the sooner we can get on with it, the better.
However, I became aware that two inspection systems have to live alongside each other. There are questions of overlap and duplication. Whatever the practical implications of implementing the measures in the Bill, it is important that they are implemented efficiently and effectively and in such a way as not to cause great tension between the two systems.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy has referred to the effect of these measures on the Scottish system. We need some assurances that the two systems will work effectively in practice in the interests of good teacher training. They must not cause tensions between the two systems. I believe that it is right that the Government
56
should implement as, and when, all these issues are resolved. That is why I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 28, line 38. at end insert—
(" . In section 58 of that Act (right to time off for occupational pension scheme trustees), at the end of subsection (3) add ", and
(c) references to training arc to training on the employer's premises or elsewhere.).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
6 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 29, leave out line 8.
The noble Earl said: I apologise for taking up the time of the Committee, but it appears to be for the convenience of noble Lords that I do so. A moment ago I heard my noble friend Lord Tope say that we are taking part in a legislative, not a consultative, process. I hope that my noble friend was not being optimistic. Parliament began its life as a consultative process and occasionally, late at night, I wonder whether it might end its life as one.
More seriously, I am concerned here with trying to narrow the areas of difference which engaged us last Thursday. Having taken legal advice in considerable quantity over the weekend, I believe it is common ground between us that there is no problem about the repeal of the 1962 Act. I am advised that the saving of the transitional provisions in Clause 17 is entirely sufficient and on that the legal advice received is unanimous.
It is also my understanding that tuition fees are being levied by universities under the authority of private law, not the authority of government. Therefore, we cannot speak about the introduction of a power to levy tuition fees. In spite of the Government's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, it is not justified under any legislation unless one is considering private Acts relating to particular universities, which was probably not the intention in that memorandum. The two new changes introduced by this Bill—one that the local authority no longer reimburses the student for the fee and the other that under Clause 18(4) the Government place a cap on that fee—places the universities in exactly the situation of the privatised railways. One of the pieces of legal advice that I received suggested that that had been used as the draftsman's model for the Bill. It is not something that fills universities with joy.
Now that we have an agreement on what is actually happening, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the debate on the previous amendment illustrates that the Committee still has difficulty in understanding on what legal basis tuition fees are being put forward. It is my contention that we did not debate the right

57
amendments. I did not table the right amendments because I did not understand the legal basis of what was being done. I believed on the strength of the memorandum submitted to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that somewhere, once I could find it, there was legislation that gave a public law authority for the levy of tuition fees. If that is not so a whole series of questions arises that we did not address at Committee stage because we did not believe that they were relevant. If the noble Baroness says that that was in part our fault she is entitled to do so. Were she to say that it was wholly our fault that would be a quite different matter.
The question is whether the legal authority of the universities as private corporations for the levying and collection of tuition fees is sufficient: for example, whether universities have the right to withhold degrees from those who do not pay the tuition fees. These points require clarification which at Committee stage they did not get. We require clarification quite urgently as to whether the Government see it as being within the power of universities not to levy tuition fees. My understanding of the Government's position is that a university may refrain from levying a tuition fee if it is prepared to forgo the income. It is that which creates the possibility of cut-price, downward spiral market pressure—clearance sales and so forth. That would possibly represent a fulfilment of the ambition expressed by Mr. Robert Jackson as Minister for higher education when he referred to "breaking the cartel". If that is so, it indicates either that the Government are even more conservative than I had ever supposed or that the late Dick Crossman was right in saying that there were not more than half a dozen Ministers who controlled their departments.
There are a good many difficulties and questions to probe: for example, whether it would be allowable for universities to charge differential fees between subjects, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire has from time to time suggested. I do not want to argue on any side of these questions, but we must probe the Government's intentions in these matters before we can decide exactly what to do with the Bill. Because the Committee stage procedure is so different from Report stage procedure and allows speaking twice and after the Minister it is particularly suitable for probing, for which it was designed. It is for that motive and in order to understand precisely where we find ourselves legally that we on these Benches ask for a recommitment of the Bill. We hope that it is to shed light rather than heat. I beg to move.
Baroness Blotch: I apologise both to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for jumping the gun, if I may put it colloquially. When the noble Baroness suggested that this should be discussed later, she did not mention the particular amendment to which she was referring. I thought that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, had relevance to the affirmative resolution procedure, which I wholeheartedly support. I hope that the noble Lord will return to it. Whatever the outcome of this debate, the case for these regulations coming before the House under the affirmative
58
resolution procedure, whether for 1998/99 or beyond, is even greater if there is no movement on the second debate as to whether or not there is another opportunity to discuss not simply the changes themselves but the policy changes. It is that frustration which has led to a prolonged Committee stage. Sadly, we are beginning to realise that it is a Committee stage that in large part has proceeded on a mistaken understanding of what the Government claim to be the legitimate basis for the policy changes.
For the purposes of the record, I hope that noble Lords will refer to the words that 1 used on the previous amendment. I should like to complete what I said when I was quite rightly interrupted by the noble Baroness. I believe that the reason why the Government referred to Section 1(5) of the 1962 Act was simply to use it as a mechanism rather than an opportunity to discuss the policy. The next question for the Government is whether Section 1(5) can be used to pay fees under Clause 18. Section 1 of the 1962 Act refers to awards. Local authorities have the duty to pay in respect of attendance on certain courses. Can such awards cover Clause 18 fees?
It appears that when passing the 1962 Act Parliament had in mind that any tuition fees payable by students to higher education institutions in 1962, or in 1980, could be the subject of awards. Nevertheless higher education institutions have the power to charge fees. Even if they use the power at present only for overseas students, Clause 18 fees are wholly new. That is a very important point. In requiring institutions to make their fees conform to the prescribed amount Clause 18(4) may be taken as forcing the abolition of the old fees to which the 1962 Act applies.
It is likely that a court would agree with the Government's position that Section 1(5) is apt to cover awards for any kind of charge to students in respect of their attendance at higher education courses. Section 1(1) and 1(5) would authorise the payment of grants to cover the fees of the exempted students. On that view, Clause 18(4) does not create a new form of fee but instead institutes a particularly severe form of price control amounting almost to nationalisation
There is such disquiet and frustration about the way in which the law operates in this respect and the fact that this House—it will be the same in another place—has not had an opportunity to discuss the policy of completely abolishing maintenance grants and introducing for the first time tuition fees, together with a very real misunderstanding of the premise on which we have discussed these matters at Committee stage, that I believe the argument for recommittal is justified. This is not unprecedented. The previous government conceded recommittal in a similar situation in relation to the jobseekers Bill when the House took the view that there had been a mistaken premise and there should be a recommittal to allow the subject to be fully discussed. I believe that the arguments in this instance are overwhelming.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Tope, for agreeing that he will wait until I have had the opportunity to write to him to set out all the arguments and the whole legal basis on which we are proceeding

59
before moving for a re-committal. That will be helpful because this is an extremely complex area and I would like the opportunity to set it out in writing. I will of course place my letter in the Library and also send a copy to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
Meanwhile, it will be helpful if I begin by trying to respond to the concerns. I did not want to be critical when the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke earlier: I thought it would be helpful if I said a few words about these issues, including the saving provisions which she also referred to.
I am aware that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has taken legal advice on the issue since we discussed Clause 16 last Thursday and we now agree on the legal basis of the Government's powers to introduce contributions to tuition fees under the 1962 Act. However, it would be helpful for the record if I set out the position, which I will then confirm in writing.
The Government will not be legislating to require students to pay tuition fees because they have no need to do so. It is individual universities and colleges which charge tuition fees for students. As the Committee is aware, they are quite free to do so. If they were not, there would be no need to include in the Bill Clause 18, which provides a reserve power to control top-up fees in certain circumstances.
What the 1962 Act does is require local education authorities to make mandatory awards to certain types of student to help them with the costs of attending their courses—that is the fees charged by their university and their maintenance costs. In practice the position in recent years has been that universities have charged fees at precisely the level of the fee element of the mandatory award so that students have not been expected to contribute personally. Legally speaking, the university has still been charging a fee to the student but that fee has been met by the local authority through the mechanism of the mandatory award.
What we are proposing to do in 1998 is provide for maximum support of £1,000 towards fees and then means test that support so that the full £1,000 is available only to students from lower income families. It will remain for universities and colleges to set their own fee levels, though they will need to do so in the knowledge that no student will receive more than £1,000 in financial support for fees from public funds. It is precisely because the Government do not set university fees that we are seeking reserve powers in Clause 18 to prevent universities from charging more than the maximum level of support available to students if necessary. If the Government set university fee levels there would be no need for Clause 18.
In legal terms, what our proposals mean is that the fee element of the mandatory award will be means tested, just as the maintenance grant is now. The power to do this is set out in Section 1(5) of the 1962 Act, which provides that regulations shall,
"prescribe the circumstances in which [the award] is to be payable, and the amount of the payment or the scales or other provisions by reference to which that amount is to he determined".
That is the provision under which maintenance grants have been means tested since 1962. There is no reason why the means test cannot also apply to the fee element of
60
the award. This is precisely what was done between September 1962, when mandatory awards were introduced, and August 1977. The powers in Clause 16 replace those in the 1962 Act and allow us to make regulations to the same effect.
It is regrettable if noble Lords feel that they have been misled by what is said in paragraph 22(f) of the department's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. This is a misunderstanding about the legal basis for the charging of fees to students rather than any failing in the memorandum.
This power to make regulations is the power under which the mandatory award regulations are made. Students have received an indemnity for university fees through awards made through these regulations. They will not do so in the future and will be liable to pay up to £1,000 a year in respect of fees. This change in the law will be achieved by amending the mandatory awards regulations so that they provide for only a partial reimbursement of fees. This is the existing legislation referred to at paragraph 22(f) of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee report.
I hope that the Committee will, now that I have explained the legal background, accept that paragraph 22(f) is not misleading and accurately reflects the true position. As I said, I shall follow this up with a letter which I hope will further clarify the matter. Members of the Committee will also have the opportunity to read what I have said in Hansard.
Turning to the savings issues which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is concerned about, it will be helpful if I again try to explain the matter. There seems to be continuing misunderstanding over the repeal of the 1962 Act, the current student loans legislation and the introduction of the savings provisions. Our policy is quite clear: from 1998–99 we will be introducing a new system of student support for new entrants to higher education. Existing students, and exceptionally new students such as those who fall within the gap in the scheme announced last August, will continue to receive mandatory awards and student loans for the duration of their course.
The powers to make those awards and loans are contained in the 1962 Act and the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 respectively. This is not just a matter of a gap: it is all existing students. Next year there will be second year students, third year students and some fourth year students. It is important that those existing students should be adequately looked after.
However, those existing students will not be students for ever. Once the last of them has left the system, the powers in the 1962 and the 1990 Acts will no longer be needed. The Bill therefore requires for them to be repealed in full. If it did not, we would have to come back to the House in due course to seek powers to repeal legislation which no longer served any purpose. That would not be a sensible way to use your Lordships' time.
In the meantime the 1962 and 1990 Acts need to continue to have effect in relation to existing students. It is essential that they do not have effect in relation to new students. For those students, regulations will be made under the new powers in Clause 16 of the current Bill. If the 1962 and 1990 Acts remained in force in relation to

61
new students, we would have a legislative muddle. For example, local authorities would be obliged to continue making awards under the 1962 Act to new students even though alternative arrangements have been put in place for them. Our intention is to repeal the 1962 and 1990 Acts so they no longer have prospective effects in relation to new students. At the same time, however, we will be putting in place saving provisions under Clause 17 of the current Bill which will provide for the relevant parts of those Acts to continue to have effect in relation to existing students.
I hope that that helps to clarify the matters that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has been concerned about. I also hope that what I have said on the issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, helps. It would be helpful to everybody if we now waited until I am able to write to the noble Lords and follow this up in further detail so that everybody should have the chance to study what I have said. On that basis, there would not be a good case for recommitting the Bill at this stage.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: In relation to the first part of the Minister's reply to the noble Earl, I wonder whether everything she said about English law applies in Scotland. I wonder whether the noble Earl would like her to include in her letter to him the legal base in Scotland. It cannot be the same, because local authorities are not involved with mandatory awards. I imagine that there is a variation. Could I, at least, have a copy of that letter?
Earl Russell: I second what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said about Scotland. It would be helpful to us also.
Lord Peston: I speak for those of us who are trying to understand anything that has been said, let alone everything. I had understood that universities could charge fees. I am amazed that anyone should think that they cannot. The reason they did not charge them above the levels mentioned by my noble friend is that any government would have immediately introduced legislation if they had tried to do other than what they wanted.
I found what the noble Earl said confusing. He seemed to be saying that a number of things that universities do are not legal; for example, universities do not reveal degree results to students from overseas who have not paid their fees. He seemed to imply that they had no legal foundation for doing that, which rather frightens me. My main reason for rising is different. I look forward to receiving my noble friend's information. Are we to be given all the legal information that the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, have, because some of us will probably be asked what we think, and I should, as usual, rather say what I think on the basis of information than on no information. If we could generally all be fully informed, it would be of assistance.
Earl Russell: Of course I know what is the present legal situation. I wanted to know whether the Government propose to change it under any of their many regulation-making powers.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: When the Minister writes to the noble Earl, will she answer another of our
62
questions? I understand, from what she clearly said, that the Government recognise that the universities have the right to charge fees, but the Secretary of State's powers, as they stand at the moment, are to require local authorities to re-imburse the fees that universities charge. There are limits on how much they can be reimbursed. Where in the Bill, as it now stands, does the Secretary of State have powers to sanction universities which charge more than the prescribed amount? That is the question that was not answered in the noble Baroness's reply and which I still find difficult. If universities have the power to charge fees and local authorities are to be removed from the picture, where in the Bill, or anywhere else, is the basis for the Secretary of State's powers to impose sanctions on universities if they charge more than the prescribed amount?
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister replies and before the noble Earl comes back on the amendment, there are two issues here. They are equally important. One is a technical one. It relates to the technical legitimacy of what the Government want to do and from where they are taking their powers. I was interested in part of the Minister's explanation. I agree with her that it would be helpful if not only did she read what we have said but that we read more carefully what she has put on the record. The other point is the moral one. It is equally important.
As recently as 14th April last year the Prime Minister said:
"We have no plans to charge students tuition fees".
Every student in the land had a real understanding that in the middle of an election that is what the Government meant: what Mr. Blair said, Mr. Blair meant. Therefore it came as something of a shock to every student that such a proposal was brought before Parliament but was not included in the Bill—that links in with the technical argument—because there is already in the system power to charge fees. We understand that the power is with the higher education institutions and not with the Government. We understand that it is not in Clauses 16 or 17 but is in Clause 18, where the sting is in the tail. As I have already argued, that represents a serious move by the Government.
It is difficult for us properly to understand the technical arguments and to ensure that there is a legal base not just for the 1998–99 old system students and their transitional arrangements. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who said that we do not need to worry about this year's students because, in a sense, it is just a matter of uprating. It is important that the Committee is secure in the knowledge that all students who are still in the old system, and will be for some time, are properly catered for. We shall insist that those regulations come before this place under the affirmative procedure. The transitional arrangements for the new system should begin their life under the affirmative resolution procedure. Thereafter it will be for the Government to make up their own mind as to whether any changes brought before this place in the form of regulations are matters of substance or just minor matters that require the negative procedure only. It is an important point.

63
I shall set aside the technical argument because we all need to go away to do some reading and to take more advice. There is a great deal of disquiet in the legal community about what the Government are doing. It is not enough to say that it has always been possible to charge fees; everyone knows that; the power has always been within the system. There was an understanding by students in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that, if any Conservative, Liberal or Labour government had taken the move to break with tradition and charge home students tuition fees, there would at least be a policy debate in both Chambers.
There has not been a policy debate. There is no opportunity under the Bill because there is no measure in the Bill which allows us to discuss a policy issue. It is being dismissed constantly as a technical issue. I argue that it is a moral issue. I hope, for the technical reasons and the moral arguments, that we shall be given an opportunity to discuss the matter on recommittal.
I repeat the point made powerfully by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it is important to have the freedom in Committee to have a discursive debate. It is important to do so at the beginning of a Bill. The whole point of having a Committee stage, followed by a more restrictive Report stage, followed by an even more restrictive Third Reading, is so that as we go through the Bill we are secure in the knowledge that we have had the type of discursive debate that we need to have at the beginning of a Bill. We have not had a discursive debate on this issue, and so the argument for recommittal is a powerful one.
Timing is of the essence here. We are due to come back for Report stage on 17th February. If there is to be any recommittal, and we are allowed a second opportunity to discuss these matters, that has to be done well before 17th February so as to allow a proper discussion on Report of all the issues contained in the Bill. So any letters, any advice and any reconsideration of the matter need to take place literally within the next week.
Earl Russell: I am sorry to want one more piece of information. I shall not ask the Minister to make a second speech. If she has the information, I will happily give way to her. If not, I look forward to receiving it when she has it. I understand that there is a cap over the fee. I should like to be clear as to whether there is also a floor. I shall give way if that information is available, because it is important to me.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: There is no floor in the legal sense, but any university which fails to collect the fees will be jeopardising the quality of the higher education which it is able to provide.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baroness for that answer. It was my understanding and it clears up the position considerably. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the importance of a general debate on the principles of the main proposals in the Bill. Looking back to the Education (Student Loans) Bill 1990, it is my experience that a framework Bill always leads to an
64
exceptionally prolonged Committee stage. That is because it takes so much work to tease out the meaning of the Bill and to discover how one can table amendments to meet points. But at least we are beginning to approach the issue on the basis of a factual framework. I am grateful to the Minister for her exposition, which in some respects was very close indeed to my legal advice. In fact, the coincidence was remarkable; there must be a high level of lawyers on both sides.
I am grateful for the Minister's exposition of paragraph 22(f). That paragraph is a Whitehall classic. There is nothing in it which is in any way incorrect, yet it does not have a high degree of transparency. That is exactly how the trick is worked. It does not convey the correct impression to me. While I am prepared to take part of the responsibility for that, I am not prepared to take the whole of it. Therefore, if we can agree on an amicable basis to share the responsibility, we shall proceed a great deal faster. If we cannot, a certain amount of time might be taken up. In the meantime, and in hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and give way to the next business.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Bank of England Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Welfare of Pigs (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
6.33 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I wish to pay tribute to Mr. Chris Mullin, who moved an almost identical Bill under the Ten Minute Rule in another place, where it is still before Parliament. That is why this is a No. 2 Bill. I also pay tribute to those who joined him in ordering the Bill to be "brought in", Sir Richard Body, Mr. Mike Hancock and Mr. Nigel Jones.
My motives for introducing the Bill are the same as those for introducing the Welfare of Broiler Chickens Bill in the previous Session. In neither case is there, or was there, a likelihood of the Bill being passed into law in the near future. However, it is doing a service to ask your Lordships to pass the Bill through all its stages so that there is on record a Bill that has been properly argued through, which will be available during the Session when there is some hope of introducing it into another place with some hope of success.
This is a good month for pigs. We have all been following the adventures of the gallant Tamworth Two and if your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading it will be an important blow for the welfare of these particularly attractive farm animals. That was why I was saddened last Thursday, when I was seeking out the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, to congratulate him on his

65
speech in the debate on agriculture the day before, with every part of which I agreed, to discover that he had put down the Dilatory Motion which is before your Lordships today and which I would urge him not to take to a vote.
I do not want to embark on a lengthy debate as to when it is within the traditions of your Lordships' House to strangle a Private Member's Bill at birth, but I would submit that there are really only three reasons which would make it justifiable. The first of those reasons would be that it was a frivolous Bill which it was not worth your Lordships' while considering. I think the list of distinguished speakers which this debate has attracted proves that it does not fall into that category. I particularly welcome the participation of the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, one-time chaplain and vice-principal at my theological college. We never thought we would end up in the House of Lords debating pigs.
The second reason would be that the objective of the Bill was unacceptable. This, too, does not apply since I doubt whether there is a single Member of your Lordships' House who is opposed to "the health and welfare of pigs", which is the objective spelt out in the Long Title.
The third reason would be that the Bill was unamendable and this, too, does not apply since I am most anxious that it should be amended as a result of the expertise which your Lordships will bring to it. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, to consider whether he should not allow this Bill to reach at least Third Reading before deciding that it should be killed off and, if he does not agree, I would ask noble Lords on all sides of the House to save it, like the Tamworth Two, from a premature death.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the sources and justification of this Bill. Before Mr. Chris Mullin introduced it, it was the product of Compassion in World Farming, a body which, while taking immensely seriously the welfare of farm animals, as should we all, is highly respectable and well-thought of, is ably and responsibly led by Mr. Peter Stevenson and in no way belongs to that extreme range of animal activist bodies which may well be heartily distrusted by many of your Lordships.
Although he is in no way responsible for the genesis of this Bill, I am relying, and will continue to rely heavily, on the scientific expertise of Professor Broom, the Colleen Macleod Professor of Animal Welfare at Cambridge University and Head of the Animal Welfare and Human-Animal Interactions Group in the Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine at that University. Professor Broom was also Chairman of the Scientific Veterinary Committee (animal welfare section) which at the request of the European Commission established an expert working group (of which he was a member) to produce a report on the welfare of intensively kept pigs (Doc XXIV/B3/ScVC/0005/1097 adopted 30/09/97).
An important step has been taken recently in Europe. At the Amsterdam IGC animals were given a new status in EU law as sentient beings as opposed to merely agricultural products. All credit to Mr. Elliot Morley, the Minister responsible for animal welfare within the Ministry of Agriculture, for his work on that and for his speeches on this topic which lead me to hope that the Government will give this Bill a fair wind.
66
A major reform for breeding sows will be introduced on 1st January 1999—the abolition of sow stall and tethers. I am delighted by that development and the industry is to be congratulated on accepting this reform, which it is to be hoped will lead to a further reform in the outlawing of the cruelty of the farrowing crate.
But this Bill focuses on the 13 million young pigs slaughtered each year at the age of four to six months for bacon, pork and ham. And let me make it clear that I am not a vegetarian and I enjoy almost all pig products, buying as I do, delicious bacon every month from Emmett's Stores in Peasenhall in Suffolk where your Lordships can find a small village general stores surmounted by a large sign designating it "By Appointment supplier of hams to Her Majesty the Queen Mother", to whom I should add that we all. I know, wish a speedy recovery from her operation.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, my objective is not to be a Scarlet Pimpernel rescuing cochons from the guillotine, since all animals, like your Lordships, must die sooner or later, but to ensure that while they live they enjoy a life free from pain and cruelty: for pigs are intelligent and lively active creatures while young.
Today the vast majority of pigs are forced to spend the whole of their lives in barren overcrowded sheds without fresh air or daylight, mostly without straw or other bedding.
At present the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 sanction severe overcrowding. Clause 1 of my Bill insists that they be given ample space and bedding. Pigs need space for lying, for exercise, for feeding and for dunging. They also need bedding for foot-health and for exercise of natural rooting, foraging and exploring behaviour. The schedule lays down the space required. It is quite possible that this should be amended, but Professor Broom comments that,
"the principle that pigs have space to lie in lateral recumbency plus a little extra space to walk around",
is a good one.
In natural conditions pigs are not weaned until they are at least 13 weeks old. On most of today's farms piglets are weaned after three and a half weeks. Sows reach their peak lactation three to four weeks after giving birth, the time when today the piglets are weaned. The object of early weaning is of course to enable sows to become pregnant again as soon as possible. Early weaning causes stress and poor welfare among piglets and leads to tail biting in lieu of a teat to suckle. Clause 2 of my Bill makes the minimum age for weaning, save in exceptional causes, a modest six weeks. The British pig association, whose approach can be judged by its dismissal of Mr. Mullin's speech in another place, based as it was and as I hope mine will be, on the best scientific advice available as
"uninformed. biased, totally inaccurate and intemperate",
suggests that weaning at six weeks will have an adverse effect on the pigs' welfare.
If modern sows cannot properly look after their piglets after the age of three to four weeks, that should be a reason to look very hard at breeding policies. I would suggest that

67
that highly responsible body, the Soil Association, is right to recommend a weaning age of eight weeks. In any case, four weeks should be the absolute minimum age, with no escape clause to allow it a week earlier. Here is another point where we could usefully discuss figures at Committee stage.
Clause 3 deals with tail docking. I do not believe that we should indulge in mutilation of animals except for their own welfare. In addition to this general principle, there is evidence that tail docking causes lasting pain and distress. Most of us think of tail docking as a quick snip and that is it, it is all over. However, Professor Broom comments that,
"neuromas in amputated limbs cause phantom limb pain and it is likely that a pig with neuroma in its docked tail region",
and he asserts that they do have that,
"w ill have frequent or continuous pain all its life".
That totally contradicts the British pig association claim that,
"pigs feel no more than transitory discomfort".
It is said that the reason for tail docking is to stop tail biting by other pigs. But the tail biting is caused by early weaning, as we have seen, and by intelligent animals being kept in intensely boring surroundings. Many of your Lordships will be aware of similar behaviour in horses such as crib-biting and wind-sucking and I venture to suggest that if your Lordships were kept in the same kind of conditions as pigs you might go in for tail biting too. The cure for tail biting is not tail docking; it is proper living conditions. And it should be pointed out that tail docking is carried out in defiance of the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 by the totally improper use of an escape clause.
Clauses 4 and 5 of my Bill lay down penalties and establish definitions. Professor Broom advises me that the latter may need amendments with which I will not bother your Lordships at the moment. Clause 6 gives the Bill a Short Title and allows a generous two years before it comes into force, besides extending the Bill to Northern Ireland where there is a healthy pig industry.
The reasons given for the inhumane conditions in which pigs are kept are often that they give us cheap food. A new report by Compassion in World Farming Trust, using Meat & Livestock Commission data, reveals that free-range pork and bacon are just as cheap to produce as meat coming from factory-farmed pigs. The industry has run out of excuses. I urge your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
6.46 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. I am sorry that I have to move this somewhat erudite Motion instead of just saying no to the noble Lord, which I have done in the past. But I have been told that I must approach the matter in this way.
I regret that because I understand, appreciate and support the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and his supporters have promoted this Bill. As your
68
Lordships have heard, it is their opinion that this Bill will improve the conditions in which pigs are kept. Your Lordships, any farmer and I myself must support such an intention for, apart from the fact that treating animals cruelly or unsympathetically always results in a loss of profit, such action is totally against a farmer's ethos. That ethos, which can be called the rural philosophy, is very much under pressure from those not privileged—and I mean that—to live and experience it.
We are all deeply concerned by that lack of understanding. Unfortunately, the noble Lord's Bill falls into that trap, for far from protecting the welfare and conditions of pigs, it does exactly the opposite for the following reasons. First, increased space will lead to cold pigs. As every noble Lord will know, pigs like heat and like to snuggle together. I could be frivolous but I shall not. Cold pigs catch pneumonia, which leads to an increased use of antibiotics.
Today's sows and piglets are bred to be weaned at four weeks old. Extending that would put a strain on a sow's metabolism resulting in either death or again an increased use of drugs.
I accept that when the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and I were a little younger, eight weeks was the norm. I fear that neither I nor the noble Lord, nor even the right reverend Prelate, can prevent time moving on, although sometimes perhaps we should wish to.
The forbidding of crates would cause horrific losses by the sow rolling on her piglets. That certainly used to be the case, as I know to my cost, when they were kept "naturally", if I may use that word. Failure to tail-dock at an early age more often than not leads to cannibalism, resulting in great pain and again the use of antibiotics to clean up the inevitable infection.
Your Lordships will have listened to news broadcasts yesterday when the pig industry made a plea for protection against imported pig meat which is being produced under cruel and, indeed, unhygienic conditions. Foreign producers already have the advantage of being able to use meat and bonemeal, whereas British meat producers have to use the more expensive fishmeal, which, incidentally, encourages further depletion of the world's fish stocks. The Bill would further encourage those cruel and unhygienic imports.
Some noble Lords may say—indeed, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was saying this—that it is against the custom of your Lordships' House to stop a Private Member's Bill on Second Reading. That just is not true. I admit, perhaps with guilt, perhaps not, to having done just that in the past. However, of much more importance is the fact that this Bill is causing very considerable concern not just to the pig industry but also to farmers generally. If the Bill is given a Second Reading today, they will think that your Lordships approve of the Bill and that it will eventually pass into law.
Parliamentary procedure is not a matter that features very strongly in Watson and More's Science of British Agriculture, neither do farmers like to see time and money wasted, even if it is only your Lordships' time. However, as a Member of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, perhaps I should like to see the Government's time wasted.

69
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I happen, probably wrongly, to believe in compassion towards human beings; in this case the farmers. Noble Lords will have listened to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, last Wednesday and will be aware that—I say this with sadness—we have one of the highest suicide rates in the country. I shall leave dealing with Professor Broom until I sum up and move the amendment later on. I beg the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, to withdraw his Bill. If he does not do so, whether he likes it or not, it will be seen as yet another attack on farmers and others who live and work in the countryside.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
6.53 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I cannot claim to be an expert on pigs; nor do I think it right for those who are not experts to lecture those who are on the right way or the wrong way to rear pigs. I am all too conscious of how easy it is for those who are genuinely concerned about animal welfare, but without first hand knowledge, to get it wrong. So I speak with some temerity on the Bill. My only qualification for doing so is that I like pigs. As a child, I grew up with them on a smallholding, not the mass production variety but three sows who slept in deep beds of straw of their own construction, foraged in the orchard and reared their piglets without sow crates or tail-docking or, indeed, antibiotics. They were also Socialist pigs because they came originally from a herd owned by Nye Bevan.
Looking back, I realise that it cannot have been a very commercial enterprise because they were rather more pets. But in childhood I clearly remember lying in the straw with an arm around a large recumbent sow while she listened with every appearance of intelligence and sympathy as I told her my childhood problems, to which she responded with reassuring grunts. I also like to eat pigs. I see no contradiction in that. If the more militant vegetarians had their way, pigs would all but cease to exist. For both those reasons pigs deserve the best life and the best death that we can give them.
In the years since then I have twice come face to face with the unpleasant reality of commercial pig production. Some years back, on a very hot day at the Royal Show at Stoneleigh, I wandered, looking I believe for somewhere cool, into a large building which was then part of a showcase pig unit on the edge of the site. Inside, row upon row of sows stood on concrete floors chained to iron bars. Those intelligent creatures had a simple choice: to stand up or lie down, nothing else. However, what I remember most about that hot afternoon in that unit was the total absence of pig communication, which was a constant feature of our pigs. Those pigs stood in total silence. That unit has gone, and, as we have just been told, sow stalls will also go in January 1999—and a good thing too! However, I have no doubt that other and different problems will replace them because pigs, as those of us who have had anything to do with them will know, do like to fight on occasions.
70
My second encounter was at a local abattoir, which is now closed like so many others. This was some years ago. I had gone to collect some lambs which I had sent in some days before. I stress that that was before the 1995 regulations came into force. They were killing pigs. Whether the electric current was inadequate, the slaughtermen inefficient or the interval of time between stunning and sticking too long. I do not know. But the results were inadequate stunning and the sights and sounds of suffering were such that I hope I never experience them again. A farmer standing next to me said. as we both watched, "No pig of mine will ever come here".
I very much hope that pig slaughter has vastly improved since those days, in particular since the appalling results of a survey that was carried out by the Bristol University scientists on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture in 1993 became known. But further improvements are still needed and are possible. This Bill does not deal with slaughter. If your Lordships do give it a Second Reading today, I give notice that I shall table amendments on those aspects in Committee.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for raising these issues. I listened with great care to what the noble Lord. Lord Stanley of Alderley, said. What troubles me is that this issue is raised by way of a Bill which will, inevitably, be strongly opposed. I would much rather have seen such issues raised in your Lordships' House by way of a short debate.
In reality, no animal welfare legislation can reach the statute book and be effective without the co-operation of those who are directly concerned with the animals. It must be right that we should listen carefully to those who know what they are talking about—the pig farmers themselves. But they, too, must listen because animal husbandry is not static: it must be able to change and improve to take account of our better understanding of animals and their needs. There is no place for complacency and we must always aim to make improvements.
Tail biting is, I suspect, a symptom of stress. Routine tail-docking has been prohibited since 1994, yet 70 per cent. of piglets are still tail-docked. That should not be necessary. The fact that so many farmers consider that to be necessary shows just how far we have to go to tackle the underlying problems of stress. The measures proposed in the Bill, whether or not this particular Bill goes forward, point at least to some of the ways forward in that respect. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, farmers at present are particularly defensive and that is not surprising. Jobs and incomes, communities, and a way of life, seem to many to be under threat from an unsympathetic urban and suburban majority as never before.
Sadly, few people today have any direct contact whatsoever with farm animals, yet many have strong views about how they should be treated and feel qualified to dictate to those who have their day-to-day care and management. I believe that public concern for animals is open to both exploitation and misdirection. It is an irony that organisations which spend their money on practical animal welfare and try to alleviate suffering, such as the Humane Slaughter Association, the Blue Cross and the

71
International League for the Protection of Horses, often struggle for funds to carry out their excellent work, while other organisations which spend vast sums on sensational advertising, public relations and political lobbying—and make a great deal of noise—seem to have money to spare. But those who shout the loudest and most acrimoniously are not necessarily the best friends of the animals themselves; sometimes quite the reverse is true.
Those who rear animals for food would be wise to take note of public concern about the methods which some of them employ, and make changes themselves where they are merited. Whatever the outcome of this Bill—I am bound to say that if this amendment is put to the vote, I shall abstain—pigs will still be looked after by pig farmers. Without their active co-operation this legislation could not work. Animal welfare, it seems to me, is not best served by confrontation but by education, informed debate and consensus. Those who introduced this Bill and support it and those who oppose it might do well to remember that.
7.1 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, I like pigs. They are immensely intelligent and attractive animals and I have serious concern for their health and welfare. I also have a high regard for the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I, too, thank him for introducing this subject to the House. I agreed with everything he said in the debate last week—I was sorry that I was not able to be in the House—and I have read his book with pleasure and edification.
I thoroughly agree with the importance of trying to maintain family farms. I also agree with the principle of modulation of subsidies. I believe that those issues are related—particularly the family farm issue—to the subject before us now. This is not a frivolous Bill but I fear that it is a misguided Bill, proposing the wrong measures at the wrong time. Like other speakers, I am conscious of the severe pressures bearing down on farmers at present. This year farm incomes of all kinds are substantially down. I think that that is the first time that has ever been the case. Measures such as these proposals which would add in any way to the cost of farming will be strongly resisted—and I believe rightly resisted—unless it can be shown that they are absolutely essential beyond any shadow of doubt and of proven importance. I question whether that is the case in the proposals before us now.
I come from the most rural diocese in the Church of England where a significant number of the population are still engaged in farming and an even larger number depend on it for their livelihood. I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Stanley of Alderley, that these proposals would not improve the lot of pigs and in some important respects might well make their conditions worse. Like the noble Baroness I have happy childhood memories of pigs. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, had similar memories at the back of his mind in drawing up the terms of this Bill. I refer to small groups of pigs each in a traditional brick built sty with plenty of shelter at the back, masses of straw and a trough in front. It was picturesque and the pigs were happy. I think they were Conservative
72
pigs as my uncle was a staunch Tory! However, that system was enormously extravagant in terms of the capital cost of constructing such piggeries and it was labour intensive. Such methods are simply not realistic in terms of contemporary farming where people have to make a living in a highly competitive environment.
However, I have also seen conspicuously healthy and happy pigs in a different environment. It was one of the unexpected pleasures of a link which I was able to establish, when I worked in the diocese of Salisbury, with the Roman Catholic diocese of Evreux in Normandy. On several occasions I visited a rural farm college run by a brotherhood of lay and ordained brothers who combined their missionary and pastoral work in the parishes with introducing young men and women to the rudiments of farming and particularly animal husbandry. One of the priest brothers was an international expert on pigs. That pig unit was intensive and alarmingly so to our sensitive consciences as we went round it. There were sows in stalls and crates and all the pigs were fairly closely confined; a system much disliked by animal welfare activists. But the evidence was unmistakeable of clean, healthy and contented pigs. There was communication and there was no distress. There were good litters of piglets and little perinatal mortality. There was a constant temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit which compared extremely favourably with the cold and austere conditions in which the members of the human community lived, and which we, their guests, had to share.
"Bonjour mesdames, ne vous dérangez pas", said our priest pig expert every morning as he went into the unit. It was intensive farming but it was done with great skill and real affection. I believe that it represented excellent husbandry. However. I do not advocate the intensive character of the unit, although I advocate that kind of care and affection that was obviously shown to the animals. I welcome the forthcoming abolition of stalls and tethers in the United Kingdom, but that will not happen in the rest of the European Union at the moment. I welcome the new regulations about stocking densities which came into force at the beginning of this year which will, I believe, prevent serious overcrowding and allow enough space for comfort.
I turn briefly to the specific provisions of the Bill which I believe are mistaken. The reference to bedding in Clause 1(2) sounds desirable but it can in practice threaten the health of pigs. There is further risk of pneumonia which can be contracted from the bedding itself. I believe there is evidence that slatted flooring is healthier and cleaner and is widely used in the most modern units. I turn to the matter of weaning to which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, gave a good deal of attention. Every farmer wants healthy sows and healthy piglets. The present normal practice of weaning at about three and a half weeks allows the piglets to achieve good body weight and full viability. The leanness of modern sows is quite properly required by a public conscious of the dangers of consuming large quantities of animal fat. The whole of our pig herds are infinitely leaner than they used to be. Those pigs of my childhood were so fat when they went to market that no one would buy them today. However, that leanness means that the sows cannot continue to lactate for the full six weeks required by this proposal.

73
I am grateful for the concession made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in his opening speech suggesting that perhaps there is room for manoeuvre here and for further amendment and that perhaps four weeks would be an appropriate minimum period.
I turn to tail docking. It is not desirable in itself but it is much better than tail biting. It seems to be an effective way of preventing outbreaks of tail biting which are unpredictable, unpleasant, and, as has already been said, cause great distress. Tail biting occurs also among open air, free range pigs as well as among those housed or raised more intensively. It is a phenomenon which does not seem to be properly understood. Tail docking is a quick and effective process carried out on young piglets. Although it is briefly painful, the animals continue to suckle while it is being done and I believe there is little evidence of long-term distress. My press officer is a former farmer who has carried out the operation and he has assured me that he has described it to me accurately and faithfully.
For all those reasons, and because the European Union Scientific Committee has made a list of pig farming recommendations which will be translated later this year into Commission proposals so that legislation on the subject is likely, I believe that the Bill is untimely as well as mistaken in its proposals. If there is to be legislation on pig welfare. I hope very much that it will address other matters, not just slaughter—on which subject the noble Baroness spoke—but also concerns about open air pig farming. One cannot help but feel that such farming looks right: that those are happy pigs rootling about in the field. But the shelter provided is quite inadequate. In very cold weather, in periods of persistent rain, and, even more importantly, in times of great heat the pigs suffer seriously. Pigs are by nature woodland animals. They need shelter. They burn easily in the sun. Those are areas of real concern in terms of the health and welfare of pigs, and. sadly, the Bill does not address them.
I believe that it would be right to vote for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, which would enable these issues to be dealt with more comprehensively at a later date when we shall know more about proposed European legislation. I do not believe that we shall be doing pigs a disservice if we do not give the Bill a Second Reading. We shall certainly be doing pig farmers a disservice if we do; and their cause is very close to my heart, as is the cause of the pigs themselves.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I much enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Like the noble Baroness, I cannot claim to be an expert on pigs. But I do not come into the category which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, rightly illustrated of the vast majority of people who do not understand farming, food production and the handling of animals on farms. In my time I have managed two farms totalling 733 acres on which were fattened every year 350 head of beef cattle. There was a breeding flock of 380 ewes. Like the noble Baroness, I, too, am not a vegetarian. I eat meat, with one exception to which I shall come.
74
I so often had a conscience, in particular about lambs in the months of June and July going to slaughter straight from their mothers. However, I always had the satisfaction and comfort of knowing that when the animals were on the farm they were well and truly looked after. Beef cattle with meadows in the summer and straw yards in the winter were happy creatures. I believe that that still appertains in the vast majority of farming today. It does not apply to what is usually now called intensive farming.
Fifteen years ago in another place, as chairman of the Agriculture and Food Select Committee, I presided over a lengthy inquiry into intensive methods of food production. It was a period of my parliamentary experience which I shall never forget; it greatly distressed me. At that time, as a committee, we became extremely concerned when examining production methods used in the spheres of veal calves, poultry, in particular hens, and pigs. At the end of our inquiry, in a report which I signed. we made a number of strong recommendations all of which had the aim of introducing more humane systems into so-called factory farming. I very much regret that after all these years—it is 16 years since I signed that report—few of our recommendations have been implemented, although veal crates, which were dreadful, are now, thankfully, illegal in the United Kingdom. I wish that they were illegal in the area of the Community. I understand that they are being phased out, but how long that will take is anyone's guess.
As has already been mentioned, at long last sow stalls and tethers, which horrified us 15 years ago, will become illegal in the UK. That welcome piece of legislation, which will come into force in a year's time, is largely due to the pressure campaign by Compassion in World Farming which should be much commended. Sadly, and cruelly, hens are still kept in battery cages.
The Bill has highly desirable aims. While several points can be made against the Bill—there is a case against its timing and its being unilateral and not European—much can be said for it. Its aims are to make production of young pigs more humane. We are told that 13 million are reared for slaughter at present. The Bill gives those 13 million pigs increased space and the provision of bedding, and will end cruel early weaning. It is easy to talk of scientific modern farming. The right reverend Prelate stated that he has seen an intensive pig unit which he thought humane. With my committee, I saw many which were not humane; and we travelled a great deal on our inquiry. I saw many young pigs housed in darkness on cold concrete floors in inadequate buildings. I did not much like what I saw. So all the objectives of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, are excellent, however impractical its implementation may be.
I congratulate the noble Lord on introducing the Bill. Having presided over that inquiry all those years ago, I welcome anything and everything which seeks to ease the still prevalent cruelty involved in intensive farming. I thank the noble Lord for introducing the Bill; and I support it.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Runcie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, for the expectations he raised about my speech without knowing its content. It reminds me of the days when I was bishop of a diocese and was known to keep a herd of pedigree Berkshire pigs. When a vicar was informed that I was going to visit his parish, he rang my chaplain and asked whether I was coming as shepherd or swineherd.
As someone who has kept a pedigree herd of black Berkshire pigs for 25 years, I may be regarded as unacceptably amateur for this debate because to keep a small number of free-range pigs under privileged conditions with an eye on a rare breed trophy rather than a competitive market is bound to create a romantic view. However, that experience has convinced me that my pigs were not always without distress, and that the pigs in a well-ordered intensive unit beside which I now live are not the constant object of human cruelty.
My own pigs are now looked after by mentally handicapped young people and an amazingly fruitful partnership is struck up for the good health of them both. So, prompted by real affection and care about the welfare of pigs, I am moved to say a few words about the Bill.
The good intentions of the noble Lord are unquestionable. This is the third in a series of Bills that are avowedly aimed at the worst excesses of factory farming. In each case the organisation, Compassion in World Farming, has provided much evidence. We owe them a debt. Now at the end of September a report of the Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European Union has produced a substantial document on the welfare of intensively kept pigs. It was referred to by the noble Lord as Professor Broom's work; he is the chairman of the committee.
However, my anxiety at the thought of legislation springs from several reasons. Legislation calls for agreed facts and should not be hasty. There is still a wide range of differing views on what constitutes good welfare and how to measure it in this matter. Codes and conventions can be more appropriate than laws when ideas on what is best for animals change in the light of research. We used to think that mice should be kept in large cages. If you offer a mouse the choice between a large cage and a small one, it chooses the small one. We used to think that the castration of calves by surgical methods was less painful than by a method that crushes the spermatic cord. Recent research shows that calves are more distressed by the surgical method. In both cases, if legislation had been enacted we should have found ourselves unable to reduce distress in animals.
Secondly, there is the question as to how far major legislation on animal welfare should now be at the European level. The Animal Welfare and Human Animal Interaction Group of the EU has produced a great deal of sophisticated evidence. But, if we ban undesirable procedures only in Britain, the welfare of animals in Europe may be worse. An obvious example is the ban in the UK on keeping veal calves in crates and feeding diets short of fibre and iron. The result was that calves were exported to other European countries for the production of white veal. So they suffered that method of husbandry and a long journey beforehand.
76
Legislation needs to be based on sound science. It must be easy to interpret and enforce. While offering protection for animals, it must not be so restrictive as to prevent an honest, caring farmer from making an honest, reasonable living. If the legislation does add constraints to the profitability of food production, then producers have a right to expect society to contribute to the increased costs involved. Society demands cheap food but is reluctant to meet the costs to the farmer, and if cheap food cannot be produced at home, then it will be imported. Retailers are notoriously fickle in that regard.
But the suspicion that I have of fresh laws is not simply based on commercial anxiety. There has been considerable progress by way of code and practice in the pig industry. I know it is the opinion of the RSPCA that pig farmers have been more proactive and inventive than almost any other farming group in response to welfare pressures. At the present time nearly 80 per cent. of pig farmers belong to the Farm Assured British Pig Scheme (Fabpig). That means a quarterly inspection by a veterinary surgeon, with a long check-list which is regularly tightened up in the light of experience and new research. Supermarkets and purchasers demand this standard care, and it is improving the welfare of pigs. It is an example of co-operation between producer, commercial operatives and welfare pressure.
Another example is found in the co-operation between the RSPCA, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare and the Humane Slaughter Association. They put limits on production practice through the Freedom Food scheme. Meat produced in an approved way by the scheme can be purchased in many of the major retail outlets. Another good example is afforded by Cambac PSA, which places a strong emphasis on research sponsored by the RSPCA. It has the confidence of producers and is in a good position to lead welfare reforms.
But issues which appear to be clear in the Bill reveal limited common ground among those groups of which I have spoken. Regarding space allowance, the Bill carefully calls for a doubling of the allowances recommended in the Welfare Code for Pigs, as well as an increase in those recently proposed by the European group. It may seem humane to provide more space: but is that what the pig really needs? Pigs are group living animals and tend to huddle when resting, except when the ambient temperatures are very high. In the wild they may live in "nests". Good insulation, temperature control and constant water supply are the norm. There are times when too much space can be a real disadvantage, as has already been illustrated.
In regard to the provision of appropriate bedding, though the term is a vague one for a law, it is agreed that pigs have a strong preference to root in the ground. They are active, exploratory animals. They like to manipulate material such as straw, and all that reduces the incidence of abnormal behaviour. However, certain forms of bedding can be a source of infection for sow and piglets, and this clause, if accepted, might immediately preclude the use of houses with slatted floors. That may be the intention; some reports claim that slatted floors lead to lameness and injuries. Not so, say others. Some compromise is necessary here. In many stalls you can find

77
the pigs well able to combine bedding in one area and slats or concrete floors for cleanliness. Pigs are intelligent enough to know how to use the combinations within reasonable space. They are recognisably the same animals as we know from raw, romantic settings.
Weaning is an unnatural procedure; but farming is unnatural. Although natural weaning takes place much later than four weeks, the demand for lean meat excludes the fat sow and the milk production needed for the fast-growing piglets of today's breeds is very great. Sows start to lose weight in the second week after parturition and some sows become severely emaciated if piglets are left with them after four weeks. A more realistic regulation would be: "Routine weaning earlier than 28 days is not permitted but individual litters may be weaned early if the welfare of that sow or those piglets would otherwise be very poor".
Tail docking is as much debated as anything. Perhaps the RSPCA puts the case accurately
"The RSPCA accepts that tail docking may he necessary to alleviate the pain and suffering caused by tail biting; but Freedom Food will not permit this practice once enough information is available regarding the husbandry methods which prevent tail hiting outbreaks".
Clearly, the RSPCA is not convinced that we know enough about tail biting to allow it to prohibit docking in its welfare standards.
Tail biting is certainly not unknown among free range pigs. Hence, the rightness of the simple suggestion that it is created only by bad management and poor housing or by early weaning is not so obvious. Nor is the operation of docking within a few hours of birth quite so fearsome as its opponents seem to suggest.
The Bill attempts to improve the welfare of pigs by prescription of husbandry methods. An important omission is inevitable. By far the most important influence on animal welfare is the ability of the person looking after the animals. Research reveals that the knowledge, training and awareness of farmers are all closely associated with the reduction of disease and discomfort. Britain used to have an outstanding agricultural training board, the ATB. This laid on excellent courses for farmers and stockmen. It has been emasculated as a means of saving money. I believe that better funding of the ATB (which could be achieved by using levy money) would greatly help animal and particularly pig welfare.
The key figure in that wonderful classic by PG Wodehouse, The Empress of Blandings (a black Berkshire pig), was Lord Emsworth's long-standing pigman Wellbeloved. When he, the dedicated stockman, went missing things went downhill. It is a parable from another world. Contented, well-cared-for, regularly inspected pigs will alone produce the goods. The villains or cowboys of factory farming will not. I do not believe, alas, that this legislation is urgent for the well-being of pigs. I know that it is certainly not timely for the morale of those who look after them.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, as a veterinary surgeon I welcome any legislation which improves the welfare of animals, especially those that are kept under intensive systems. Hence the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for introducing the Bill into your Lordships' House. As this is the Second Reading, it provides an opportunity to put forth comments on the provisions of the Bill in the hope that, should it go further, modifications might occur to some of its proposals. It is particularly welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said that he would accept any amendment if it improved the Bill.
I wish to address three of the main issues in the Bill: space and bedding; weaning and tail-docking. In doing so, may I say that I, like other noble Lords, have consulted a number of experts in pig welfare. Several of them are veterinarians, a number are on the European Scientific Veterinary Committee on the welfare of intensively kept pigs. I wish to state at once that everyone recognises that good farming, good pig production and good welfare go together, hand in hand. I recognise that intensive farming is not necessarily inimical to the welfare of animals. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the majority of intensive pig-producing units in this country are, in addition, good welfare units and even more so, in view of the now recognised sentient nature of the animals.
Perhaps I may deal with space requirements, first, as laid out in the schedule to the Bill. It is my understanding that they are somewhat in excess of those recognised by the experts. One problem is that they are founded on a stepwise requirement based on the weight of the animal. That is difficult to judge because in any group or litter of pigs there is a difference in weight between the piglets in the litter. A more acceptable criterion promoted by the European Union and ADAS is that it should be based on the growth curve rather than a weight curve.
The question of bedding has come up in various speeches by noble Lords and the requirement for bedding is acceptable to everyone. It provides occupational activity for the piglets in the form of rooting and so on. Of course, the bedding must be kept clean otherwise disease may occur. In that context, we all recognise that pigs are naturally clean animals and, given space, will separate an area into a sleeping area with straw, one for rooting and one for defecation for which the slatted floors are quite acceptable.
The subject that has caused particular concern to a number of noble Lords and others in the field of pig welfare is weaning. I regret that I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, on the need to keep piglets up to six weeks on the sow. The modern cross-bred sow has been developed to wean her piglets at three to four weeks. Beyond that time, as has been mentioned, if the piglets are still on the sow she will retain nutrients for herself rather than for her litter. She will thus compromise the piglets, to the detriment of their welfare.
With the older breeds of pigs, the sows may well carry on feeding the rapidly growing litter—and at that time they grow rapidly—to the sows' detriment which may become markedly emaciated, lessening their welfare. The practice of weaning at three to three-and-a-half weeks

79
with a mean of 26 days is the norm in this country. If it is extended to four weeks, 28 days, an acceptable time to the welfarist and adopted in Germany and Denmark, I understand it would not compromise the production costs in intensive pig-rearing.
Finally, as regards tail-docking, I consider the docking of any animal's tail as an unnecessary mutilation. In another area, I have chaired committees on mutilation of animals where docking has been considered to be totally unnecessary unless an undocked situation is to the detriment of the animal. In the pig-rearing field, we see docking taking place for the purpose of preventing or reducing tail-biting. We should assess the reasons for the tail-biting rather than attempting merely to ban tail-docking in order to correct the problem.
To associate tail-biting with early weaning is, I am afraid, an over-simplification of the problem. It is a complex problem and there is increasing evidence that there may be genetic aspects, certainly nutritional and environmental aspects, as well as atmospheric overtones.
I wish to quote from a letter from Dr. Guise and Professor Penny, formerly of the Royal Veterinary College, on the issue of tail-biting. The letter states that:
"The provision of straw bedding had no influence on levels of tail biting. Pigs on liquid feed had higher levels of tail-biting than those fed pellets or meal. Floor and trough feeding resulted in higher levels of mild tail biting, compared with feeding via single or double space feeders. Ad libitum feeding resulted in much lower levels of mild tail biting compared with restricted feeding or feeding to appetite. Units with artificial ventilation had higher levels of tail biting when compared with units with natural ventilation".
Therefore, I hope your Lordships will see that it is not a simple issue and that much more work is necessary on the question of tail biting. Much more research is being undertaken in this country by ADAS, by Cambac, which has been referred to, and by the Scottish agricultural colleges. One of my fears is that if a Bill on animal welfare such as this is enacted, it may be doubly difficult to undertake the research that is necessary so we can reach the stage that we all wish to reach; namely, the best welfare conditions in which to breed and rear pigs.
7.41 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the Bill has little chance of reaching the statute book even without the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. Nevertheless, I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss some of these issues. I think my noble friend Lady Mallalieu was right and a debate might have sufficed. On the other hand, if we should be fortunate enough to get the Bill to the Committee stage, a number of points have been raised on all sides of the House which would be worthy of much more discussion than we can achieve today.
We should not allow our consideration of the Bill to be influenced either by the rush of sentiment about pigs created by the exploits of the Tamworth Two or by the
80
sentiment about farmers which has been aroused by their present economic difficulties. I am genuinely sympathetic to the present difficulties being experienced by farmers. They are real. I was sorry not to be able to take part in last Wednesday's debate but I could not be here all day. I believe that help must be found to alleviate their current difficulties.
Support for the principles underlying the Bill should come for more permanent reasons. Legislation, I hope, will outlast the rush of sentiment to which I referred. The long-term economic health of the industry and the duty of care towards farm animals are the basis of good husbandry. That can be achieved only by persuasion and to a certain extent by regulation. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu was right to say that the industry must be involved in any decisions that are made and must be persuaded to look at some of its present methods.
Quite separately from the interest aroused from recent events, there is among the consumers of farm produce a growing revulsion against the darker side of food production. Whether it be over meddling with genetics or the unnatural conditions meted out to factory farmed animals, public interest is increasing and opinion is hardening against too many deviations being practised in the so-called "interests of the consumer". The economic effects of this are not yet obvious, but there is a considerable growth in vegetarianism among young people—I am not a vegetarian: I enjoy a bacon and egg breakfast as much as anyone—and a demand for organic products which the farmers of this country are so far unable to satisfy.
Perhaps I may mention at this stage that I was foolish enough to start buying a good deal of organic produce. It costs a lot of money. Pig farmers present may be interested to hear that I was offered organic bacon at £13.49 per kilo. I am not sure how that compares with the live weight but it is probably a great deal more than farmers would expect the end product to fetch. So perhaps they should look a little more closely at the possibilities of organic pig rearing.
The noble Lord's Bill would go some way towards improving the image of pig producers and would meet a good deal of the unease of conscience caused by present practices. In tackling the major causes of tail biting—I understand from the debate so far that the causes are arguable—there is no doubt among many people involved in pig rearing that boredom is at the heart of at least some of the difficulties. The Bill might discourage the abuse of the 1994 Welfare of Livestock Regulations which is currently taking place. Paragraph 20 of the regulations states:
"In order to satisfy their behavioural needs, all pigs, taking into account environment and stocking density. must have access to straw or other material or object suitable to satisfy those needs".
I wonder how many of the farms we were discussing earlier obey that paragraph of the regulations. I have been given to understand that pigs reared in the open air tail bite far less than pigs reared under more crowded conditions.

81
The practice of tail docking without anaesthetic is painful and that it should be done routinely and unnecessarily is unacceptable. It is not encouraged in the regulations. In September 1997 the Scientific Veterinary Committee of the European Union stressed that tail docking was painful when it was carried out and that it could lead to prolonged pain. Even if we do not want fresh laws, as the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, does not, we should ensure that the present laws are obeyed.
I want to come to two items which are not covered by the Bill but which, if the Bill reaches Committee stage, I should like to consider in a little more detail. The Bill does not cover the mutilations of castration and teeth clipping. At one time castration was routinely carried out to avoid boar taint of the meat. Nowadays most piglets are slaughtered before the age of sexual maturity so the problem of boar taint does not arise. But some 10 per cent. of piglets are still castrated. It would be interesting if the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, or the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, could give some indication of why that should happen. In 1992 the Farm Animal Welfare Council condemned the practice as a "largely unnecessary mutilation" which should be avoided. Surely the time has come for pig castration to be prohibited altogether.
The clipping of piglets' teeth was prohibited under the 1994 Act except where there is evidence of injury to sows or other piglets by not doing so. But on some farms piglets' teeth are clipped to gum level before such evidence could have emerged. I agree with Compassion in World Farming that it is time this loophole was closed and I regret that the Bill does not allow for this. The problems of tearing of sows' teats and injury to other piglets which the clipping is carried out to prevent is largely due to the breeding of sows to produce too large a litter and the remedy is in the hands of the breeders.
I genuinely believe that it is in the long-term interests of the farming industry to remedy some of the excesses which are beginning to worry consumers as well as animal welfare organisations. In the end, good husbandry is good business. I support the principles underlying the Bill and I hope that its provisions and some of the other points raised will be picked up by the Ministry in the not too distant future.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Emsworth, had he been here tonight, would have reminded your Lordships that the requirements of pigs for warmth, clean surroundings and good ventilation are virtually the same as those for human beings. Without a comfortable environment—here I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Stanley—pigs simply do not thrive. Their welfare is not just a matter of compassionate husbandry; it is a commercial necessity. Rapid growth and efficient conversion of feeding stuffs into meat will not take place if pigs are not reared, housed and fed correctly. Any pig farmer failing in this respect will very quickly go out of business.
82
Practices which fall short of the best standards of pig husbandry are prohibited—we have been reminded about that tonight—by the Welfare of Livestock regulations which came into force on 10th August 1994. There are two matters outstanding—tethering and stalls—as we have been reminded. They have another year to run. The sooner they come in the better.
Schedule 3 to the regulations contains no fewer than 34 paragraphs covering every possible aspect of pig husbandry. These regulations implement the 1976 European convention for the protection of animals and three other European Council directives. So they apply throughout the Community. This Bill would apply only in the UK.
Clearly, the promoters of the Bill think that existing legislation is inadequate. Clause 1 of the Bill would provide, as we have heard, for double the space that is provided under the welfare regulations, with no obvious practical justification. The provision of straw is covered in paragraph 20 of the schedule to the regulations but, as we have heard, there is a question mark over straw. These matters, together with Clause 2, which is concerned with early weaning, have been dealt with by many noble Lords and certainly by my noble friend Lord Soulsby.
Perhaps I may enlarge on Clause 3, which deals with tails. As we have heard from many noble Lords, for reasons that are not clearly understood pigs have developed the objectionable habit of biting each other's tails, causing suffering and infection. This is a serious health and welfare problem, which can be largely avoided by clipping off, as we heard, the greater part of their tails when the piglets are a few hours old.
This practice is already regulated under the instrument that I have quoted and specifically under paragraph 3 of Part IV of the third schedule to those regulations which says:
"Tail docking shall be carried out routinely only when there is evidence on the farm that injuries arc likely to occur as a result of not carrying out this procedure".
My noble friend Lord Soulsby has given us a most interesting professional view on the subject.
I am grateful for the advice that I have received from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons which is as follows:
"The RCVS classifies tail docking of piglets as a technique to prevent the disease and suffering caused by tail biting. Transitory pain is inevitable, but tail docking is a useful and acceptable procedure in the light of the unpredictability of tail biting and its harmful consequences".
Further veterinary advice is that both picking up a piglet and sticking a needle into it (which may or may not de-sensitise the tail) can cause more stress than one simple snip. This month's Veterinary Record describes a study showing that un-docked pigs showed three times the incidence of tail biting at slaughter compared with pigs that had been docked at birth.
My grandchildren may ask what useful work, if any, I performed here when I was threatened with the sack for being the 12th Baron and not the first and

83
last. When I tell them that one of the things I did was to argue about pigs' tails, my usefulness may be queried. My reply to them would be that it was not just about pigs' tails and whether they had 0.15 or 0.3 square metres to lie down in when they weigh 10 kilogrammes or less. I would say that it was about doing something to limit the already overburdened statute book with unnecessary legislation.
If Parliament is to be asked to agree to additional animal welfare legislation—and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Runcie—it must be satisfied, first, that it will prevent unnecessary suffering; secondly, that it adds to the health and welfare of animals; thirdly, that it is acceptable to, and seen to be necessary by, those people affected; fourthly, that it applies throughout the Community; and, lastly, that it is soundly based in science. I support my noble friend because in my view this Bill fails all those five tests.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for introducing this Bill for us tonight. For this Second Reading I have sought information from Compassion in World Farming, the British Veterinary Association, an RSPCA farm animals vet and a FAWC and BVA past president, Bob Stevenson, who is a pig veterinarian in Gwent. I have also read the NFU briefing paper kindly given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994, and many other papers relating to pigs, their welfare requirements and the methods of rearing them. So I hope that I have armed myself sufficiently in order to take part in tonight's debate.
I am also mindful of the fact that much of our agriculture, particularly the livestock sector, is in a state of crisis. I listened to much of the timely debate in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, last Wednesday. I read all of it before starting on my contribution tonight. Many speakers in that debate referred to animal welfare issues highlighted by media attention and thereby causing changes to be made in the way that we farm our animals.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I mention yet another speaker in that debate. The noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, reminded the House that some 40,000 Dutch died of starvation in the last 18 months of the war and also of food riots in France and Italy. Europe decided that never again would such a tragedy occur. For that reason, I believe that factory, or intensive farming, came into being. Surely, good farming methods and animal husbandry must go hand in hand. By their very nature, higher standards involve higher costs. Welfare does not come cheaply during the process of change. But I believe that change we must if we want to consider ourselves a compassionate society.
Ever since I have been in your Lordships' House I have pleaded the case for improved animal welfare standards, and I do so again tonight. I support this
84
Bill. It is a beginning. I admit to having reservations about certain aspects of it and I shall refer to them in a minute. I truly believe that this Government are committed to improving the welfare of all animals, whether they are intensively reared or not.
My formative years were spent on a farm, albeit not in this country. It was an extremely large one. Factory farming methods did not play a part in our lives. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and other speakers, we also kept pigs, not thousands but certainly up to 100. They were fascinating and intelligent creatures; clean, good housekeepers in their resting quarters; playful and curious about everything around them. As a child I enjoyed watching them.
As we know, Clause 1 deals with space allowance and the need for bedding. This Bill doubles the amount of space suggested by the livestock regulations 1994. As I understand it, the 1994 regulations appear to refer only to the lying down area whereas this Bill includes space for dunging, exercise and feeding. Pigs, by their very nature, keep those areas separate. When provided, straw occupies the pigs by allowing them to root, forage and generally explore their surroundings. It is not surprising that pigs kept in a barren environment, closely confined and with nothing to do, will become extremely aggressive towards one another. I suspect that human beings, kept in the same way, might behave similarly. I am also aware that the 1994 regulations regarding space have just come into force, at the beginning of this year, and that farmers have to comply with the regulations. Many noble Lords have referred to pigs' huddling instincts; but surely they also need space in which to move around.
Clause 3, dealing with tail docking, is very much intertwined with the space and bedding requirements of Clause 1. It is already illegal, but it is circumvented by a get-out clause. Dr. Dale Arey, in a review of the scientific literature on pigs, said last year:
"the prevention of tail biting should be approached by improving the conditions in which the pigs are kept. The first measures which should be taken are the provision of bedding and more space to prevent overcrowding".
He went on to say,
"Tail biting is a sign that something is wrong with the system, whether it is due to boredom, overcrowding, ventilation or diet".
The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare and the RSPCA funded research into this problem. They also found that natural ventilation rather than artificial ventilation substantially lowered the incidence of tail biting, as did the supply of straw and, surprisingly, changing from restricted and time-regulated feeding, to one of feeding on demand, or when the pigs wanted it. All of these suggestions add substantially to the quality of life for the short-lived intensively reared pig. The message here seems to be environmental enrichment, by alleviating boredom, and providing materials for the pigs to chew and play with. True, like many animals, pigs are attracted to blood and, should one bite occur, it will spread. That is why aggressive pigs are removed quickly from communal housing. I accept that tail docking may be necessary in

85
some cases, but it should cease to be used routinely. It is illegal and, in many instances, causes great damage of one sort or another to the pig.
I admit to having a problem with Clause 2, mainly because modern sows are bred to produce and suckle up to 14 piglets and I am not convinced that increasing the weaning period to six weeks would be in the best interests of the sow, particularly as she will continue to be restricted in a farrowing crate. Piglets produced by these hybrid sows gain weight more quickly than the breeds of yesteryear. The pigs of my youth were smaller and had litters of only up to seven or eight. If early weaning does contribute to the problem of tail biting, perhaps a return to the breeding of sows with larger fat reserves and smaller litters could help to solve the problem as these sows were able to suckle their young for longer. This is not an ideal world so I know that is hardly likely to happen. Like many other speakers, I am grateful that sow stalls and tethers will be illegal from 1st January 1999. I understand that the majority of sows in this country go into the farrowing stalls only a couple of days before giving birth whereas in the past they had to be tethered and contained in the sow stall for the whole of their pregnancy.
Finally, I should like to hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, will not press his amendment—I suspect that he will—but if the Bill is given the opportunity to go into Committee, it can be amended. As it is a Private Member's Bill, and is not government-sponsored, it has a very long way to travel. I believe that animal welfare needs to be kept on the political agenda and, for that reason, I cannot support the noble Lord's amendment.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me, but I simply cannot stay until the end of the debate. My noble friend Lord Stanley is looking at me very crossly. However, I rise to speak because I was a pig farmer for 13 years from 1968 to 1981. I had 70 sows and fattened the progeny to baking weight. I recognise the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in introducing this Bill. I knew the noble Lord at Oxford nearly 50 years ago. We have spent quite a lot of time with each other, chasing a drag line across the country.
However, I am afraid that I oppose the Bill and support my noble friend Lord Stanley in his amendment. I oppose Clauses 2 and 3 particularly. They prohibit early weaning and tail docking respectively. Seventeen years ago I routinely weaned pigs at three weeks when, although it was not the norm to do so, many people did that. I am not quite sure of my facts because I am out of date but, to be quite honest, I do not think that all modern pig producers routinely wean their pigs so early. Of course, I may be wrong. I can assure the House from my own experience that the piglets did not suffer from being weaned so early; nor did the sows.
As other noble Lords have said, even 17 years ago sows were bred in order to breed lean meat in their progeny when they went to pork and bacon. If piglets
86
were not weaned until six weeks or later, they would undoubtedly lose a lot of weight. Obviously, during the past 17 years the breeds have got even leaner. The large white cross is now the norm in pig breeding and this country, incidentally, is in the lead in pig breeding. We imported Landrace from Denmark 40 years ago, much against the will of the then Minister of Agriculture. There was strong opposition to the importation of Landrace. Thank goodness that the people concerned were very determined because, as a result, this country's pig breeding industry is world renowned. We export breeding pigs all over the world.
I strongly oppose Clause 3, which prohibits tail docking. I once did not have the tails docked of a particular group of pigs and there was blood everywhere in the fattening house. The pigs suffered very much more from that than they would from having their tails docked. I routinely tail docked at three days-old. The pigs did not appear to suffer at all. They would squeal if you held them tightly, but the actual snip, which was carried out with sharp scissors or clippers, did not appear to hurt them in the least. There was no blood.
We cut the pigs' teeth at the same time. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has referred to this point. At the time, I was told that we had to cut their teeth—not so much because the pigs hurt each other or the sow (although that might happen during suckling); but because the pigs' mouths swelled up. One had to cut eight teeth—two on the top on each side; the permanent teeth—and if that was not done, the mouths would swell up and the pigs would suffer tremendously. I agree that this practice hurts the pigs—they do not like it at all but I do not think that the pain lasts for more than a day or so.
As with animal husbandry in general, pig farmers must have contented animals. They would not carry out these practices which take time and are not very pleasant if they were unnecessary. Unlike my noble friend Lord Elliot of Morpeth, I have not had experience of the piggeries that he saw. I do not doubt his word as to that. In my day pig farmers were well advised by ADAS and feed companies, although obviously they benefit from selling feed. I saw many piggeries but only the high-class ones with slats and different methods of keeping pigs. In those piggeries I never saw pigs suffer. Although pigs are perhaps happier on straw I believe that they are content on slats.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, one must welcome the recent statement this month by the animal welfare Minister, Mr. Elliot Morley. Further, one must hope that during the Government's presidency of the EU they will be able to rectify the problems caused by the absence of common minimum standards for animal welfare across Europe. I have spent much of my working life in animal production. Although I no longer have a Buckler cow or sheep enterprise due to the poor economic climate in the UK livestock

87
industry, I still have a deer enterprise whose EU-licensed larder has an annual throughput of 500 carcasses a year.
I have a great love for all animals especially competition horses. Sadly, I miss being able to work with a suckler herd. Although I have not been personally involved in pig production, I have seen it in many forms and feel able to speak to this amendment today. It is comforting and right that the animal production management of farmed pigs has developed and changed rapidly in recent years, but the conditions for the welfare of pigs provided for in this Bill are not laudable and would detract and not add to the health and welfare of pigs. There seems to be no scientific or practical justification for this Bill.
If the conditions in this Bill were implemented unilaterally in the UK pig industry, I question whether there would be a serious UK pig industry, left. Unlike the rest of Europe, shortly the UK will rightly be improving the welfare of its pigs by the banning of sow stalls and tethers. However, this Bill will greatly increase the cost of production, resulting in the vulnerability of our market not only to our other EU markets but also world markets. For example, last year's fixed cost for pigs in a fully insulated farrowing house, complete with partitions and all services, with weaning between three and six weeks, is between £1,560 and £2,845 per sow, as listed in the Agricultural Budgeting and Costings Book. To provide the space allowance in the noble Lord's Bill, which has no scientific or practical justification, will very nearly double the new spacing allowance per sow which came into effect on 1st January 1998. Thus, it would go a long way to doubling fixed costs, making this type of production in the UK not feasible.
I refer to the farming of animals as animal production because that is what it is about. It is the rearing of animals by the use of good quality husbandry techniques in order to produce an end product that can compete with similar products. There will always be a delicate balance between the farmer's wishes to use the best possible code of livestock welfare and what the end product can stand in terms of cost. Statistically, the average family will wish to buy the best quality product for the cheapest price. If the UK cannot better or equal the price of similar foreign products then our farmers will not be able to sell their product. The result will be, first, that the UK consumer will buy pig products from countries that rear pigs under less favourable welfare conditions than our pigs enjoy at present; and, secondly, the UK's total food import deficit will increase.
In conclusion, I believe that the welfare conditions in the Bill are detrimental not only to pigs but to the UK pig industry. Therefore, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for explaining the reasons for his amendment with such clarity. I recognise, as other noble Lords have recognised this evening, that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of
88
Whitley, introduces this Bill for the most honest and forthright of reasons because of his commitment to animal welfare reform. We on these Benches have always been committed to the highest possible standards of animal welfare at home and abroad. We have always recognised that it is important to promote higher standards throughout the European Union.
As I understand it, the Bill could threaten the viability of the pig industry in this country by imposing upon it requirements that do not have to be met by the pig industries of other EU countries. Before we approve of such measures surely we must consider the question of proportionality. We need to be convinced that these measures are so vital that we can accept the direct economic consequences to the rural economy with equanimity. This point was made clearly by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford.
What would be the consequences? We are advised that the proposals could have a devastating financial impact on the UK pig industry, with consequent rural unemployment and job losses in the food processing industry. Are the measures in the Bill so vital to animal welfare that they override the needs of the rural economy? According to a number of my noble friends—this matter has been clearly spelt out by my noble friend Lord Stanley—the answer is no. They have explained how the measures proposed in the Bill would not achieve the stated objective of improving the overall welfare of pigs: rather, they would achieve the reverse. Evidence has been adduced this evening to show that the Bill would work counter to the health and welfare of pigs. That view is supported by the veterinary profession. I listened with great interest to the points made by my noble friend Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, who is himself an expert in this profession.
Good intentions lie behind this Bill but I believe that the introduction of this Bill to try to achieve those intentions is misguided. The Bill introduces measures in regard to space allowances, bedding, weaning and tail docking. I shall confine my brief remarks to just three of those. I believe that tonight we have heard detailed expert views on those four parts of the Bill. Space allowances would be doubled by the Bill as against the measures which came into effect on 1st January 1998, as my noble friend Lord Rotherwick explained. One wonders why the doubling of space has been plucked out of the air. What is the scientific evidence to support such a proposal? Before inserting such details into a Bill evidence should be to hand to persuade the House that a specific figure should be provided for in the Bill.
As to bedding, the Bill requires that where pigs are kept in a building they should be provided with appropriate bedding. Approaching this from a background in the law, one asks why the Bill does not define in Clause 5 "appropriate bedding". I believe that the omission of that definition is itself a defect of the Bill. We have been informed this evening that many traditional forms of bedding can provide a real risk to a pig's health by raising dust and spore levels which can induce pneumonia.
Finally, much has been said with regard to tail docking. The Bill would make it an offence to dock routinely. although an individual case may be allowed on grounds of health, carried out under anaesthetic, if certified by a vet.

89
My noble friend Lord Middleton has drawn our attention to the fact that regulations already exist which cover such tail docking prohibition; it is an offence to tail dock routinely. If that ban is being flouted—and some noble Lords have said that it is—the appropriate action is for prosecutions to be brought. It is not the appropriate course to pass yet another legislative measure on exactly the same point. To do that—and I do not seek to be flippant but to give a day-by-day example—would be as time wasting as creating another offence of speeding on the roads just because so many drivers break the speed limit every day of the year.
The more I have listened to the arguments put by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and others who would reject the Bill at this stage, the more I believe that their arguments are persuasive. I listened with interest to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. It would indeed have been appropriate for the content of this Bill to have been the subject of an Unstarred Question. That would have given us the opportunity to range over a wider subject matter but in greater depth. It is a matter which is a fruitful subject for debate where there can be more of a consensus approach than if we are trying to see whether the Bill should take up further time within the parliamentary calendar.
There are occasions when the House should consider very carefully whether a Bill should take the time of the House in Committee and at other stages. The more I heard noble Lords saying what they thought should be a part of the Bill, the more I felt that my noble friend Lord Stanley had proved his point. that this Bill does not meet the objectives that its proposers say it should. It would work counter to animal welfare and should not perhaps take up the time of this House further.
Having heard all the arguments tonight, I believe that my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has made a persuasive case and I support his amendment.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, this has been a useful and informative debate. The one thing that we can agree is that all of us are in agreement that we need to ensure the welfare of pigs and that they are kept under the best possible conditions.
Before I arrived I had been given much advice in relation to the Bill and the views that could be expected. The only people who have not been in touch with me are the Tamworth Two, which were referred to earlier. I fully expected Sundance and Butch to give their personal views on tonight's debate, particularly as their tails were undocked. I thought they might have been in touch with us.
What I did not expect was the debate between my noble friend Lady Mallalieu and the right reverend Prelate in which they discussed the political tendencies of their respective pigs. It points to the balance that has been achieved that in one case they voted socialist. having come from Nye Bevan, and in the
90
other, knowing the ancestors of the right reverend Prelate, he was quite sure that they would have been Conservative had they got to the ballot box.
Returning to the Bill, animal welfare was prominent in the Labour manifesto and ranged over many things. In relation to animals reared for food, it promised better treatment for them. As has been mentioned, we can be very proud in this country that we are ahead in the stance we have taken on pig welfare, perhaps with the exception of Sweden. We have recognised that the lack of freedom for sows in close-confinement stalls and tether systems creates real welfare problems. As we all know. 1st January 1999 is not far off, when all stalls and tethers in the UK will become a thing of the past.
Our task in the forthcoming review of the European directive on pig welfare is to persuade other member states similarly to phase out such systems. The Commission's Scientific Veterinary Committee has recently recommended that this should be the way forward.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that the Government have sympathy with the aims of the Bill. However, the problems that it seeks to address are perhaps best tackled by other means.
We share the concerns that have been expressed about the high level of tail docking of piglets. Too many farmers are still mutilating their animals routinely in this way without properly considering whether they can improve the environment in which the pigs live to avoid the need to tail dock. The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 (SI 2126) already provide that tail docking should not be carried out routinely, which it appears to be at the moment, but only where there is evidence on the farm that injuries to other piglets have occurred or are likely to occur. There is a need to remind farmers that legislation already exists and to explore the use of other methods to control aggressive behaviour before resorting to tail docking.
This is already in hand, as is research on this aimed at improving our understanding of the factors that influence aggressive behaviour in pigs. We have heard quite a lot on that particular subject from experts tonight. That is why the Government currently have an awareness and enforcement programme underway to question pig farmers about their policy on tail docking.
Whenever Ministry veterinary officers visit pig farms, for whatever reason, they specifically remind pig farmers that the law does not permit routine tail docking of piglets. They emphasise that the law allows the procedure to be carried out only where there is evidence on the farm that injuries have occurred or are likely to occur as a result of not carrying out the procedure. Where necessary the Government veterinary officers encourage farmers to review their policy with their private veterinary surgeon to determine whether tail docking really is necessary on those farms.

91
The debate today will, I am sure, have served the purpose of bringing the Ministry's programme that I have outlined to the attention of the British pig industry. The Government's position on mutilation of animals is clear: we are opposed to routine mutilation. Where such procedures are permitted by law, they should be carried out only as a last resort.
We have been talking about tail biting by other pigs. Very serious injuries and suffering can occur when pigs are tail bitten, as has been mentioned by many noble Lords. Tail biting is a problem which needs to be resolved; tail docking is only one of the possible solutions. An improved environment is a necessary solution. I would be delighted if the adoption of the measures proposed in the noble Lord's Bill were certain to prevent tail biting. I regret to say that science is not so robust on this matter.
As has been said, tail biting is a complex, multifactorial problem. At this moment we do not know all the answers. We need more information and I agree with noble Lords who have said that we need more research into it.
The noble Lord has identified in his Bill three factors which may have an influence on tail biting: space allowances, bedding and weaning age. All three may indeed have a bearing on this issue, but I suggest that the answer is not as simple as the Bill would have us believe. Many other factors are relevant in this matter. These include ventilation, weather, diet, water, rooting material and "toys" like foodballs to distract the pig.
In addition, stockmanship has a keen role in all of this. An ill-treated animal will not thrive. Apart from the moral argument regarding cruelty, surely it is not in the farmer's interest to have animals which do not thrive.
Space allowances have been referred to by many noble Lords in relation to the Bill. They are double, as has been pointed out, the minimum areas which only took legal effect throughout Europe from 1st January 1998.
The evidence does not support the view that increasing the space in that way will necessarily reduce or prevent tail biting. We know that substantial investment in the heating and ventilation of pig buildings would need to be made to provide the right thermal and quality conditions for fewer pigs. That was referred to by many noble Lords.
Another point that has proved contentious is the Bill's proposal that the minimum weaning age should be six weeks. UK and EU legislation provides that it should be no fewer than three weeks. In current practice it is normally between 23 and 24 days. It has been pointed out that pigs are prone to disease, particularly when mixing with other litters, and with a changing environment. When pigs are weaned at three weeks they still have significant immunity acquired from the mother. At six weeks—this is a factor we must all bear in mind—that protection is much less. The European Commission's Scientific
92
Veterinary Committee recently studied the whole subject of pig welfare. At that time it did not associate weaning at three weeks with tail biting.
I turn now to bedding. The Government sympathise with the proposal that all pigs should have appropriate bedding. Again, science is equivocal as to whether that helps to avoid tail biting. The provision of bedding has other welfare benefits for pigs. The Commission's Scientific Veterinary Committee has made a recommendation along those lines. We are currently awaiting the Commission's detailed proposals on how the existing directive should be revised. The codes of recommendations for the welfare of pigs issued by MAFF states:
"Bedding, and especially straw, contributes towards the need of the pig for thermal and physical comfort and satisfies some of its behavioural requirements".
Ongoing research, some of which is being funded by the Government, is teaching us more about the behavioural needs of pigs, and how to minimise aggression and stress. We need to learn more about the factors that can influence tail biting and to test those on farm situations. There is a need, as I have said, to remind farmers of the existing legislation, and to explain to them that they should explore the use of other measures to control aggressive behaviour before resorting to tail docking. That, as I have said, is in hand, as is research aimed at improving our understanding of the factors which influence aggressive behaviour in pigs.
I shall remark on two points that have been made. The first was by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, who asked what the Government's attitude was to farrowing crates, and whether the Government will ban them. The answer is, "not at present", but we continue to fund research into alternative systems which give more freedom to the sow while providing adequate protection for the piglets. The Scientific Veterinary Committee supports our view that a ban should not be implemented until suitable systems have been developed.
My noble friend Lady Nicol mentioned castration. Our understanding is that that has been practically eliminated in this country. We were surprised when she mentioned the figure of 10 per cent. of piglets. We will look into that, and I shall write to her on that point. That is not consistent with our evidence.
In conclusion, it is clear from what I have said that Her Majesty's Government cannot support the Bill's principles. However, in accordance with the usual practice, in the event of a Division I shall abstain, as will my colleagues on the Front Bench.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. and for the kind words that most of them said about me and my motives even if they do not approve of the Bill. My noble friend of longstanding, Lord Harding of Petherton unfortunately had to speak and then leave, which is a practice that your Lordships deprecate. I think that I can say, without being too sanctimonious, that in 30 years in your Lordships' House that is something I have done only twice.

93
Nevertheless, I am always grateful when someone who would have voted against me had they stayed speaks and leaves.
Your Lordships have produced a great deal of expertise, and made a strong case for taking the Bill to a Committee stage where we can argue out many of the details. Some points were underlying the speeches in favour of the amendment. I shall comment upon one or two of them. First, there is a general theory that if a pig is putting on weight it cannot be suffering or be badly looked after. That is nonsense. It was exposed a long time ago by the then agricultural correspondent of The Times, who pointed out that the only time in his life when he had seriously put on weight was when he was in the trenches in the First World War. It is possible to be in appalling conditions and to put on weight. It becomes a compensation.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, conducted his case with courtesy. I am sorry that he was unable to deal with Professor Broom's evidence in his opening speech and is reserving it for his next speech, when I shall be unable to challenge him seriously. I shall not answer all the arguments that have been put forward. As I said, they are mainly points for the Committee stage. I shall quote the European report on the welfare of intensively kept pigs from the Scientific Veterinary Committee on the subject of tail docking.
It has been suggested that the veterinary profession is in favour of tail docking. The report is a good, up-to-date one. I do not believe that anyone would challenge the expertise of the people involved, although the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, may in his next speech. On tail biting, it states,
"Tail biting can cause serious welfare and economic problems. Tail docking reduces these, but carries short-term pain when it is carried out, and long-term pain where neuromas form. A procedure which reduces the serious problems associated with tail biting by making the tail painful to touch and painful at other times seems undesirable. Other methods for the reduction of tail biting exist. When pigs with intact tails are fed an adequate diet, provided with sufficient water, provided with straw or other manipulable materials or earth for rooting and kept at a stocking density that is not too high, tail biting is seldom serious".
In answer to those noble Lords who say that more research is needed, the report quotes from five separate reports and pieces of research carried out during the past five years. It continues:
"Tail biting is an indication of an inadequate environment and indicates that welfare is poor in the animal carrying out the biting".
It has been said that because the change cannot be made on a European level we should not make it on a unilateral level. Our example goes a long way and is useful in moving Europe towards the actions it should be taking. We should not be putting back the cause of reform if we were to act alone.
As regards whether castration or tooth clipping should be involved, or whether the appropriate bedding should be spelt out, those are matters with which we can deal in Committee. I ask your Lordships to reject the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, we have heard the case for giving the Bill a Second Reading. I shall not attempt to delay your Lordships any longer by trying to sum up your views or even to give Professor Broom's alleged statement a "going over". That would be unfair because the noble Lord would be unable to reply.
If your Lordships allow the Bill a Second Reading you will be accused, for better or worse, of putting yet another nail into the farmers' coffin. I commend the amendment to the House.
8.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 23.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Mackay of Ardbecknish. L.

Annaly, L.

Middleton, L. [Teller.]

Astor of Hever, L.

Montgomery of Alamein. V.

Boardman, L.

Norrie, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Northesk, E.

Burnham, L.

Palmer, L.

Cadman, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford. L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Cross, V.

Renton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Dundonald, E.

Rowallan, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Runcie, L.

Hereford, Bp.

Seccombe, B.

Holmpatrick, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Islwyn, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Kimball, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Levy, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lockwood, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lyell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

McConnell, L.

Young, B.

NOT-Contents

Addington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Burlison, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carlisle, E.

Maddock, B.

Craigavon, V.

Monkswell, L.

Dixon, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Russell, E.

Goodhart, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hamwee, B.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Hardy of Wath, L.

Tordoff, L.

Wharton, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at ten minutes before nine o'clock.

  Legal Profession: Comments to Media
  Legal Profession: Comments to Media
  Public Records Legislation: Review
  Public Records Legislation: Review
  Public Record Office Services
  Public Record Office Services
  Questions for Written Answer
  Questions for Written Answer
  Recycled Paper
  Recycled Paper
  Saunders Judgment: UK Response
  Saunders Judgment: UK Response
  Public Expenditure per Capita
  Public Expenditure per Capita
  South Korea
  South Korea
  South East Asia: Effect of IMF Programmes
  South East Asia: Effect of IMF Programmes
  Domestic Work: Market Value
  Domestic Work: Market Value
  Child Benefit Taxation
  Child Benefit Taxation
  NHS Trust Appointments: Analysis
  NHS Trust Appointments: Analysis
  NHS Trust Appointments since 1 May
  NHS Trust Appointments since 1 May
  Dentists Act 1984
  Dentists Act 1984
  Passive Smoking
  Passive Smoking
  Edgware Hospital: Review
  Edgware Hospital: Review
  Young Offenders: Library Access
  Young Offenders: Library Access
  Exclusion Orders
  Exclusion Orders
  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
  Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974
  Under-age Sexual Intercourse
  Under-age Sexual Intercourse
  Prisoners in High Risk Categories
  Prisoners in High Risk Categories
  Prisoners Held under Special Secure Conditions
  Prisoners Held under Special Secure Conditions
  "Grand Theft Auto" Computer Game
  "Grand Theft Auto" Computer Game
  European Council: Powers
  European Council: Powers
  Turkey: UK Diplomatic Visits to South-Eastern Region
  Turkey: UK Diplomatic Visits to South-Eastern Region
  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone
  Uganda: Military Assistance
  Uganda: Military Assistance
  UNSCOM
  UNSCOM
  IFOR and SFOR
  IFOR and SFOR
  Armed Forces in Central and Eastern Europe: Training Assistance
  Armed Forces in Central and Eastern Europe: Training Assistance
  Travellers: Eviction
  Travellers: Eviction