Sitting of 28 January 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  Millennium Dome
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: I begin by expressing my gratitude to you, Madam Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate.
  At the time of the first session of questions to the Minister Without Portfolio, hon. Members on both sides were concerned about the high-handed way in which the House was being treated. Only five minutes were allowed for questions to the Minister, which allowed only one question tabled to be answered—a point I raised with you at the time, Madam Speaker. In eight months, the Minister has answered only four oral questions tabled.
  The millennium dome is huge project of such significance to Britain that five minutes for questions was clearly pathetic, and I am glad to say that the time has now been doubled. If it continues to increase at the current rate, we might be closer to having a proper session for questions to the Minister by 2000.
  Today's debate ensures that the Minister will be in the House for an hour and a half this morning. I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman has managed to find his way to the Chamber, even if he is not listening to me at this moment. It is truly a new experience for the Minister with responsibility for the millennium experience, and he may find that the House is capable of giving him a better ride than anything he found on his jolly to Disneyworld. I hope that he will enjoy his accountability experience this morning.
  The debate is long overdue. As a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, I have spent much time examining the preparations for the millennium celebration at Greenwich. I and other Members from both sides of the Committee have become increasingly concerned about the level and detail of the preparations.
  One comment in evidence to our Committee illustrates that point. Mr. Michael Grade, a director of the New Millennium Experience Company, was asked by the Committee to consider the millennium events, and, in his reply, used two sporting events to illustrate his point. He told us:
  "the Olympic Games; it has been known that they were going to have an Olympic Games in the year 2000 for over 100 years. It is every four years, war excepted. Similarly, the World Soccer Cup is a very predictable event, six or eight years ahead. We are playing catch-up."
  262
  Playing catch-up? Could Mr. Grade not have predicted that there would be a millennium? Are we to believe that it is easier to organise a world cup with six or eight years' notice than a millennium event with 2,000 years notice?
  Mr. John Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fraser: No. I have a long speech to give, but I shall give way in a moment.
  Why are we playing catch-up? We are doing so because the Labour party in opposition rubbished the project and cast doubt on its future. In such circumstances, the private sector was reluctant to commit any money before the election. When Labour came to power, the Government dithered and delayed, and now we are running out of time.
  I trust that the Minister will not be insulted by what I am saying, and that he will not blame others for what has happened. Responsibility must rest on the Government Benches alone. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has pointed out, the Prime Minister and his colleagues played politics with the issue before the election—action my right hon. Friend described to the Select Committee as "unnecessary and unprincipled".
  It might be useful to have a definition of the word "millennium". "Collins English Dictionary" offers the following:
  "1. … Christianity. the period of a thousand years of Christ's awaited reign upon earth. 2. a period or cycle of one thousand years. 3. a time of peace and happiness. esp. in the distant future."
  I am sure that it is the third definition that appeals overwhelmingly to the Minister, but peace and happiness are a long way off for him.
  I am convinced that part of the reason the project has been dogged by confusion and disarray cannot simply be put down to the inexperience of the Minister Without Portfolio, although he must be a key factor in it. It most certainly comes down to the lack of an overriding theme. We are to mark the millennium, but the question "For what?" has not yet been answered; it has not yet been posed. When I asked Mr. Robert Ayling, the chairman, no less, of the New Millennium Experience Company, why other countries are not undertaking such a vast and mammoth project, he told me, "I do not know."
  I believe that there is a case for a millennium experience to mark a significant date in the Christian calendar in a fitting and memorable way. It is also a good way to remind the Minister Without Portfolio that time did not begin on 1 May last year. Indeed, given that the event is to go ahead, we Conservatives would rather that it is a success than a disaster. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will take our concerns seriously and with good will.
  We know of none of the contents of the dome, but, given the hon. Gentleman's record in his previous incarnation, it will not surprise the House to know that we have a slogan. It is strikingly familiar:
  "It's time to make a difference."
  Someone should have told the hon. Gentleman that he is organising a millennium celebration, not running an election campaign.
  When I heard the slogan, feeble though it is, I thought that it had been chosen to fit in with the contents; I began to believe that there must be a strategy after all. I fear that I was being optimistic, for we still have no details of the contents.

  263
  As someone who has a limited experience of the marketing business, I must say that it is unusual to design logos and slogans—a marketing campaign in embryo—without a product. It could be said that the dome preparations, like the Government themselves, are a triumph of style over substance. As the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) told the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport:
  "It is a little like Cadbury's developing a wrapper without actually deciding what the chocolate bar is going to be."
  Does someone need a marketing degree to work out that, in order to attract visitors, it is a good idea to tell them what they might see? Yet, despite the scale of the challenge and the time scale we face—there are now fewer than 500 working days to go—we still know almost nothing. We can compare that to the preparations that the Australians have been making for the Sydney Olympics, where the schedule was completed in 1994. Mr. Keith Bales, a former senior Disney executive and an expert in developing visitor attraction projects, told the Select Committee that no one on the board
  "has ever run, managed, designed or promoted in any way whatsoever a major international leisure attraction."
  This situation has all the makings of a Whitehall farce.
  Does the Minister have a grip on what is happening? He says that the dome will not be a theme park, yet, at the taxpayer's expense, he visits Disneyworld for ideas. We are told that the project is to highlight the best of British, yet the Prime Minister jets off to Japan to beg for investment. The Minister needs to clarify the matter: who is telling the truth? Is it him when he tells The Daily Telegraph that the dome is to have a Christian theme? Is it him when he tells the Select Committee that it is
  "for all faiths, and none"?
  Is it Sir Terence Conran, the Minister's new litmus test, who believes that it is "inappropriate" to mention Christ in the Christian millennium? Or does he need to ask his eight-year-old adviser from the newly appointed junior board—ironically called Christian—before he can tell the House?
  The point may be becoming obvious: no one has a clue what is going on, least of all those in charge of the project.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: When is the hon. Gentleman going to get to the substance of his remarks? Everything he has said has been negative, and an attempt to diminish a bold experiment which many Labour Members have supported and which has all-party support. It is a bold, imaginative project that is good for this country. When will the hon. Gentleman stop carping and say something positive about a really good idea which has support from both sides of the House and throughout the country?
  Mr. Fraser: The quicker the hon. Gentleman sits down, the quicker he will hear me make that point. My speech contains plenty of quotes from the Minister, who starts to hang himself. If the hon. Gentleman hangs around, he will find out.
  The Minister has been responding to substantive issues with gimmicks. I am, however, happy to pay tribute to Greenwich council, which has fought so hard and so well
  264
  for the location of the dome. If the project works, it will bring Greenwich huge benefits, including economic and social regeneration, employment, the Jubilee line extension, an extension to the Docklands light railway, the development of river bus service—something that I have long advocated-10,000 new homes; it will bring back into use 1,000 acres of derelict and contaminated land. All that is to be welcomed.
  The overriding reason for choosing Greenwich is obvious: it sits on the prime meridian. But believe it or not, the dome itself will not. To stand on the prime meridian, one will have to leave the all-weather dome and brave the elements, for the meridian lies outside the dome.
  I referred to the absence of content, but one part of the contents is known. It will astonish the House to know that guaranteed to be in the dome is the air vent of the Blackwall tunnel. Perhaps I am being unfair, for the commitment of the Minister and his leader, the Prime Minister, to hot air is well known; they have built their careers on it.
  We are assured that all will soon become clear. Ms Page, chief executive of the New Millennium Experience Company, said in her evidence:
  "We are going to start the marketing in the first quarter of 1998".
  We are now told that there is to be a launch on 24 February; perhaps all will be revealed, the veil will be lifted and light will be shone on the project. I certainly hope so, and I look forward to more details from the Minister this morning, for time is now short: there are, I repeat, fewer than 500 working days left.
  What really concerns me is that the Minister should make his announcements about the millennium exhibition here in this Chamber, before any grand press launch. We in this House must be the first to hear the details that are apparently to be launched on 24 February. I look to the Minister to give the House and you, Madam Speaker, a concrete undertaking that that will be the case. In the absence of a satisfactory assurance from the Minister, it will be my intention to take the matter up with you. The Government have a poor record when it comes to announcements of that sort, as you have often said in the Chamber.
  It might be useful to the House to be reminded of this Administration's record; it is a catalogue of muddled thinking, incompetence and double standards. The Government profess a profound concern over so-called fat cats, but one of the Minister's first acts on 26 June last year was to appoint Mark McCormack of the IMG group to attract sponsors; his commission could be as much as £15 million. Would he not be the fattest cat who ever walked? Does not that appointment reveal a certain hypocrisy?
  Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the subject of hypocrisy, the fact is that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) did not declare an interest this morning. He is well known as a part-time Member of Parliament; he is actually a travel agent who is very much concerned with the millennium

  265
  dome. He has not made any announcement to that effect, and if there is any hypocrisy in this Chamber, it comes from him.
  Madam Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman is showing a great deal of frustration, but is he saying to me that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) should be declaring an interest?
  Mr. Sheerman: Absolutely.
  Madam Speaker: If that is the case, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will declare an interest now. Before he does so, may I make an appeal to the House? There is a great deal of demand to speak in this debate, and Members will be very disappointed if they cannot speak, so I ask for very short speeches. I return to the point about an interest. Would the hon. Gentleman declare an interest, if he has reason to do so?
  Mr. Fraser: I am a director of a travel company which has absolutely nothing to do with the millennium dome and millennium experience.
  After renaming the company in July, the Minister increased the pace in August. The signed contract with a German firm for the roof of the dome was cancelled, and a new one placed with an American company. Legal action for breach of contract may be about to follow. The irony that the dome is to promote the "best of British" will not be lost on the House.
  Undeterred, the Minister pressed on. He dealt with an early-day motion, reported in the Evening Standard, tabled by his colleague the hon. Member for Hackney. North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), calling for greater accountability and publication of interim accounts. However, I am sure that the Minister is not talking to his hon. Friend the Paymaster General about setting up the New Millennium Experience Company offshore.
  On this occasion, the Minister is using British company law to afford himself all the secrecy he needs. He is hiding behind a code of practice on access to Government information which was put in place to protect private contractors, not to be used as a smokescreen for Ministers' accountability to the House.
  Perhaps this is one of the areas where the Minister could help the House today. Although he is legally correct in saying that he is not obliged to publish last year's accounts for the New Millennium Experience Company until September 1998, does he accept that, in the case of a project involving £780 million of so-called public money, there is a moral obligation to publish sooner? Or are the finances of the project in such a state that he is petrified of publication? I trust that the Minister will address those critical issues this morning.
  In November, it got even better. The Independent reported that the Jubilee line will not be up to full capacity by the year 2000. Only 10 trains an hour may run—rather than 36 at full capacity—a view articulated when London Underground gave evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. No wonder the Government are reported to be planning a privatisation of London Underground—perhaps to blame the private sector for their own failings.
  In December, the Minister has a tremendous idea. He tells the House of his inspired idea of a "junior council" of children and teenagers to advise on what is
  266
  "cool". Does it not seem odd that, given the amount of money being poured into consultancy fees in this £780 million project, with fewer than 500 working days to go before the millennium, all he can do is to turn to children for advice on the contents of the centrepiece—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—the centrepiece of the nation's celebration for the millennium? Is it not a case of the boy maketh the man?
  Then the poor Minister hits a spate of panic departures. Off goes Sir Cameron Mackintosh at Christmas. Off goes Stephen Bayley in January. The chief executive of the Millennium Commission, Eric Sorensen, is off, too. That is an interesting development for a job-creating project.
  In his evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the Minister spoke of an interactive exhibit in the dome with the working title "Qualify for 20 jobs you never knew existed". It seems that the list of candidates for those jobs is already growing. In 500 days' time, there may well be more applicants than jobs. If any more people were to resign, the Minister may well have to build the dome on his own. Just imagine it: Lord Puttnam could make a film about it. It could be called "Dome Alone".
  Mr. Nigel Evans: My hon. Friend mentioned one movie. I was just wondering whether the Minister Without Portfolio was getting his ideas from another film, called "Field of Dreams". I do not know whether he has seen it. It is about a fanner in Idaho who hears voices saying: "Build it. They will come." Although the farmer is threatened with bankruptcy, he removes one of his cash crops to build a baseball park. I shall not spoil the end of the movie for everyone, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister Without Portfolio may be hearing these voices, directing him? How much longer must we wait before he hears more voices, telling him what he needs to put in the dome?
  Mr. Fraser: I suspect that, as we speak, many writers are lining up to put that film into production.
  I shall now turn to the financial and contingency plans—or, rather, to the absence of contingency plans. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley said:
  "If you cannot answer the question about the contents, you cannot get somebody to sign up for the money"
  nor, I imagine, can you get people to visit the dome.
  Yet all the projections have been done on the calculation of 12 million visitors in 12 months. Mr. Bales, an ex-Disney senior executive, who has vast experience in these matters—certainly more than the Minister—was blunt with the Select Committee. He told us:
  "I do not believe those numbers".
  Yet, when we ask for details of contingency plans, we are greeted with intransigence. We know only that there is to be a spurious contingency fund of £200 million of public money, to cover over-runs on the cost. Will the Minister tell us this morning whether it will also cover under-runs on income?
  We have been told that 12 million people will visit the dome exhibition—more than 32,000 people a day, every day for the whole year—mostly, I hasten to say, in off-peak hours, because London Underground cannot meet the demand. What happens if the attendance does not meet expectations? How can the Minister say that

  267
  32,000 people will visit every day for the whole year when he cannot say what they will see when they get there? It is time for answers.
  The Minister's assurance that the dome will be on time could cause a skip of the heart in the most collected of people. The Minister said:
  "This has to open and it will open on New Year's Eve at the end of December 1999. We are ahead of our critical path at the moment, touch wood, cross fingers".
  How can the House be satisfied with such an answer?
  We are talking about an event during which the eyes of the world will be on Britain and on Greenwich, and all the Minister can say is, "Touch wood, cross fingers." It would be hilarious, if it were not so serious. I am drawn to the conclusion that the only contingency plan that the Minister has in mind is to postpone the opening of the millennium exhibition to 31 December 2000 the date that many people believe to be the true eve of the next millennium.
  Let us move on to matters of funding. In Committee, I pressed the Minister on this issue, and he told me:
  "There are commitments. There are also indications of interest."
  I then asked the Minister:
  "Can you give us any figures for each of those two categories?"
  The Minister responded directly to me in a way that beggared belief:
  "No. I am not able to do so."
  I asked:
  "Not able to for what reason?"
  He replied directly:
  "Because an indication of interest, by its very nature, suggests that no firm commitment to a sum of money has been made."
  The farce continues.
  As the Minister will not tell the Select Committee, perhaps he tell the House this morning. What level of commitment, in cash terms, does he have? It is a simple question, and I should like to know the answer.
  I bring, for the edification of the House, another surreal experience. At the same meeting of the Committee, the Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant):
  "Can you now say, of that £150 million that is needed at this stage, as of today, how much has been committed?"
  The Minister's reply was:
  "Will I or can I?"
  My hon. Friend asked:
  "Would you?"
  The Minister replied:
  "No, I will not."
  Oh, to live in the age of open government.
  The Minister gave the game away when he was pushed further. He told us:
  "On occasions, I have wondered whether there is not going to be a mad scramble by private companies to get a presence in what is a unique event."
  I can almost picture the Minister late at night, dreaming of a mad scramble to put money into an empty dome—touch wood, cross fingers, as someone once said.
  268
  I entirely understand the Minister wishing to follow in his grandfather's footsteps. Herbert Morrison organised the festival of Britain in 1951. I know that the Minister enjoys the irony of that precedent. In this case, he clearly believes in the heredity principle.
  We on the Conservative Benches are encouraged by that precedent, for, although the Minister's grandfather organised the festival of Britain in 1951, he also played a key role in leading his Government and party to defeat at the polls that same year. For the sake of the country, I hope that the hon. Gentleman stays close to his grandfather's path.
  May I use this opportunity to ask the Minister for an update on the report of the Select Committee? Two important requests were made. The first was that a comprehensive contingency plan be completed by the New Millennium Experience Company as a matter of urgency. As the Minister is the sole shareholder in that company, I assume that he has some responsibility for seeing that that is done.
  Secondly, it should be a matter of utmost priority for London Underground to work on the delivery of a signalling system to allow 24 trains per hour to use the North Greenwich station in the year 2000, to meet the capacity that the Minister has promised. My question is simple: what progress?
  The Minister told the Committee:
  "I will come on any occasion to meet any of my colleagues in Parliament and provide them with any information on a public or confidential basis… in order to make sure that people like you are satisfied that we are acting in a proper and transparent way. You have that undertaking from me today."
  If the hon. Gentleman wishes to retain any credibility with the House, he has the opportunity today to make good those words and to answer the questions and concerns of the House about the matter. I urge him to come clean today.
  10.1 am
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I shall follow Madam Speaker's advice to be brief, so I shall not take up the statements made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser).
  I must, however, draw attention to the comments of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who told us the wonderful story of "Field of Dreams", about the voice that said, "They will come," when a baseball park was created out of nowhere, and they all came. It was a happy ending.
  Mr. Evans: The main point, which I hope the Minister Without Portfolio will take on board, is that "Field of Dreams" is make-believe. The farmer was an actor. Things like that do not happen in real life. People will need a reason to come to the millennium dome: the Minister must give them a reason to come.
  Mr. Bell: The film was a true story, and it was motivated by divine intervention. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish me, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, to say that there is no such thing.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Bell: I shall make a few comments as the Second Church Estates Commissioner and speak on behalf of

  269
  The Churches Together in England, which are working on plans for the millennium. My hon. Friend the Minister Without Portfolio is right to recognise that the millennium is, first and foremost, a Christian event. It marks the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ. We have heard the comments of Sir Terence Conran, but it is right that this is an occasion on which our Christian faith, heritage and culture are celebrated.
  The other faiths in our society recognise that, and accord deference to the birth of Jesus, as of course we accord deference to them in their beliefs. They recognise the significance of the millennium event in terms of the calendar and history of this country.
  The Churches Together in England recognise that not only the Churches but the nation a whole wish to celebrate the millennium. The United Kingdom comprises a multicultural society of different faiths and beliefs, and the millennium celebrations must reach out and touch the lives of all our people, and reflect the diverse religious and cultural traditions that enrich our national life.
  The Churches Together in England welcome the Government's commitment to reflect Christianity as a central theme in the millennium dome and to provide a chapel. They urge that the proposed spirit zone should include a strong Christian presence, as well as reflecting the United Kingdom's multi-faith culture.
  The Churches Together in England welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with those who are organising the Millennium Experience at Greenwich, as well as the wider national celebrations. They welcome, too, the opportunity to advise on the Christian input. The Churches look forward to continuing co-operation with the Government as the plans for the millennium proceed.
  The Churches Together in England use the theme "a new start" as an agenda for the millennium—a message that is at the heart of the Christian Gospel and gives everyone the chance to make something special for the year 2000.
  In the wider context, the Churches are planning to give special millennium candles to every household, and to encourage people to take the candles with them wherever they go on millennium eve. Madam Speaker, along with the Lord Chancellor, has given permission for an ecumenical service of thanksgiving and commemoration to be held at St. Margaret's when the House returns from the Christmas recess in January 2000. The special millennium candle will come with the text of a millennium affirmation, which the Churches hope can be included in the official programme for the celebrations on 31 December 1999.
  With reference to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), on millennium evening the eyes of the world will be on Greenwich. The choice that faced the previous Government and faces the present Government is whether the eyes of the world should focus on a derelict site in the middle of London, or on a dome that has risen from the ground, created by imagination and vision. What image of our country do we want to give the world, as the world contemplates Greenwich mean time and turns its eyes on the great event on 1 January 2000?
  270
  The Government are to be congratulated. My hon. Friend will no doubt suffer
  "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune".
  He will not mind me quoting the words of Robert Browning: his
  "reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?"
  10.7 am
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: I am grateful for the opportunity to add a few words to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser).
  The House will be aware that the dome and the millennium festival were the inspiration of the Millennium Commission, which was set up by the previous Government on a non-partisan basis. A representative of the Labour party was invited to take part. The noble Lord Montague—Michael Montague, as he then was—sat with my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), the former Secretary of State for National Heritage, and me on the Millennium Commission.
  It was always our intention that the distribution of funds of the Millennium Commission should be a non-party process. My hon. Friend was fair to make the point that that degree of commitment remains part of his purpose, and I welcome that.
  As a representative of the Conservative party on the Millennium Commission at the invitation of my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister after the election, I am privy to all the information that is available, to the best of my knowledge. If I want extra information, I can get it.
  The issue of partisan controversy raised its head only once—during the difficulties that arose at the time of the election. I was critical of the Select Committee over what the present Prime Minister did, because Michael Montague had all the information all the way through the Millennium Commission's life, and was clearly supportive of the decisions we took. There was no question about that whatever. It was not until the questions became controversial that the matter was drawn into the office of the then Leader of the Opposition, and the commitments that Michael Montague had made in private were as nothing. I was deeply critical of that process, and remain so to this day.
  Having said that, after the election, when responsibility shifted to the new Government, I was invited to remain a member of the commission. The Minister Without Portfolio has continued to conduct the process of government in a way that I set up when the Conservatives were the Government of the day. Indeed, I hope that he will not mind my saying that it was my suggestion that he play the role that he now plays, because, when the original arrangements were made, the commission was to be wholly responsible for the dispersal of funds, but, as we moved into the process of organising the festival, it became apparent that there were a range of issues in which the Government would have to become involved, the most obvious one being transport infrastructure, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole mentioned. That is not something that the commission could in any way influence, but it is a critical aspect of the delivery of the festival experience. It became clear to me as Deputy Prime Minister that co-ordination at ministerial level was required.

  271
  The second big change that took place was that the original statute passed by this place imposed on the commission a restriction that we could not initiate projects. We had to wait for people to come to us with ideas, which we could then decide to fund, or not. That process was not compatible with organising such a major festival, so it was necessary to set up the New Millennium Experience Company to bring together the private and public sectors and to have co-ordinated ministerial activity to deal with any issues that were difficult in the context of what we were trying to achieve. That having happened, the commitment remained absolute.
  My hon. Friend asked: "What is the purpose? What is the message?" It has not changed: to celebrate the millennium with a great national occasion that shows pride in our past and confidence in the future. It is perfectly true that nobody has tried in public to create a more detailed blueprint of what we are trying to achieve.
  My hon. Friend, with his experience in the travel industry, will know as clearly as the rest of us that, if one is launching a project, one has to be sure that it is subject to detailed criticism and questioning before it is launched. Take a new car, for example. Motor manufacturers go to huge trouble to stop the press getting photographs of cars as they are tested, because they want to have conducted all the tests to destruction until the launch.
  We face the same dilemma with the festival. There is a huge, prodigious weight of work and detail about the contents of the dome. Some of it has leaked—as it does in this day and age—in the national press. There are a vast range of working models, specifications and details, and within a short time-1 know that the Minister will say something about this later this morning—we will be part of the unveiling of the project. I believe that it will be extremely exciting. It will undoubtedly arouse a great deal of interest and controversy. There is no escape from that. One cannot have something like this without everybody having their own ideas about what it should be.
  Those of us who are close to the process have to take decisions. It cannot be done by public consultation. One cannot have 10,000 different views on the dome. Someone has to be in charge and take a decision. That is why we invited Robert Ayling, the chief executive of one of Britain's most successful companies in the international travel business, to become the lead figure in deciding the details and masterminding the execution of the project. He has done that with great diligence.
  I hope that this debate will not concentrate on the weaknesses, difficulties and delays. Now that it is clear that the money will be spent, that the project will happen, our task must surely be to avoid the mistake that our predecessors in 1851 made, which nearly destroyed the great exhibition of that year before it ever took place. Our task is to maximise the national gain and recognise that this is a non-party-controversial issue; it is an all-party endeavour.
  If my hon. Friend ever wants to consult me on these matters, I shall do my best to give him any information he wants. The appointment of Mark McCormack was my responsibility, if I remember correctly. The contract was not signed by the previous Government, but the negotiations with Mr. McCormack certainly began under the previous Government. One can argue whether one
  272
  wants such a fund raiser. That is a perfectly good argument. I was responsible for raising a great deal of the money that has been raised, with Lord Levene.
  It would be the nicest thing in the world to produce a list of the companies that have contributed £150 million-worth, but it does not work like that. Anyone who has ever launched a project knows how the world works. One goes to see the people concerned, at a senior level, because there is no point in going to No. 10 or 15 in the company on an issue such as this. One has to go to the top, and say, "Are you going to back this project?" They say, "What's it all about?" They are told what it is about, and they say, "That's interesting. I think we can play a part in that. Come back when you've got some detail."
  Until one has the most precise detail and can answer every detailed question, they will not sign; but, until they sign, the list cannot be produced. If one gives indicative figures, one can be absolutely sure that the British press, being what they are, will be off to the companies concerned, asking, "Have you signed?", to which the companies will say, "No, we haven't yet signed," so the press will ask, "Well, who is going to do the signing?", to which the companies will say, "The chairman is talking to somebody, but we don't know anything about this."
  That is what goes on in the real world. Then the great British press, conducting themselves as they do, will write, "There are no commitments." Technically, that could be the case, but my own judgment is that the money that I was promised when doing this exercise is on the table today, as it was then.
  That does not mean that there are contracts. I think that there will be contracts, but it does not mean that they have been signed. I think that we are close to the point at which they will start to be signed. I remain as confident as I can be today, as I was at the beginning, that we will raise the money that we intended to raise.
  I have seen suggestions that the project is behind schedule and is out of budget. Yesterday I asked the chief executive of the millennium experience what the position is. The answer was absolutely clear: the project is to time, the critical path is being maintained and the project is within the initial budget.
  My hon. Friend raised an important question: what about the contingency fund? What if the numbers do not come? Will the contingency fund cover it? Of course it will. I made that arrangement. It was my idea to extend the funding of the Millennium Commission to be sure that there was a contingency back-up. What else could one conceivably have done? I personally believe that, if anything, more people will come than we have envisaged.
  I remember vividly my only experience of such a project, the Liverpool garden festival. I can tell my hon. Friends, as not many of them would have been in the House at the time, that, until we opened the Liverpool garden festival, it was aggro all the way. "Give us jobs, not flowers," was the great Liverpool phrase at the time. Once we opened the festival, it became a huge source of pride to the people of Liverpool—so much so that they kept the festival.
  The festival is still there. I wanted to use the land for the building of houses, offices, factories or whatever, but the people of Liverpool became so pleased with the reclamation that they still effectively have the shadow of

  273
  the festival on the banks of the Mersey. We talked about 3 million people corning to the festival in Liverpool, and they came. I remember vividly that the experts who calculate these things, who look at what is happening at Madame Tussaud' s, Alton Towers, and other great places, gave us the figure of 3 million.
  As a Minister with no such experience, but a certain caution about this place, I was not prepared to say that we would get 3 million people, so I gave the classic ministerial reply: "I am advised that we will get 3 million people". Actually, I was too cautious, because we did, and today 6 million visitors a year visit the banks of the Mersey, the Tate and Albert dock. Thus, we are talking about only double the number of people who go to the Albert dock every year.
  In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, the contingency covers all contingencies and has had to do so. Without it, we would never have got the festival off the ground.
  I hope that the House appreciates the fact that the die is cast. This festival will happen. It has the capacity to attract dramatically large numbers of people. It will be very expensive, and we hope to pay significant sums from the private sector. However, the country will gain far more in revenue than the cost of the festival. One has only to calculate the number of people who will come, and the travel, hotel and disbursement costs, to see that the revenue will exceed even the likely outlay of £750 million on the festival experience. Much more important is the symbolism of this country turning the millennium, proud of its past and confident in its future.
  10.20 am
  Mr. John Austin: As a former leader of Greenwich council and a former mayor, I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) for the plaudits that he gave Greenwich council for its vision and determination.
  The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) spoke about the genesis of the dome project. The idea of a millennium celebration came from Greenwich council long before the Millennium Commission was ever established, and it is right to praise it for its determination. Delays in planning have been caused by both the previous and the present Governments. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Henley for his appreciation of the regeneration potential of the millennium celebration.
  Many people envisage Greenwich as a leafy London suburb full of heritage buildings and fine Georgian terraces, but that is not a true picture of the borough or the area of south London in which Greenwich is situated. Greenwich is the right location to celebrate the millennium, because of its association with time, its position on the meridian and its heritage buildings, not just those immediately around the site—the royal naval college, the royal observatory and Hawksmoor church—but the royal arsenal, which sits on 75 acres of derelict industrial land in my former constituency of Woolwich. I doubt whether anywhere else in Britain has such a fine collection of heritage buildings.
  The history of the British empire is in that area. Whenever the British Army went to war, to build the empire or to invade, the troops camped on Woolwich common, went down to the arsenal and boarded the boats. The legacy of that history is the richness of the cultural diversity in Britain today.
  274
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), the Church Commissioner representative, said, a specific aspect of the millennium is important to the Christian community. It is also important to the Muslim community, because the birth of Jesus is a significant event in the Muslim calendar. Nevertheless, I hope that the celebration will reflect the multi-faith and multicultural diversity of today's society.
  I have discussed the regeneration of the area; let me now put it into context. In the borough of Greenwich as a whole, for a long time unemployment has been much higher than the average for outer-London boroughs. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' index of deprivation shows that Greenwich is 14th of all local authority districts in England. Some parts of my constituency are among the most deprived areas in the country.
  The millennium experience is important in terms of regeneration potential, not only for Greenwich but for the whole of the Thames gateway, east London and south-east London, which has lost more jobs in recent years than almost any other part of the United Kingdom. In its heyday, the royal arsenal employed 80,000 people in munitions manufacture, and was the largest factory on one site in western Europe. Today, it is a derelict site that employs no one. Its regeneration depends on the regeneration potential of the millennium site on the peninsula in Greenwich.
  When I first came to Greenwich in 1966, there were scores of manufacturing industries along the river front: foundries, Stones, Vickers, AEI, the Siemens factory. Within a few months of my arrival in Greenwich, GEC took over AEI and announced the closure of that factory, with the loss of 5,000 jobs at a stroke. GEC relocated to Hartlepool, so it is gratifying that the Minister Without Portfolio, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), can give us more jobs back—and with interest.
  We have had years of unemployment and severe skills shortages, but I pay tribute to the local training and enterprise council, Greenwich council and local business, which are building on their skills for the millennium project. The section 106 agreement that has now been reached between Greenwich council and the New Millennium Experience Company will fund the development of local labour and training schemes.
  The millennium exhibition and the dome will be the catalyst for change, breathing new life not only into Greenwich and the Thames gateway, but into London as a whole. The site is one of the most derelict in the country. British Gas has dealt with the problem of decontamination, and English Partnerships, the Government's regeneration agency, has put in the infrastructure. It will be an area not just for the dome but for parks, riverside walks, offices and housing. It is a barren brown-field site, on which 3,000 homes will be built. Given the subject of yesterday's debate, I should have thought that Opposition Members would welcome that housing development on an inner city brown-field site.
  A further 7,000 homes will be built in the area, creating 2,000 construction jobs, 5,000 operational jobs and 3,000 jobs in secondary employment. That will generate an extra

  275
  £500 million in tourist revenue and probably an extra £1 billion in revenue to the economy as a whole, as the right hon. Member for Henley said.
  Mr. Jim Murphy: In the light of my hon. Friend's comments and the comments of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) about Mr. McCormack's role in marketing the millennium dome, about employment generated by the millennium dome and the important role that the right hon. Member for Henley played in terms of the whole structure and idea, will my hon. Friend allow the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) to rise to apologise for, or to qualify or retract, the criticisms of the Minister Without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Henley and the national celebration of our millennium?
  Mr. Austin: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is clear from the hon. Gentleman's sedentary position that he does not wish to comment on that.
  One of the essences of the exhibition is that it will be green; it will be a sustainable development in a car-free zone, with the possible exception of disabled people. The Jubilee line extension will have the largest underground station in western Europe and the capacity to bring 22,000 people an hour to the site. The Deputy Prime Minister has shown his determination to open up the River Thames, which for so long has been a barrier between the north and south of London. It is the least used highway in the capital, and, with its new piers and riverboat services, has the potential to be a vibrant part of the transport system of London. I welcome the opportunity that the millennium exhibition will give.
  There is local concern about residual parking on the periphery of the area. The intention is to have "park-and-sail" and park-and-ride facilities and peripheral car parks. I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) about a park-and-ride facility at Falconwood Field. Will the Minister consider a possible alternative at Dartford Heath, which would enable traffic coming off the M25, M20 and M2 to disgorge into a car park? Public transport could then bring people to the millennium site on motorway standard roads without any incursion into residential areas.
  On the possible car park in Thamesmead, I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to the provision of another pier, so that we can have a park-and-sail rather than a park-and-ride facility.
  Mr. Fraser: Although you are coming to the end of your speech—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman should remember that "you" refers to the Chair.
  Mr. Fraser: Although the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his speech, may I ask him a question? I accept his comments about Greenwich, which I also made in my speech, so it is nice to hear someone else agreeing with me. However, the purpose of the debate is to put an end to the excessive secrecy on this project.
  276
  Does he agree that there should be more accountability to the House for this project, which is purported to be using £780 million of public money?
  Mr. Austin: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I hope that the Minister will give answers to many of his questions when he winds up the debate. It is not just Greenwich or even south-east London that will benefit from the dome and the millennium experience. Of the 30 contracts that have already been let, 25 have gone to United Kingdom companies. Contracts for the steel work and the cabling have benefited Bristol, Bolton and other parts of the country where the project has generated jobs.
  The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), the former Secretary of State for National Heritage, said that the Greenwich area could be the Versailles of London. I think that, given its heritage, it has more to offer than Versailles.
  The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) told the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport:
  "I feel that it is right in the conduct of the nation's affairs every so often for nations to make a great statement of confidence, of great optimism for the future. There could be no more obvious moment to do that than on the anniversary of the millennium itself."
  I hope that all hon. Members agree with that. There were critics of Paxton at the time of the 1851 exhibition. Some people criticised the Minister's grandfather over the Festival of Britain. Those exhibitions were resounding successes, and I believe that the millennium experience will also be a success. When the clock strikes on that midnight hour, all the eyes of the world will be looking jealously at Greenwich and at what we have achieved.
  10.33 am
  Mr. Norman Baker: I shall try to be quick, because I want to leave the Minister Without Portfolio time to respond to the points that have been made. This debate will have provided 85 minutes of discussion on the millennium dome, which is almost six times as long as we have had in this Parliament so far, and I hope that the Minister recognises that there is an appetite for more.
  My party wants the millennium dome to succeed. We are not against the idea of a grand project for the millennium. However, in the spirit of constructive opposition, I want to put some points to the Minister to which I hope he will respond.
  Irrespective of what hon. Members may feel about the project, many people are sceptical, because the Government have failed to sell the message of the millennium dome to the public at large. Many people think that it is a total waste of money, and that £780 million could have been better spent on other projects. Many think that it has been badly handled, and has failed to capture the public's imagination. If the Minister wants the project to succeed, it is up to him to deal with those shortcomings. Many of my constituents would have preferred to celebrate the millennium by having third-world debt repaid or the homeless housed, and I am sorry that that is not part of the Government's plans.
  I have considerable concerns about accountability. Notwithstanding the comments of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), for whom I have great respect, it is incredible that we know so little about the project,

  277
  given that £780 million is a huge sum of public money. When was the last time that that amount of public money was allocated to a project without the House knowing the details? Was it the Chevaline project under the Callaghan Government? The Minister shakes his head. I draw his attention to the Select Committee report, which says that the distinction between lottery money and public money is a distinction without a difference.
  The dome's former creative director, Stephen Bayley, who resigned so publicly, said that he could have constructed something stunning for £100 million. That seems reasonable to me: £40 million for the building; £40 million for the content; and £20 million for the infrastructure. Why do we need to spend £780 million on this project? No justification or explanation has been given as to why such a huge sum is required for a project that most people support, but not to that extent.
  Where is the strategic thinking? If there has been some, it has not been shared with us. The Minister has attempted to keep information from the media whenever possible. We cannot be confident that there has been any strategic direction to the concept of the dome. That is Mr. Bayley's view in his pieces in The Spectator and in the national press. [Interruption.] The Labour party now considers Mr. Bayley persona non grata: he has been written out of new Labour's history books.
  We should listen to him, because he was involved in the project. He argues that it has been the subject of focus groups that come up with different answers on different occasions—
  "bobbing and weaving to intercept public opinion."
  As he puts it:
  "You are on message or you are off the job."
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, but the two Front-Bench spokesmen must have time to finish the debate.
  What will be inside the dome? The right hon. Member for Henley said that we should not expect to know, but the details that have emerged have varied. One week it is to be a Christian festival, then there was Japan and Walt Disney.
  I am not clear that there has been any strategic thinking about the project. Even now, the plans for the inside have not been properly sorted out. It is a bit late in the day to go to Disneyland to scratch around for ideas while the millennium clock is ticking away. Perhaps the Minister could arrange to have a countdown clock erected on one of the pins in his pin cushion to remind everyone, and especially him, just how few days are left until 31 December 1999.
  The Minister may remember the words of Bob Ayling from the New Millennium Experience Company, who told the Select Committee that he "could not guarantee" that the timetable would not slip. I have no doubt that it will be met, but things may have to be botched for the dome to open on time. It should be a first-rate project, not a second-rate one, which is how it appears at the moment.
  The Select Committee concluded that a comprehensive contingency plan has not yet reached its final form. That is extraordinary, given that we are so near the final date.
  278
  It recommended that such a plan should be completed as a matter of urgency. Moreover, no accounts have yet been published.
  The Minister must recognise that we need greater public accountability. We want not just 10 minutes' worth once a month from the Minister, and not just written answers, but substantive replies.
  The millennium dome is a bright idea that has been sadly mismanaged by the Minister Without Portfolio. Constant changes of direction have prevented it from commanding the public support that it could have commanded.
  I am sorry that I have no time to elaborate on the points I have made. The public are not committed to the project; hon. Members may be, but I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is a lot of work to be done if it is to meet its deadline.
  10.40 am
  Mr. Francis Maude: I am delighted that, at long last, we have an opportunity to debate this important issue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) on choosing the topic, and on his success in the ballot.
  No one questions that the millennium should be celebrated in a uniquely memorable way. It will be a date, and a year, of extraordinary resonance for everyone—a Christian celebration above all, of course, but not just that. The last Government were right to commit themselves and the nation to a splendid exhibition, and we certainly do not resile from that original vision. I pay warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), whose vision it was, and without whom the project would not be possible today. I know how much passion and commitment he has put into it, and we are all delighted that he is still involved and committed to making it work.
  Ms Claire Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: Let me at least get started.
  If my right hon. Friend were not there with his experience, wisdom and weight, we shudder to think what state the project would now be in.
  Ms Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: I have very little time, and I do not want to impinge on the Minister's time.
  When it was unveiled, the project had remarkable—almost universal—support. Its majestic scope and vision commanded respect, even awe. How is it, then, that, in a few short months, the dome has become an object of ridicule—a laughing stock; a music hall joke—so that no cartoon is complete without a gibe at it, and no stand-up comedian's routine ends without a jeer at it? How could a project that carried such high hopes, and on whose success so much national prestige rides, have been allowed to fall so low?
  The Minister Without Portfolio is someone whom Conservative Members, at any rate, admire—even respect. He is perhaps the foremost master of the art of presentation in this century—[Laughter.]—and possibly

  279
  in the next millennium as well: who can say?—if he lasts that long, of course. How is it, then, that he has failed so signally to mobilise any sense of national purpose and ownership in relation to this, our most eminent national project?
  Ms Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: I really do not want to. I have very little time.
  The aim was that the British people should genuinely unite in an upsurge of rejoicing and national celebration; but—I say this with melancholy—the dream has turned sour. The Minister could not resist turning a great national project into a new Labour stunt. In short, he hijacked it: he appropriated it to his hubristic scheme to "rebrand Britain". In some mysterious way, the millennium experience—as it was now to be named—was to be a symbol of new Labour. In its current state, it is an unhappily apt emblem: it is all packaging and no content.
  Since the Minister took charge in June, there has been an unbroken history of error, disorder and ridicule. No sooner has one embarrassment been swept away than another emerges to humiliate the hon. Gentleman, to the ill-concealed glee of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  There has been the dithering over whether to continue with the project at all, the Front-Bench team having rubbished it in the most offensive terms when in opposition, for cynical political gain. There has been the back-tracking over the covering, with the Deputy Prime Minister—taking time off from baiting the Minister Without Portfolio casually insulting British contractors, and the subsequent threats of legal action by the rejected firm. There has been the disclosure that the Jubilee line extension may be able to carry only a fraction of the number of visitors that the Minister predicts.
  There have been the rows and resignations involving Sir Cameron Mackintosh and Eric Sorensen, and the anxieties recently expressed by Michael Grade. There has been the departure of Stephen Bayley, lambasting the Minister for his management and decisions. There has been the dispute with Sir Terence Conran over whether Christianity should have a place at all—Sir Terence believing, to general astonishment, that it should have none, and the Minister, in a desperate bid to please everyone, saying first that the Christian faith will be central, and then that the dome will be for "all faiths and none". There has been the stinging criticism by the Labour-packed Select Committee, whose report stated:
  "From what we know so far, the Millennium Experience is not so much a journey through time as, at any rate for those of us not made privy to the plans, a journey into the unknown."
  There have been the pleas from a growing number of the Minister's own Back Benchers that he should come clean and account to the House for how the money is being spent. There has been the decision to more than double the commitment of lottery money to the project—to the detriment of deserving community projects up and down the land—to fill the private-sector funding gap caused by the Minister's own party's cynical rubbishing of the project when it was in opposition.
  There are the continuing question marks over whether the decontamination work on the site is being undertaken thoroughly and deeply enough, and whether the rush to
  280
  save the Minister's reputation means that corners are being cut. There has recently been serious concern about the safety of construction workers on the site, and fears have been expressed that there is so much pressure on them to work quickly that precautions are being neglected.
  I am sure that the Minister saw that story in the Sunday newspapers. One quotes a worker as saying:
  "there seemed to be a drive to complete the Dome in time for the Millennium".
  [Laughter.] Hon. Members who claim to be concerned about workers' rights may want to hear how the report continues. The worker said:
  "there seemed to be a drive to complete the Dome in time for the Millennium, whatever the potential risk. 'Some abseilers are working 12-hour shifts with only a short break for lunch when the law requires a break of 10 minutes every four hours.
  'It's all part of the pressure put on people around the Dome. We're told that only good publicity must be heard about the project.'"
  I hope that the Minister will allay our fears about that.
  Then there were the Minister's portentous announcements on his visits to the House that the project would be marked by a park-and-sail scheme, and that he proposed to appoint a junior board to provide him with much-needed inspiration. I predict that his response today will be marked by some announcement of comparable bathos, for all the world as if the House of Commons should be treated like the Red Lion at lunchtime.
  There was the Minister's visit to Florida. "It will not be a theme park," he tells us—so he jets off at the taxpayer's expense to gain inspiration from Disneyworld, that well-known non-theme park. Are we to have a transatlantic cousin of Mickey Mouse on the Thames—Mandy Mouse, perhaps?
  There has been the Prime Minister's trawl of Tokyo for sponsors. It really is time for the Minister to come clean. He can no longer hide behind a code that was designed to protect companies, not Ministers.
  Ms Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: I have no time to give way, much as I admire the hon. Lady's fierce criticism and questioning of witnesses—including her hon. Friend the Minister—on the Committee. We all read it with interest and admiration.
  Ms Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No, I simply have no time.
  As I have said, the Minister should no longer seek to hide behind a code of conduct on disclosure that was designed not to protect Ministers, as he seems to think, but to protect companies. Why can he not now publish interim accounts? What is the money actually being spent on? What will be the entrance fee? The Minister points at his watch; I shall give him as much time as I have had. I am confident that, as—we are told—the second most powerful man in the Government, and with his influence in the Government, the Minister could arrange extra time to hold himself accountable if he chose to; but we know that he does not choose to.
  What basis is there for predicting that 12 million people will visit the dome, when the British museum—currently the most popular attraction for visitors—has half that

  281
  number each year with no charges, and when the biggest paid-for attraction has a sixth of that number? What guarantee is there that the Jubilee line will be able to carry even a fraction of that number?
  Who will pick up the bill if there are fewer visitors than expected? How many commitments of sponsorship has the Minister received? Can he assure the House that men's lives are not being placed at risk because of the mad rush to save his reputation? Does he understand the depth of concern about the contents? Some 20 unheard-of jobs, surtball, the 21st century game. and food from around the world will seem a little flat unless more can be added.
  Will the Minister give a firm undertaking that the announcement about the dome's contents on 24 February will be made openly in a statement in the House, and not in some glitzy multi-media press conference elsewhere? The stark reality facing the Minister is that secrecy and arrogance carry their own penalties. If he had been open in answering the questions that we have been asking for months, he would not face reports such as that which appears in a national publication under the heading "Jobs for the Boys":
  "Eight months since his appointment, it is clear that the most feared member of Tony Blair's inner circle has used those powers of patronage to put business the way of a close associate of a major party backer."
  I cannot say whether that story is true, but such allegations are the harvest of secrecy and arrogance.
  We wish the project well, but we fear for it. If the Minister cannot come clean and reassure the millions of people who are concerned that public money is being wasted, the project may be doomed.
  10.50 am
  The Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): If the speech by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was to wish the project well, I shudder to think what he would sound like if he were attacking the millennium experience and what we are doing. He attacked the health and safety record. There have been three accidents on the site. One was a minor cut on an elbow on 1 August last year, and there were two examples of bruising: one when a dumper moved forward while someone was standing next to the wheel, and another when a person was standing beside a wheel that entered a rut. There is no health and safety problem at the site, and we are proud of that record.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) on initiating the debate. He said that I would be hanged, but he is a little premature, because I do not feel so much lynched as liberated by his speech. The debate gives me the opportunity to file an encouraging progress report.
  Construction is on time. If anything, it is ahead of time. Spending is within budget, costs are firmly under control, and the creative development of the dome's contents has leaped ahead. Arrangements for the national programme are well in hand. The millennium company is performing highly competently. It is doing a job of the utmost importance to the country, and it thoroughly deserves our support.
  I am pleased to say that, of 99 construction contracts that have been let to date, 90 have been awarded to British companies or to the British arm of major international firms. That is a great tribute to British engineering and
  282
  construction genius, and represents an enormous return and benefit to many people and communities throughout the country.
  Much has been said about alleged secrecy and lack of accountability—I notice the lack of time that I have been given to reply to the debate. The New Millennium Experience Company is accountable to Parliament in the same way as any other non-departmental public body. Unlike any other such body that I can think of, its affairs have been the subject of nearly 150 parliamentary questions since the summer. It has been subjected to a thorough inquiry by a Select Committee, to which I pay tribute. As the company's shareholder, I answer questions for 10 minutes a month.
  Mr. John Hayes rose—
  Ms Diane Abbott rose—
  Mr. Mandelson: Perhaps my hon. Friends will forgive me if I do not give way.
  It is worth taking a minute to remember where the project stood this time last year. In January 1997, the project did not even have planning permission. Work had not begun to clear the site of 150 years' worth of polluting chemicals. The company had a small board and an energetic chief executive, but little else—no staff, no money, no offices and no business plan.
  It was courageous of the Conservative Government to take on such a bold and complex project. When we reviewed it in May, I make no apologies for saying that we thought hard about whether it could be delivered. We decided that it could be, and that it should be. I think that that was the right decision, as did the Select Committee of which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is a member.
  That is enough of history: the debate should be about the future, and in addressing it I shall comment on the Opposition's role. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the Opposition representative, who spoke eloquently in the debate, has played a full, helpful and thoroughly constructive role. I pay tribute to his wisdom and vigour throughout, without which we would not be where we are. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind me quoting what he said recently about my role. He said:
  "I think that the Minister Without Portfolio is doing his job as well as it can be done."
  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I travel in hope that good will of that kind will extend to all wings of the Conservative party.
  It is prudent for us all, and especially for Opposition Members, to remember that the millennium dome being constructed is exactly the same as the one that was conceived by the Conservative party. It is to the same plan; it has the same goals; the same company is building it; it has the same system of accountability, the same Mark McCormack, the same budget and costs, and the same revenue projections and halo effect for the national economy. There is just more progress in delivering it.
  I accept that the Conservative party has nothing to thank me for, but I hope that Conservative Members can

  283
  find it in themselves on this issue to put country before party, and restore the bipartisan basis of the millennium celebration. I told the Select Committee:
  "if we fail to deliver it, we shall never be forgiven. If it succeeds, as I am confident it will, it will never be forgotten."
  I want everyone, including those in the Conservative party to share in its success. I hope that they will not remove themselves from it.
  The site at Greenwich is now clear, the dome is growing before our eyes, designers are working on the content, and, under the excellent management of the board and chief executive, the project is on time and on budget. The right hon. Member for Henley has testified to that.
  When we decided in June to back the previous Government's decision on the millennium experience, it was on the basis of five clear commitments. They were, first, that it would cost no more to the taxpayer than the sum that had already been committed to prepare the site. We will stand by that commitment. The second commitment was that the contents would entertain and inspire, and they will.
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Mandelson: In view of the time, I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way.
  Our third commitment was that it would be a truly national event. It will be. Our fourth was that it will provide a lasting legacy—and it will—and the fifth was that the management structure of the company would be strengthened by the best creative and business talent
  284
  that was available. It has been so strengthened. Those commitments set a challenging agenda for the Government and the company, and in many ways the questions and issues that have been raised in debate focus on that agenda.
  We have been asked about cost. The project is developing well within the set budget of £758 million. That is not all public or lottery money. Only about half that amount is lottery grant from the Millennium Commission.
  As for content, it is true that "Guess what will be in the dome" has become something of a national sport. Much as I hate to spoil the nation's fun, we will be giving away yet more of the secrets, in February, when we unveil some of the designers' working models.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) rightly stressed the millennium's importance as a Christian anniversary. I assure the House that that will be reflected in the dome's contents and in the national programme.
  In June, when I became shareholder, I felt that our greatest challenge was the national impact—how to engage and involve individuals and communities in a project whose physical focus was in Greenwich. We have been working very hard on that, and I should like to express my grateful thanks to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport, for Education and Employment, for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland for their help and support in developing the national programme.
  As every day passes, not only job creation is becoming clearer but—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Road Safety
11 am
Mr. Michael Wills: I am very grateful for this opportunity to bring an important—but, unfortunately, not new—matter to the House's attention. Since 1992, as far as I can discover, the House has had 27 debates, 35 oral questions, 514 written questions and 21 early-day motions on road safety. Nevertheless, last year, 3,500 people lost their life on our roads. All of those people lost their lives tragically, and most of them did so avoidably.
Another 48,000 people were seriously injured on the roads, and, although there has been a decrease in fatalities in the past 10 years, the rate of decrease has slowed considerably in recent years. In the past three years, the figures have been virtually static. Since at least the early 1980s, there has been no significant change in the total number of injuries on our roads.
Perhaps that dreadful litany is becoming so familiar that people are becoming immune to it; they accept death on the roads as another fact of life. However, the figures are unacceptable, and we must keep reminding ourselves of that.
Throughout history, human beings have learnt how to do many wonderful things, but we have not yet learnt how to avoid each year more than 50,000 avoidable human tragedies. In 150 years, I believe that people will look back and wonder how we could have tolerated the situation for so long—just as we look back now and wonder how, 150 years ago, children were allowed to work down the mines or up chimneys. The dreadful situation cannot continue unchanged forever, because it is, literally, intolerable. However, until we do find ways of tackling it, thousands more lives will be lost, and even more lives will be wrecked.
Like so many hon. Members, perhaps the most heartbreaking cases that I have dealt with in my surgery have been those of relatives of victims of car crashes. How can we not respond to stories such as that of the man who came to me and told me how his wife was driving home with his daughter along a narrow country road, when a car driven on the wrong side of the road and way over the speed limit by a young man—who was not drunk—smashed into their car. His wife was taken from the car alive, but, unfortunately, she died a few minutes later on the grass verge in the arms of her daughter.
Such stories are all too familiar. In one awful moment, lives are changed for ever, devastated by a dreadful loss that those of us who have not experienced one can only imagine with awe. Their pain continues through every waking hour, although it is not only over the loss of someone whom they have loved—although, God knows, that is hard enough. Every one of them has told me that what hurts so much is the fact that their loss was so avoidable.
I asked for this debate for those reasons, and I am grateful for the opportunity to suggest some possible positive action. We will not be able to begin to change the situation until we understand why it persists.
No one could possibly be in favour of continuing such carnage, and many people daily continue to do their best to change the situation. Successive Governments have been committed to promoting road safety. The police do
286
their very best—and more. I have been struck by the heartfelt tributes paid by victims' relatives to the police's dedication and sensitivity in dealing with road accidents. Motoring and road safety organisations do admirable work in campaigning for change, in which they are supported by responsible businesses.
Why are we seemingly unable to make more progress in dealing with that blight on our society? There are no easy or simple answers, and I do not want to suggest that there are. There are many reasons for the appalling casualty levels on our roads, such as: momentary human error, which nothing will every completely eradicate; badly maintained vehicles; and dangerous roads and road conditions. Above all, however, it is clear that responsibility lies with dangerous human behaviour. If we are to change such behaviour, we must change our toleration of it.
Successful action has been taken in dealing with one specific form of dangerous behaviour: driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. We now have to tackle more effectively our toleration of all forms of dangerous driving. Clearly anyone who drinks and drives exposes himself and others to great risk; but surely a driver who aggressively speeds is equally culpable? Speeding has been shown to be a factor in more than a third of all accidents. Although the danger of speeding should be reflected in the sentences passed by courts, sadly, that does not seem to be happening.
Although I stress that the figures are not conclusive—they cannot be conclusive, because they involve difficult matters of the relative ease of proof—the courts seem to treat motoring offences causing death or bodily harm more seriously if drugs or alcohol are involved. A motorist is twice as likely to be acquitted of a motoring offence causing death or bodily harm if alcohol or drugs are not involved than if they are.
Why should dealing more severely with dangerous driving be axiomatically justifiable? Surely any person guilty of aggressive, dangerous behaviour should be treated as equally culpable. I cannot understand the logic of arguing that someone who causes death by driving aggressively is somehow less culpable than someone who causes death because he has drunk too much.
The issue of aggressive driving lies at the heart of the problem. Anyone who drives a car sees examples daily of such dangerous behaviour as speeding aggressively, tail-gating and reckless overtaking. The fact is that 80 per cent. of road deaths do not involve alcohol; they involve dangerous driving by sober people.
Characterising much of that dangerous driving is the type of aggressive behaviour biologically associated with young males. Of course not all men are dangerous drivers, just as all dangerous drivers are not men. Many women are dangerous drivers, and not all young men are dangerous drivers. Many dangerous drivers are older than 24. The facts, however, speak for themselves. A male driver is two and a half times more likely than a female driver to be involved in a road accident causing death or serious injury. A young male driver aged 17 is three times more likely than a 17-year-old female driver to be involved in a road accident causing death or serious injury.
Such differentials between men and women drivers are apparent regardless of how one considers the figures—whether in rates per thousand licence holders or rates

287
per thousand kilometres travelled. Moreover, the figures show also that male drivers are far mor1e likely than female drivers to have an accident when overtaking or going round a bend—a particularly avoidable type of accident, which often signals a particular aggression or recklessness. Significantly, there is a steady decline in the likelihood of that type of accident occurring when a male driver is over 24 years of age.
In the 21-to-24 age group, more than twice as many male drivers as female drivers have accidents overtaking. A male driver aged 21 to 24 is 80 per cent. more likely than a female driver in that age group to be involved in a single-vehicle accident—another particularly avoidable type of accident.
The figures suggest that, as much as anything else, attitude—the aggression that is associated with but, unfortunately, not confined to the behaviour of young men—causes death and injury on the roads. If we can stop the carnage caused by testosterone-crazed young men and those who act like them, we will not stop death on the roads, but we will make a significant start in reducing the current obscene levels.
How can that be done? Many measures have been suggested by campaigning organisations, and I see merit in many of them. Today, I shall focus on a few that could help bring about the sea change in culture which is so desperately needed.
We need to send clearer and stronger signals that dangerous driving will not be tolerated. In the past, such signals have not been as strong and clear as they could have been because we have a central ambivalence about the motor car. The motor car has been a great force for personal liberation in the 20th century; it has brought the freedom of individual and autonomous travel to millions of people. For the past 50 years, more and more people have enjoyed the great benefits that motor cars can bring. Now, we are coming to terms with the costs.
Environmental consequences are now central to Government and public policy, but unfortunately the same does not appear to be true of the role of the car as a lethal weapon. Every year, there are five times as many road deaths as murders, yet the Home Office does not appear to consider that road safety should be a core activity for the police. Relatives of victims frequently complain that the system is too lenient. Constituents of mine who have suffered such tragedies all complain bitterly—and with evidence—about how lightly the death of their loved ones seems to be treated by the legal system. There is evidence to bear them out.
Between 1993 and 1995, for example, more than 25 per cent. of those convicted for causing death by dangerous or careless driving escaped a custodial sentence. All too often, the treatment of driving offences seems to be governed by the feeling of "There but for the grace of God go I", and its companion instinct that driving offences should not be treated as severely as other offences.
That attitude perilously conflates two quite different phenomena: on one hand, the momentary lapse, of which we are all capable, and on the other, the persistent dangerous driving of a minority which is responsible for the majority of serious crashes. All too often, the belief that we are all capable of occasional error seems to
288
mitigate the treatment of criminally dangerous driving, which is quite different and could and should be seen as such. We need to send out different signals. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to doing so. I shall suggest just a few measures which might help.
I suggest three reforms of the licensing system. The age threshold for a driving licence should be raised from 17 to 18. Figures show that casualties decrease with age. That partly reflects the fact that inexperience is an important factor in road casualties—the more one drives, the safer one gets—but age is significant. The figures are clear. In 1991, for example, the rate of casualties for male drivers of 100 million vehicle km fell 40 per cent. between the ages of 17 and 18. It fell a further third between the ages of 18 and 19, and a further 15 per cent. between the ages of 19 and 20. The rate for those aged between 21 and 24 was half that for those aged between 25 and 34.
Driving experience alone cannot account for that steady decline over age. Maturity, too, must be a critical factor. If we believe that someone is not sufficiently mature to exercise the right to vote until they are 18 years old, I see no reason why we should believe that someone is mature enough to take control of a lethal weapon before that age. Changing the age threshold would send an important signal about how seriously we should take the act of driving.
In the same spirit, I suggest that everyone should take a driving test every five years. That would be a powerful discipline for us all. A five-yearly assessment of our ability to drive responsibly would remind everyone on the roads of the fact that they are in charge of a lethal weapon—something that all too many forget.
The third reform is minor but culturally significant. We should take action to tackle the problem of motorbike deliveries. At the moment, anyone who wants to deliver pizzas, be a courier or undertake any other commercial activity on a motorbike can do so without having to pass a driving test. Although people are required to undergo compulsory basic training, they do not have to pass a driving test before they take on work that involves travelling long distances under great pressure on roads on which they are most likely to have accidents. What kind of signal does that send? If we are serious about improving safety on the roads, a minimum requirement should be to ensure that those whose work renders them more likely to be involved in accidents have passed a test of driving competence.
My second area of suggestions relates to the policing of road safety. We need to give the police more support. Road safety must be made a core priority for the police. What message is sent by the fact that it is not? We must give them the tools to do the job. Every policeman to whom I have spoken has asked for more speed cameras. Let us give them such cameras. The Association of Chief Police Officers has made an eminently sensible suggestion about how to pay for the cameras: that an administrative charge be levied for each convicted offender. Implementing that need not breach any Treasury principle or create any precedent. All the evidence suggests how effective an increase in the number of speed cameras would be in disciplining dangerous driving.
I should like to suggest two changes to the legislative framework. This area is critical. Law and its implementation sends powerful messages about a

289
society's values. The road safety organisation, Brake, has suggested that, where death or injury has been directly caused by dangerous driving or by using a vehicle in a dangerous condition, there should be only a charge either of manslaughter or grievous bodily harm, and that the option of the less serious charge of careless driving should be removed. I support that proposal.
The legal leap between a charge of causing death by dangerous driving and manslaughter is not great, but the signal that such a change would convey is. It would signal that killing someone with a car is not somehow different from killing someone in another way so that it merits a different charge. It is exactly the same and should be treated in exactly the same way.
I recognise that some may argue that juries would be reluctant to convict if any more serious charges were available, but that argument does not stand up to close scrutiny. Even if juries were less likely to convict, it would only be because they did not believe that the offences were sufficiently serious to merit such punishment. How are we ever going to change such an attitude, which—I hope—I have demonstrated is profoundly wrong, if courts persistently offer offenders no more than the traditional equivalent of a slap on the wrist?
Whatever sentences the courts impose, they need to send a clear signal that there can be no universal right to drive without a clear acceptance of the serious responsibilities that go with it. If individuals reject the responsibilities, they should forfeit the right. My proposal is simply that, for anyone convicted of dangerous driving, whether or not it results in death or injury, there should be an automatic ban from driving for three years. Any three such convictions should result in a lifetime ban—three strikes and out.
I recognise that some people may object to the proposal because they are worried by the removal of the traditional discretion in sentencing, but the proposal maintains such discretion in every area other than in respect of the licence. Others may worry about severe penalties being imposed for momentary lapse—the "There but for the grace of God go I" argument—but the jury would retain the discretion to decide whether a person is guilty, and the sentence would be able to distinguish between a one-off error and persistently dangerous behaviour.
It may also be argued that there is little point in banning more people from driving when such bans are routinely imposed. Every year, the number of those found guilty of driving while disqualified amounts to about 25 per cent. of those disqualified in that year. That is not an argument against extending driving bans but an argument for tightening enforcement and the penalties for driving while disqualified. Perhaps automatic confiscation of the cars of those found guilty of such an offence might encourage greater compliance with the law.
For those who complain about such measures on libertarian grounds, I suggest that they are shown a video of interviews with relatives of victims of such dangerous driving, which—I hope—would encourage them to make a clearer distinction between liberty and licence. I suspect that, after a few examples of such lifetime bans, we would start to see a new spirit of discipline in drivers who currently feel that it is quite acceptable to tail-gate for 30 miles down a motorway or overtake at 50 mph on a narrow winding country road.
290
Of course I recognise that change will not come overnight, but such measures, and others like them which have been proposed by those who are very concerned with such issues, could begin to make a difference. The reforms, unlike so many others, do not run into the familiar problem of costing money. The long-term economics all in favour of such changes. In 1996, the cost to society of road casualties was calculated by the Department of Transport to total £11 billion a year. That is £3.3 billion for accidents causing a fatality, £4.8 billion for accidents causing a serious injury, and £2.75 billion for accidents causing a slight injury. Just think what a fraction of that—even a 10 per cent. reduction—could do for our pensioners, our schools and our health service. Think of the difference that that would make to the 1,500 people who would otherwise be dead and the 24,000 who would otherwise be seriously injured.
Every debate and every question in this place that does not achieve a significant reduction in those dreadful statistics diminishes the stature of the House. What use is Parliament if we cannot save those whom we represent from such avoidable and needless tragedies? Whatever the Government's view of my proposals, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us real hope that we can make a difference, and make those dreadful statistics a thing of the past.
11.19 am
Mr. Charles Wardle: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) on obtaining the debate. I associate myself with many of his remarks, particularly what he said about grieving families. I am sure that we all have experience of tragic situations such as those that he described.
I should like to raise two matters briefly. First, had I not been here this morning, I would have been in my constituency for the local launch by the Highways Agency of the Government's 1998 child pedestrian safety campaign at Mountfield and Whatlington primary school at John's Cross on the A21, where the speed limit has recently been halved because of the need to restrict speeding.
The Highways Agency, the county council and Sussex police have all had to contend with the dilemma of needing to keep traffic moving down the A21 while also putting sensible restrictions in place, as has been done at Hurst Green, a little further north on the A21. The community is relieved that that has now been accomplished at John's Cross as well. I hope that the campaign is successful throughout the country. It is vital that children learn at the earliest possible age the importance of road safety, starting as pedestrians.
My second point touches on the kind of case to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. I was approached last week by two constituents—Mr. and Mrs. Gildea of Battle—whose son Christian was killed on 6 December while cycling back to Battle from the Conquest hospital. Christian Gildea, who was in his 20s, had obtained a degree and then decided to become a doctor. He started from scratch, taking two fresh A-levels at Hastings college. To keep himself in employment and get some experience, he found work at the Conquest hospital. He cycled to Hastings college and to the hospital. He was killed by a young driver who admitted that he had been travelling at 60 mph and had lost control of his vehicle. That young driver, who is no doubt as shocked as anyone by what happened, was fined for careless driving.

291
Mr. and Mrs. Gildea asked me to press for cyclists on the highway to wear helmets and illuminated flashes. I hope that the Minister will consider that. I am sure that she is already thinking about it. Mr. and Mrs. Gildea pointed out poignantly that wearing a helmet would not have saved their son, but they would like to work for road safety for others, particularly young cyclists, as a memorial to their son. I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to the wearing of helmets by youngsters doing paper rounds or anybody of any age on a bicycle on the highway. If helmets can save one life or illuminated flashes can cause one motorist to avoid a cyclist, they must be worth while.
11.23 am
Mr. David Kidney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) on securing a debate on such an important subject, and on his thoughtful contribution. I particularly appreciate what he said about the relatives of people killed in accidents. We should bear in mind that every death on our roads is needless and tragic, causing great pain to the bereaved families. I appreciated his call for the criminal legal system to take such deaths more seriously and to reflect the pain that we are all caused in the charges and the sentences.
I initiated a similar debate last November, which makes this the second debate on road safety in just three months. That shows how seriously the House takes the subject—and so it should. The number of deaths and injuries on our roads is still too high. For every murder victim, six people die on our roads.
In November I made two requests to the Minister. The first was for a lowering of the blood alcohol concentration limit from 80 mg per 100 ml of blood to 50 mg. The second was for the police to be helped with the cost of speed cameras through an administration fee added to the fines for speeders—a request repeated by my hon. Friend this morning. It has been pleasing to hear public statements since then that the Government are considering both issues. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us about progress on them.
The number of deaths caused by drinking and driving fell sharply in the 1980s, but in recent years the death toll has remained stubbornly at about 10 every week. We can do more to reduce the loss of life caused by drinking and driving by lowering the limit and enforcing it effectively. Happily, I am not alone in believing that reducing the limit from 80 mg to 50 mg will save lives. Professor Richard Allsop, of University college London, was quoted in The Independent on 19 January as saying that a reduction of 100 fatalities a year could be achieved by it.
There is much debate about whether we should introduce random breath testing or an unfettered discretion for the police on breath testing. That is an important debate, but I shall not delay the House with the subtleties of it. It is important for drivers to know that drinking and driving will be detected.
Last Christmas was the first when all 43 police forces in England and Wales routinely tested all drivers involved in road crashes. That was not just a Christmas campaign—the practice is here to stay all year. The message to those who take the risk of drinking and driving is clear: "Your crime will be detected and you will be punished."
292
My hon. Friend also talked about driving under the influence of drugs. That is the subject of a three-year research programme organised by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Police officers regularly tell me that the difficulty is detection at the road side. Drug-influenced driving is not as simple as the breath test for alcohol. I hope that the research will lead to the development of devices to assist the police on that.
My hon. Friend talked in great detail about the problems of speeding. As he said, research suggests that speeding is a contributory factor in one third of road crashes. Speed may be excessive by being beyond the legal limit or simply inappropriately fast for the conditions. Reducing speeding will cut the number of road crashes, saving lives and lessening the number of injuries. This has been proved in Stafford—the town which I have the honour to represent—where a vigorous speed reduction policy, including the widespread use of speed cameras, has reduced road crashes and injuries; hence my interest in helping the police to mount and maintain such effective enforcement. If the police receive an administration fee, charged with every fine imposed for speeding, they could uphold the law more comprehensively.
Speed also kills children, who are particularly vulnerable to death and injury on our roads. Usually, the danger arises in close proximity to their homes. Therefore, I particularly welcome recent Government initiatives aimed at protecting our children. I am pleased that this year's transport policies and programmes give priority to safer routes to school projects. These promote safety engineering schemes in the vicinity of schools, such as self-enforcing 20 mph zones and traffic calming measures. In Stafford, the borough council is concentrating very limited resources on such schemes.
I am pleased also, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) mentioned, that the Government are retaining the successful Hedgehog education campaign for children, with the message "Stop, Look, Listen, Live." I also wish to praise my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton)—who is not here today—who yesterday proposed her Home Zones Bill.
I sometimes feel that road safety lacks the priority that it deserves. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon pointed out, it is not a core national priority for the police to tackle traffic matters. I am heartened by this second debate in the House within three months, and by the Government initiatives that I have mentioned. I hope that we are getting across to the public the message that alongside our right to drive is our responsibility; a responsibility to ourselves and to others. Reducing death and injury on our roads is a collective responsibility.
11.31 am
Mr. Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) on raising this issue—an issue that has probably touched us all. My grandmother was killed in a road accident. She was old and could not see or hear well. She stepped off the pavement and, unfortunately, was hit by a car. The dad of my best friend at school was killed in a car crash, as was the son of close friends of the family. The issue has probably affected each and every one of us.

293
Road safety is a matter for the Government, local government, the police, voluntary groups and schools—often working in partnership. However, there are some things that we as hon. Members can do to improve road safety. I should like to run through a couple of those.
I arrived here breathless and in a hurry at 11 o'clock because I had been outside with Friends of the Earth, which is publicising the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill, which comes to the House on Friday. The more hon. Members who are present to show their support for that private Member's Bill the better, and I welcome the Government's support for it.
The Government can encourage Members of Parliament to use their bicycles, thereby reducing the number of cars on the road. I have asked whether a cycling allowance could be made available to hon. Members who use their bikes for parliamentary business, and I understand that that suggestion is under review. I hope that the Government will respond positively. Anyone on a bike means one less journey in a car, and that helps road safety.
Hon. Members have mentioned speed cameras. My party's view is that responsibility for them should lie with local authorities, particularly if it involves an automated process. I should like local authorities to have the power to collect fines, as the system would be more effective for that. According to constituents who write to me regularly, local councils in London are all too effective at enforcing parking regulations, now that they are responsible for traffic law enforcement.
As well as helping to improve road safety, road safety measures will help the Government to meet their commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. Law reforms have been mentioned, and there is a case to be answered in terms of the appropriateness of fines. Is it right that the fixed penalty fine for speeding is less than the fine for dropping litter? There is perhaps a question mark over the value judgments that we are making on road safety.
In one matter—the "Speed Kills" campaign recently launched by the Government—better co-ordination would help road safety. My local superintendent said that the first he knew about the campaign was when he saw posters for it. Perhaps he had not read the correspondence, or perhaps the information had not been circulated, but there was not the co-ordination between the police and the Home Office that existed over the drink-drive campaign. That may have been a localised problem, but there may be a need for greater co-ordination between Departments on that issue.
I welcome the importance that the Government attach to road safety and the fact that the Labour party manifesto gave priority to road safety. It stated that cycling and walking must be made safer, especially around schools. However, the budget allocated for local safety schemes has been reduced from £60 million to £50 million in the next financial year—something at which the Government must look.
I have one further concrete and effective proposal for improving road safety. It relates to speed, which, as we have heard, is a contributory factor in up to one third of accidents. The briefing on the subject—which many hon. Members will have received—states that, for every 1 mph reduction in average traffic speeds, deaths are reduced by 7 per cent. and casualties by 5 per cent. I suggest that the
294
Government act to stop the sale of speed camera detectors, which are on sale openly and, in some cases, illegally in Tottenham Court road. My researcher can give the Minister the addresses of the premises that are selling speed camera detectors.
I have here a flyer for a company, which was sent to me by a constituent, Mrs. Houghton, who asked me to investigate the matter. The flyer gives details of speed camera detectors, and describes features such as a one-mile range for detecting cameras and the fact that it can pick up radar.
I am pleased to say that the Advertising Standards Authority has investigated and found against that company. Hopefully, it is no longer putting out flyers that alarm drivers by asking what they would do if they could not drive their car, and adding that speeding attracts fines of up to £2,500. The flyer encourages people to buy a product that will help them to break the law. In that case, action has been taken, but if action is taken at the point where the flyer has been distributed, it is too late. It will have gone through people's doors, and people will be aware of the product.
Mr. Alan Clark: Only a Liberal could argue for making illegal something that encourages one to remain within the law. The hon. Gentleman said that the detector would make it easier for people to break the law, but surely the whole point is that it gives prior warning and that only a complete lunatic would then proceed to break the law.
Mr. Brake: Hon. Members will judge for themselves whether people purchasing the detector are trying to stay within the law or will use it to break the law.
The Home Office view is not terribly helpful, because it judges that primary legislation, which would be needed to deal with the problem, is not at present justified. My view is that the Home Office should take a much firmer line on any such product and should ensure that it cannot be sold openly and, in some cases, illegally, in Tottenham Court road. I hope that the Minister will respond positively on that issue and on the other points that I have raised.
11.40 am
Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a disappointment that there have been fewer contributions to this debate, on road safety, than there were on the previous one, on the millennium dome, but, for a Government who have gained themselves the reputation of never answering any questions, this is a great opportunity, because the Minister will have a substantial period in which to answer some of the points that have been made. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will allow her to range a little more widely and answer questions that were not answered in yesterday's debates by other members of her ministerial team.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter again, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) on the way in which he introduced the debate. He used statistics to support his argument and expressed concern that still too many people are killed on our roads, as indeed they are. We all know people who have suffered the effects of road tragedies.

295
We must none the less keep the matter in context: fewer people are killed on our roads now than in 1926, when statistics were first collected. The figure has been coming down steadily over the past 15 years of Conservative government. Before we propose, for example, the idea of raising from 17 to 18 the age at which people would be allowed to start driving, let us think about whether the countries where the minimum age is higher have a better road safety record.
Mr. Wills: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there has been no significant change—1,000 or 2,000 out of 300,000—throughout the period of Conservative government in the number of injuries on our roads, and that, in the past three years, the number of fatalities has hardly decreased at all and seems to have reached a plateau?
Mr. Chope: No, I do not accept that. The number of people killed continues to fall, and the number of serious injuries has decreased significantly. The number of slight injuries has not decreased significantly, but I understood that the burden of the hon. Gentleman's concerns was about deaths and serious injuries, because only those could possibly justify an enormous intrusion into the freedom of 17-year-olds to begin driving.
On the continent, where many young people are not allowed to drive until they are 18, do they have better road casualty figures? On the continent, where there are nominally lower breathalyser limits, do they have better figures? Elsewhere in the world, are the figures better? The answer is no.
In the 10 years to 1996, the number of people killed on our roads fell by 33 per cent., despite an increase in motor traffic of 27 per cent. The number of breath tests administered rose by no less than 169 per cent., to more than 133,000, but the number of people failing those tests fell by 27 per cent., to just over 7,000.
In Great Britain, we have six road deaths a year per 100,000 population. I agree that that is six too many. In Austria, however, there are 15 deaths per 100,000 population; in Belgium, 14; in France, 15; in Germany, 12; in Greece, 21; in the Irish Republic, 12; in Italy, 12; in Luxembourg, thought by many to be the best European country of all, 19; in Portugal, 29; and in Spain, 15. All those countries have a significantly worse record than we have and they are improving, if at all, at a far slower rate than us.
I urge the hon. Member for North Swindon not to say that we should adopt a policy willy-nilly simply because it is adopted in the rest of Europe. I urge caution on him and suggest that our policy of education coupled with regulation has been extremely successful. We have educated people into recognising that, if they drive with excess alcohol levels, they are likely to be in an accident that could have dire consequences for themselves and others, and we have a strict law to reinforce that.
We know from the tragedy in Paris last August and its aftermath that in France they have nominally tighter breath test limits but a very weak system of penalties for those who are in breach of them. That may be one of the reasons why they have a substantially worse road casualty record than we do. The analogy is not only with countries
296
in the rest of Europe but with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States of America and Japan, all of which have significantly more road deaths per 100,000 population than we do.
I understand that the Government intend to accept, almost without consideration, the European Community line on the rights of people who suffer from diabetes to drive motor vehicles. The matter has been of considerable concern to many people, and there has been correspondence from the British Diabetic Association asking the Government to consider the facts and the evidence, but the Government have effectively said, "Well, this is what the European Commission says, so it must be a good thing and we must adopt it."
That is not the right approach for a responsible Government to take. They should consider the issue on its merits and not be so arrogant, just as they should consider beef on the bone on its merits and not ride roughshod over the humiliating defeat that they suffered in the other place last night.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Is it not the case that the British Diabetic Association considers the evidence concerning diabetics to be flawed and has produced evidence supporting exactly the opposite case to that which the Government have accepted? There seems to be no consideration of that.
Mr. Chope: I agree. It is a matter of great concern that the Government do not seem to be prepared to engage in a dialogue with the British Diabetic Association and get to the core of the issue, with the consequence that many people who have hitherto been able to drive light goods vehicles will no longer be able to do so, because of a European directive.
Interestingly, that European directive permits of exceptions
"only in very exceptional circumstances … and then only when duly justified by authorised medical opinion".
So there is a way out for the Government in discussing the matter with medical experts and the British Diabetic Association. However, the Government are not using that loophole. The Minister for Roads responded to my letter, and no doubt responded in similar terms to other hon. Members, by saying:
"The advice of our Panel is that there are no exceptional cases which medical opinion would recognise as being lower risk than others".
That is an extraordinary statement, and it makes a mockery of the arrangements that are being phased in to make existing drivers subject to the new regulations. If the consequences for road safety are as dire as the Minister for Roads would have us believe, there should be an outright and immediate ban. The fact that there is not such a ban on all the drivers affected tells me that there is scope for dealing with cases in a much more sympathetic way than the Government have done so far.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) made an exemplary speech. He had a couple of points to make and he made them clearly and succinctly. The Conservative Government put a lot of effort into reducing the rate of child fatalities. Although our record on road safety compares favourably with that of other countries, our record on child injuries and fatalities is worse. So, on the basis of good benchmarking

297
practice, the Conservative Government decided to tackle that issue. Road safety campaigns were directed to child road safety. When I was the Minister responsible, I was much involved in the campaign to encourage parents and children to wear cycle helmets. Texaco supported a national campaign with the slogan "Children should be seen and not hurt." That altered the climate of opinion. Now we see many more cyclists, especially children, wearing cycle helmets.
Helmets are no panacea, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said. They do not prevent every casualty, but they ensure that many fewer people suffer severe injury if they fall off their bicycle in a collision or as a result of riding into one of the increasingly large number of potholes that are appearing in our roads as a result of the Government's neglect of standards of road maintenance. My hon. Friend made some excellent points about the need to get even more cyclists wearing helmets.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), the spokesman for the Liberal party on these issues, was rightly taken to task by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark). More and more controls are what the Liberal party is all about. We heard last night in the debate on the London Underground that it wants to impose another £1 billion of taxes on Londoners. Yet I know from visiting some Liberal-controlled constituencies in London that the standard of road maintenance in those boroughs leaves a lot to be desired.
Mr. Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, on an issue such as road safety, we should take a non-partisan approach, and that the issue is too important to be treated in a political manner?
Mr. Chope: I am not trying to make party political points, but this Chamber is a political chamber. In so far as we have any influence over the way in which resources are allocated and how local authorities decide to allocate resources, all of us in the Chamber today who care about road safety should say, "Let us invest more resources in the maintenance of our highway infrastructure. Let us repair those pavements, get rid of potholes in the roads and invest in road safety measures that reduce further the number of casualties on our roads."
In my local area, Christchurch, a big issue is running in the local newspapers. Bournemouth council has announced that it intends to ban cyclists from using the Wessex way. There has been a long-running campaign with the local newspaper because there have been several horrible, fatal accidents involving cyclists on that stretch of road. The cycling fraternity are understandably concerned. They want to know what alternative arrangements will be made for cyclists. Cyclists feel that the council is giving in to the pressure from lorry and other traffic. There has been no effective response from the local authority on how it intends to accommodate the legitimate needs of cyclists who would otherwise use that route.
More investment is needed to solve that problem. I shall repeatedly make the point from this Bench, until Ministers understand, that we need to invest in road safety measures more of the money that motorists pay in taxation. I hope that the Minister will say that she has now accepted that argument.
The Minister is much accustomed to responding to parliamentary questions by saying, "I shall answer this question shortly." She did so on Monday in response to a
298
question from me about the deaths of two cyclists on the track of the Sheffield supertram. In my submission, that is a serious situation. A new and much-vaunted form of transport seems to have been designed in such a way as to make it difficult for cyclists to avoid getting their wheels caught up in the tram tracks. I hope that the Government will investigate the matter seriously. Although it may be a good thing to have public transport, it is not good if the consequence is to put cyclists in jeopardy.
I shall not be tempted to go into the saga of the waste of so much money on the supertram project by the local authorities in Sheffield. Nor shall I ask the Government how they intend to deal with the likely consequences of that expenditure—an increase in council tax of £40 a year for 30 years for every resident living in the four boroughs affected. However, if the Minister wishes to deal with those points, we shall welcome her responses.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill, which is to come before the House on Friday. He said that it had been launched today. It is matter of great regret that such an important Bill has been published only two days before it is due to be debated. The fact that it would have a prominent position in the private Member's ballot was known more than six months ago, and it seems to have taken all that time for the details of the Bill to be prepared. We now have a couple of days before it comes up for debate, and we are told that it is to be published today. Contrary to previous hints, we have heard that the Government will accept the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that and, in so doing, say whether she thinks that the Bill will contribute to further improvements in road safety.
Friends of the Earth claims that the Bill will save our children by cutting traffic. However, parents seem to think that the way to protect their children from traffic and to make their journeys to school safer is by taking them in the car rather than leaving them to walk or cycle. Ergo, cutting traffic would not result in fewer children being at risk from being injured on the roads. Certainly that is not the verdict of parents. I shall welcome any observations that the hon. Lady has on that.
Mr. Kidney: With regard to the knotty problem of children being safe if they walk or cycle to school, parents' experience is that those are not safe forms of transport, and that has led more of them to put children in the back of the car to take them to school. The hon. Gentleman referred to greater investment in safety for cyclists in particular, so clearly he understands that, if we are forced to make less use of the car, it should follow that we must be forced to find more investment for the alternatives.
Secondly, another aspect of road safety is the problem of fumes from cars and the growing incidence of asthma in recent years. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that reduction in traffic would at least be beneficial to future generations of children if they experience lower levels of asthma as a result?
Mr. Chope: I agree that the reduction in noxious emissions from motor vehicles will be beneficial, but we should not forget that that can be achieved even with a constant level of traffic through the application of new technology, and that is what is happening. That is why,

299
even with traffic levels as they are, and they are projected to grow, the total amount of noxious emissions from that level of traffic will fall during the next 10 or 15 years. Beyond that, there is a problem that must be addressed. let us not think that the only way to reduce noxious emissions is to reduce traffic. We can reduce the noxious emissions from each vehicle.
We also have the anomaly that people are concerned about their children's road safety, yet too many children on the journey to school in the car do not wear seat belts. That is a tragedy. Many parents have not yet got the message that their children should wear seat belts whether they are in the front or the back of the vehicle. That is a matter of education as much as enforcement. The Government could put some effort into one of their next road safety campaigns to re-educate parents about the merits of their children wearing seat belts.
12.3 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) on introducing again in the Chamber the exceedingly important issue of road safety. He referred to the number of times and the variety of ways in which the House has debated road safety. This is the second time in three months that we have debated the issue on a Wednesday morning, and I make no complaint about that.
My hon. Friend seems to feel that there is a kind of passive acceptance in Britain on road safety matters; but there is a rising tide of concern throughout Britain about transport issues generally, which is why the Government are so committed to introducing an integrated transport strategy—on road safety matters in particular.
Despite the United Kingdom's good road safety record as compared with other countries—a point detailed by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) via the list method—by the time we finish our debate this morning, in all probability five people will have been killed and 60 seriously injured on our roads. I have little doubt that all will regard that as a salutary reminder of how much remains to be done.
On 15 October we announced that we had begun work to devise a road safety strategy and a casualty reduction target for the coming decade. Work is now well under way, and we are trying to develop our strategy in collaboration with others who are active in road safety—local authorities, the police and independent experts—so that we can collect the available ideas informed by experience and expertise.
We trust that there will be wide consultation and are discussing with the Local Government Association and others how that can best be conducted. Road safety is a topic with a particularly strong local element and with local reverberations throughout communities because most casualties happen on local roads. Motorway crashes may grab the headlines, but the terrible tragedies all too often happen locally, as all hon. Members well know from their constituents and as my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon so poignantly reminded us today, as did the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), whose own family has had dreadful personal
300
experience. Our purpose is to apply properly thought through ideas that will have a practical effect in reducing road casualties.
The United Kingdom now holds the presidency of the European Union, and many member states are concerned, as we are, about road safety. Each member state can learn lessons from others, and the Commission proposes to help by collating Unionwide experience and expertise to enhance and ease co-operation. Road safety must be driven by local circumstances because solutions which have worked in one country may not work in another. Nevertheless, it makes sense to share knowledge, and we support the Commission's efforts to disseminate best practice.
In April, we shall be providing a platform for a Commission-funded programme to persuade people, among other things, to wear their seat belts. The UK has a good record on the wearing of front seat belts but not as regards rear seat belts, which are also an essential safety measure. There will be two conferences, one on safe driving and the other on road safety education. It is no coincidence that the emphasis of both conferences is clearly on the young driver. One of our greatest challenges is to reduce the accident involvement of novice drivers, many of whom are young. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon was right to point out the cultural and social aspects of that problem. New drivers have more accidents for two reasons: the first is inexperience, which may well be improved by better training and testing; the second is irresponsibility, as my hon. Friend said.
We now know a great deal about new drivers, thanks to a large study conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory of nearly 30,000 drivers who passed their driving test on one of four dates in November 1988 and July 1989. Of those candidates, 18 per cent. had at least one damage-only or injury accident in the first year after passing their test; 6 per cent. of those accidents involved an injury. The study also found that far more of the drivers who had fixed penalty tickets or summonses were involved in accidents. That is why it is important to impress on them the need to obey traffic laws such as speed limits. It underlines the fact that attitudes are as important as skills.
Many young male drivers in particular are extremely good at manoeuvring their vehicles but, because of their attitudes, they are a hazard to themselves and a menace to all other road users. It is that bad driving behaviour that we need to curb. The Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 is a start. The Act revokes the licences of drivers who tot up six or more penalty points within two years of passing the driving test. It came into operation last June, so it is too early to say how it is operating.
Several restrictions on new and young drivers were discussed by the previous Government in the 1993 "New Driver Safety" consultation paper, which concluded that such restrictions would either be impracticable for Great Britain, bordering on the unenforceable, or have heavy social costs. Most had major cost implications for the Government, or, if self-financing, for the drivers themselves. However, we were not elected simply to reinforce the conclusions reached by the previous Government and we are prepared to look at the measures afresh if they seem likely to promise casualty reductions. I trust that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon.

301
One of those measures was to put back the time at which a person could take a practical driving test to their 18th birthday—a proposal mentioned by my hon. Friend. The conclusion in 1993 was that there was no clear case for doing so. It will be a matter to be addressed in our road safety strategy, but we must recognise that, regrettably, some people are still dependent on being able to drive to get work. We are therefore not talking exclusively about a road safety issue—the point underlines this country's urgent need for a properly integrated transport policy. Research is continuing and any new policy must take the latest findings into account, but all the research so far in this area leads us to the same conclusion—that irresponsibility is a major cause of accidents.
Whatever legal limits we impose—and they must be credible and enforceable—it is attitudes that we need to change. My hon. Friend referred to sentencing policy and the attitudes of juries. I am straying off my departmental territory in this respect, but he raises an important point. The courts are composed of people just like us and not necessarily professional lawyers. Juries and, I dare say, many magistrates are people just like us and have similar views on society. They say to themselves, "This young man is accused of dangerous driving, but perhaps he just chanced his arm and was unlucky, so we shall bring in a verdict of careless driving and pass a light sentence." The police or the Crown Prosecution Service may take the view that they will never make a dangerous driving charge stick, so they opt for charges of careless driving.
I admit that all that is speculation, but my Department and the Home Office intend to conduct real research into developments since the Road Traffic Act 1991 was passed—a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) referred in our previous debate on this issue. We must arrange matters so that the proper level of criticism and opprobrium is brought down on the heads of those who, in many instances, have caused death or serious injury and whose gross lack of responsibility must be highlighted.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon raised the issue of re-testing. There is already an element of re-testing, either of new drivers who offend, or of drivers who have been convicted of dangerous driving offences, or of drivers who are, at a court's discretion, ordered to take a re-test. That illustrates the point about targeting: massive costs would be involved in re-testing everybody in the way that some—although not, I hasten to add, my hon. Friend—have suggested.
We know that casualty accidents are caused by specific groups of drivers, and it is our belief that we should be targeting them. There is no real evidence yet that older drivers are substantially more accident-prone than others. We shall, however, need to consider the matter because there will be many more older drivers in 15 years or so as the population ages and—crucially—as more of them have driving licences. However, testing and re-testing are not necessarily a good way of detecting irresponsibility, and to fail someone without objective evidence of bad driving would put a massive burden on driving examiners.
My hon. Friend referred to the police objectives set by the Home Secretary every year. Various interests have been pressing successive occupants of that office to make road policing a key objective. Last November, my right
302
hon. Friend went further in that direction than his predecessors had done. His letter to chief constables said:
"Traffic policing is a central part of the police's responsibilities for maintaining law and order and preventing and deterring crime and reducing death and injury on the roads. I will therefore expect traffic policing to play a full part in achieving my overall objectives for the police service, particularly in relation to community safety and crime reduction, and in achieving a safer environment on the roads."
I would also draw attention to our objective of promoting community safety, which encompasses much of the bad behaviour we have been discussing and which brings me to the subject of road rage. It is not a term I like, nor a definition that I would necessarily accept. The term can be perceived as trivialising what we would normally describe as murder or grievous bodily harm. It is as if driving on the roads is some drug taken in all innocence which takes away responsibility for our own actions. There is no excuse for such behaviour.
For the ordinary motorist, aggressive driving usually manifests itself in dangerous driving practices, such as following vehicles too closely, cutting in on other drivers and speeding. Such driving practices often cause accidents. Curiously, researchers have found that some normally calm people admit to losing their tempers when driving, but that some normally angry people are calmer in that situation. As yet, nobody knows why that is so.
Several hon. Members mentioned speed cameras, which are indeed a potent weapon against people who break the speed limit. They are also proved to reduce accidents. We need more of them, and we need the resources to process the results. We are considering carefully the idea that at least some of the revenue from fines, or a separate administrative charge, should be used to finance cameras and the subsequent issue of fixed penalty notices. However, behind that action there remains the need to secure much more widespread observance of limits. It is not only young male tearaways who are to blame: 70 per cent. of people exceed the 30 mph limit and they cannot all be young men, unless the population has changed dramatically and in an exceedingly short time.
I should also refer to a matter raised in the previous debate on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—the advertising of new cars. That is very relevant to the attitudes which my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon rightly identifies as a danger. The House will know that there are codes of practice for printed advertising, run by the Advertising Standards Authority, and for television advertising, run by the Independent Broadcasting Authority. Those codes are aimed, among other things, at advertisements that appear to endorse or promote irresponsible driving or irresponsible attitudes towards driving. That is a matter of some interest in other EU member states. With car manufacturers and others increasingly addressing international markets, Community action is sensible. So the Commission, supported by the UK Government, is trying to broker a Europewide voluntary code of practice.
I urge all hon. Members to refer bad advertising to the ASA or the IBA, whichever is appropriate. My noble Friend Baroness Hayman has done so in respect of two recent advertisements: one for the Volkswagen Passat was withdrawn and the other for the Honda Civic Vti was modified. The more such action is taken by responsible

303
people, the more notice advertisers will take, because it costs their clients money if they have to withdraw advertisements in those circumstances.
The House also discussed drink-driving in our previous debate and hon. Members will know that we shall shortly be consulting on a wide range of measures aimed at further reducing the number of accidents in which a driver or a rider has been drinking—a decision I know my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and others will welcome. I should prefer not to anticipate the outcome of that consultation at this stage.
The most recent Christmas campaign has been and gone, and this time the police changed the way in which statistics were collected. Now that all forces breath-test all the drivers involved in accidents to which they are called, we shall have a useful benchmark against which to measure progress. In past years, it has been impossible to do that properly. Just as public opinion has moved sharply against those who drink and drive, the police, too, take the offence very seriously indeed; hence the increasing number of tests. In 1996 there were 780,000 breath tests in England and Wales and figures for 1997 will be available in the spring.
Given the time still in hand, I trust that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will consider it in order if I touch on some of the specific questions raised in today's debate. I shall begin with some of the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon. Manslaughter was supplemented by the dangerous driving charge in the 1950s because juries were not convicting. Lifetime bans are available to the courts and were used 35 times in 1995—the most recent figures available.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) raised the issue of child safety on our roads—and, in particular, the safety of child pedestrians. He touched on a campaign that is being launched in his constituency today which he would have attended had he not wished to participate in the debate. The national child pedestrian campaign was launched only this morning across the road at Westminster school by my noble Friend the Minister for Roads. We hope that it will be extremely successful.
The hon. Gentleman also raised an issue which had a particular poignancy, indeed, a tragic dimension, for some of his citizens: the wearing of cycle helmets. The Government strongly recommend that they should always be worn, because statistics show that 49 per cent. of cycling accidents involve head and facial injuries. We are looking at the possibility of campaigning on that issue this year.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington raised a number of issues, including that of local authorities and speed. If we hand over enforcement powers relating to speed to local authorities, we will, in essence, be decriminalising the offences. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish us to do that. Local authorities are particularly well placed to target the locations in their locality where speed cameras could be positioned.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the selling of devices warning of speed cameras; I was not aware of the problem. The use of such detectors is an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and cases have, in the main, been successfully prosecuted by the courts. We are not, however, at present persuaded of the case for
304
prohibiting the sale of such detectors, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are keeping the issue under review.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned fixed penalties. We shall be reviewing the level of penalty for road traffic offences later this year. We use the same methods for publicising drink-driving campaigns as for speed campaigns. The hon. Gentleman was entirely right to say that accidents are often caused not so much by excessive speed as by inappropriate speed. As he knows, that is something that the Government are keen to explore, especially in terms of providing children with safe routes to and from school.
I shall now turn to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch. It is becoming something of a cliché that, whenever the hon. Gentleman participates in debates, he begins by welcoming cross-party support, then proceeds to attempt to turn the discussions into a party political rant; he did pretty much the same today. I do not think that I need spend much time responding to his complaints about this Government's failure adequately to maintain our roads; nor shall I spend time responding to his comments on the amount of funding for road safety. He is aware that, year after year, his party's Government reduced funding for road safety and road maintenance. Year by year, that Government deprived local authorities of the power to spend such money as they had managed to find, in ways that met the needs of local communities.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the subject of answers to questions about accidents on the Sheffield supertram. As he well knows, inquiries on that subject are the responsibility of the coroner. The hon. Gentleman made allegations about money being—I admit that I am paraphrasing him—mis-spent. The Sheffield supertram came into being while his Government were in office.
One of the hon. Gentleman's most serious allegations today involved driving licence entitlements for insulin-treated diabetes. He averred that the Government had not consulted the British Diabetic Association. My noble Friend the Minister for Roads has sent a letter to every Member of Parliament, one paragraph of which warrants quoting:
"It is not correct to say, as the BDA's letter does, that there was no consultation on the new requirement. The consultation paper of August 1996 on proposals for implementing the requirements of the Directive covered this issue. It proposed that holders of such licences"—
I shall touch on what those licences are a little later—
"should retain all their existing entitlements until the licence expired—normally at the age of 70, but earlier in the case of those with short period licences on grounds of health—but should then be required to meet the higher health standards if they wished to renew the CI and DI entitlements. It also proposed that the change would be deferred by a year from implementation of other Second Directive changes, (which came in on 1 January 1997) and would apply to licences expiring from 1 January 1998, so that drivers affected would have time to adjust to the change. (The DVLA has also been writing to drivers before their licences expire, to give them warning.) The car licences issued to insulin-treated diabetics are normally for three years, and so their existing C I and D1 entitlements will expire between now and 2000."
The hon. Gentleman's allegation that the Government are simply reacting to some order from the European Union and the Commission could not be further from the truth. The essential issue is that of road safety. It is well established that there are road safety dangers associated with insulin because it can lead to hypoglycaemia,

305
which can cause loss of consciousness, often without warning. The extension of the new rules prohibiting insulin-treated diabetics from driving lorries of between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes and minibuses with nine to 16 seats is endorsed by medical experts, including the honorary advisory panel on diabetes and driving.
The Government have every sympathy with drivers who lose their entitlements, particularly those who drive such vehicles for a living. But in the light of today's debate, we must take seriously the possible dangers to road users; the advice is clearly based on those who are in the best position to advise politicians of whatever nation. The advisers are medical experts who have given their view of the inherent dangers.
Undoubtedly, on any medical issue, one or two individuals will have a different opinion from others—in this case, the honorary advisory panel. It is the responsibility of the Government to assess potential dangers. I would argue that it is better to err on the side of what some might call over-caution than to increase the already unacceptable statistics on death and injury not only on our roads—as the hon. Member for Christchurch made clear—but on roads throughout the European Union.
Mr. Chope: Will the Government support the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill on Friday 30 January?
Ms Jackson: I am happy to say that the Government will support the Bill. We believe that it may need to be amended. However, we are very conscious of the fact that—as a wide variety of organisations have said, and as emerged during our seminars on the consultation document on an integrated transport strategy—as a country, we simply cannot sustain a year-on-year growth in road traffic. It is already costing us—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Policing (Devon and Cornwall)
12.30 pm
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Mr. Deputy Speaker, like most people, regrettably—perhaps even you and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—I know at first hand what it is like to be a victim of crime. Very recently, my car was stolen from the local railway station. The police were very good and tracked down my car quickly—and the insurers paid to repair it. For many other less lucky people, a stolen car can be irreplaceable and repairs unaffordable, and—in rural areas especially—a lost car may even mean a lost job.
My Cornish researcher, Charlotte Callen, who helped me to gather information for the debate, had her bag stolen last night. It certainly brought home the reality—a morning off work cancelling cards, talking to the police, and an even bigger overdraft, one hopes not added to by illegal use of the card.
I sought this debate because I am sure that such incidents would happen less often if there were more police. It is not just that there would be a greater chance that criminals would be caught. More important, the expectation that the police may be on patrol, or that they will have time to detect and apprehend a thief, means that many crimes would be prevented. I shall focus on that argument.
Like most places, Devon and Cornwall have experienced a significant increase in crime figures during the past 20 years. It is an out-of-date theory that rural areas are almost crime-free. In fact, the figures have doubled since the Conservatives came to power in 1979. The problem of crime is no longer largely confined to the cities. The police tell me that a significant trend is that of up-country criminals leaving the heavily policed city areas for a weekend car trip to Cornwall or Devon—not for the beach, but to pick off isolated rural homes—where they know that a police officer will never be just around the corner, and where they cannot be on the local list of likely suspects.
It is time that we listened to the recommendations of the people who know—the police. Officers from my constituency, and throughout Cornwall and Devon, work extremely hard and do a great job. When I get the chance to spend time with police officers, I ask them what they would most like changed: the prosecution rate, the length of sentences, child curfews perhaps? Time and again they give the same answer: more police officers, so that criminals can expect to be caught, which helps to prevent crime and stops criminals in their tracks if they start.
That is the answer I received when I spent an evening on patrol with the police in Truro. It is the answer that I received in the very different surroundings of the Plymouth control room. It is the answer that I hear time and again, every time I speak to our local police—whether a bobby on the beat or a chief inspector.
And no wonder. The vast majority of serious crimes—murders, rapes, serious assaults—are solved because, rightly, all the police needed are made available. Well over eight out of 10 serious offenders are caught, and almost all murderers and rapists are brought to justice, so it can be done—crime can almost always be cracked if the police have the resources to do so.

307
However, when it comes to the vastly greater number of robberies and thefts, detection falls to just a third, and for vehicle crimes the figure is less than a sixth. This is not about bad policing—our police do an excellent job in the circumstances—but about under-policing. With more officers, the general public could feel safe again. I am not suggesting that a burglary could or should be met with a response on the scale of a murder hunt, but I am saying that we could and should resource the police to do a lot more.
The regular presence of the police, even a special constable, not only deters crime but—perhaps equally important—helps people to feel more secure in their homes. For many elderly and frail people especially, fear of crime is perhaps the greatest threat. A feeling of security is hard to put a price on, but it is crucial to anyone's quality of life. I praise the Cornwall and Devon constabulary for the work they put in with specials to provide such reassurance and support for policing in local communities.
However, police resources are simply failing to keep pace with the change in rural areas. Locally, in 1997 we actually had 45 fewer police officers than in 1994. The funding of the police force nationally is £138 per resident on average. In contrast, the Cornwall and Devon constabulary can spend only £109 per head, which means that the Cornwall and Devon police force are facing crime with far less manpower than the average. No wonder our local police feel overstretched.
In addition, Devon and Cornwall experience an influx of tourists every year, which swells the population massively. The resident population of both counties combined is just over 1 million, and police funds are already overstretched, as I have explained. However, during a year, the Devon and Cornwall area witnesses an influx of 9 million tourists, which obviously places a huge strain on police resources. In peak summer, the population of Cornwall alone increases from approximately 500,000 to 750,000—in other words, it goes up by half. Sadly, not only traffic and accident problems increase for the police; between May and August, crime increases significantly.
Devon and Cornwall are also confronted with the problems of all rural areas. Call-out and response times are inevitably slightly longer, and regular patrols in scattered isolated hamlets are simply impractical. In addition, we are a coastal peninsula. In most of England, in an emergency, neighbouring police forces can be called in as back-up. That is only true for us on the eastern border—otherwise, we are surrounded by water. That adds real costs to the police, not least because they must be prepared to cover for themselves what others might reliably expect to have covered by others.
Mr. Andrew George: Like my hon. Friend, I have experienced a night patrol with the local police a few times. Once, a firearms incident occurred, to tackle which eight authorised firearms officers, in a firearms team, were needed. It occurred in west Cornwall, very close to Land's End, and officers throughout Cornwall were taken out to deal with that event. Obviously, it was impossible to call on officers from constabularies to the west, the nearest being in Newfoundland. I wonder
308
whether my hon. Friend would comment on the fact that, in the extreme west of the region, we have specific difficulties in meeting the problems of police provision.
Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes the point more than adequately. In most parts of the country, support can relatively easily be called from the surrounding area. That cannot happen in Cornwall and Devon, and, by necessary implication, Cornwall and Devon police must make sufficient provision to take that into account, whereas other forces do not.
In theory, there is an allowance in the funding to cover at least rural sparsity, but the Library tells me that other consequences of the formula's impact on rural areas effectively offset that, to the extent that the net additional funding is zero. On tourism, although our daytime population can double in summer, the funding allowed is less than 4 per cent.
The combination of those issues—especially the peninsularity, which goes way beyond anything that the formula can allow for—causes me to conclude that Cornwall and Devon's police need fairer funding.
I remind the Minister of the key figures. Police resources are failing to keep pace with rising crime. In 1993, we had 45 more police officers in the local force than in 1997. In fact, according to the Library, between 1993-94 and 1996-7, real cuts in spending for the Devon and Cornwall constabulary were the third worst in the country—at a time when funding should have been increasing to cover the then Conservative Government's pledge to increase police numbers. I know that the Minister will join me in condemning that broken Conservative promise.
The funding of the police force nationally averages £138 per resident, but the Cornwall and Devon constabulary are allowed only £109 per head, as I said. The result is that, for each police officer in our region, there are 538 people. The national average is a fifth lower: just 414 people. I understand that an Audit Commission report on the police service is due for publication tomorrow, and it is likely to confirm those figures.
I do not expect us to be resourced at the level of the inner cities, nor do I expect everything to change overnight. Those problems have not been addressed for 18 years of Tory rule, but it need not cost a fortune. When Conservative central office costed the Liberal Democrat pledge to give chief constables the extra police they said they needed, it put the cost at £50 million a year. No hon. Member would expect Conservative central office to underestimate the cost of fulfilling a Liberal Democrat election pledge. That amounts to less then £1 per person per year across the country. I believe that the British public would be delighted to pay that for adequate policing and cutting crime.
This is not an attack on the new Government. They have made a start, albeit a small one. They seem to recognise that Devon and Cornwall have been underfunded, and the constabulary have received an above-average increase in funding—4.5 per cent., compared with 3.7 per cent. However, I think that the Minister would accept that that rise still does not bring us anywhere near the level of funding in the rest of the country, as the spending figures per head of population show.

309
We recently released an updated Liberal Democrat report on crime and policing in the south-west. In it we repeated our costed general election pledge to give, in the short term, 100 extra police officers to Cornwall and Devon. Over time, we want the number to move further towards the national average. The extra funding that Devon and Cornwall received this year has been a step in the right direction, and, after cuts under the Conservatives, it is a welcome step. Nevertheless, extra cash is still needed to provide more police. That is what Devon and Cornwall need.
Can the Minister, first, give us some assurance that this year's above-average funding for the region is a sign of things to come? Do the Government recognise that we had a raw deal from the previous Government on police funding, and that that must change? Will our police numbers now go up?
Pressure on police can be reduced in other ways. Closed circuit television cameras installed in town centres serve as a deterrent against crime.
Mr. Colin Breed: It is a pity that no Conservative Members are present to take part in the debate. One of the good measures introduced by the Conservative Administration was a bidding system by local authorities, in conjunction with retailers and other local groups, to put CCTV cameras into town centres. That was a welcome approach. Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be restored, and possibly increased?
Mr. Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend about CCTV. The cameras installed in town centres have been shown to serve as a deterrent against crime. In Truro, for example, CCTV cameras helped to reduce crime by 40 per cent. after they were installed in 1995. I have discussed the matter with the police, as there is an obvious concern that crime may simply be displaced to the streets that do not have the cameras. The evidence is that that has not happened—certainly not to the extent that would explain the fall in crime. Traders in the surrounding streets in smaller towns now also want CCTV.
I have supported successful applications for CCTV funding for Truro and St. Austell in my constituency in the recent past, but there is concern about whether funding will continue. CCTV is expensive to install. The chambers of commerce in our part of the world are not wealthy, because the population are not wealthy—nor, under the strictures of local government funding, are the local authorities.
My second question to the Minister is whether funding will be made available for the further expansion of CCTV to build on the initial success. Will consideration be given to support for the on-going costs? Although those are not huge, they can become a burden on the police or on local authorities or both, as they find that more and more installations are paid for, but running costs and monitoring can prove more difficult.
I agree with my hon. Friend also about the extraordinary absence of Conservative Members from the Chamber in a debate on a region that has Conservative Members of Parliament and which they used to regard as their own. I understand that there is a Home Office Opposition spokesman, and it is a pity that Conservative Members are not here. They have a lot to answer for, although it is for the Minister to say what will be done.
310
The Minister may be aware that there are currently three police control rooms in Devon and Cornwall, but the police say that one will close, and Cornwall's—in Camborne—is at risk. As the Minister knows, Cornwall has a unique identity, and local knowledge can save vital time. Moreover, Camborne is one of the worst unemployment black spots in the country. For all those reasons, it is vital to retain a control room in Cornwall. My third request, therefore, is for the Minister to look into the matter and encourage a conclusion that retains a control room in the county, although I know that the decision does not rest with him, certainly at this stage.
The same points apply to the proposed closure of Camborne Crown court, incidentally. That would cause extra costs and difficulties for the hundreds of people who use it. If it closes, they will have to travel to Penzance. Although the report from the Court Service suggests that that is easy—a train ride costing a few pounds—that is difficult for people living in one of the poorest communities in the United Kingdom, where every penny counts and getting about is a struggle. Not all live near the railway station. Will the Minister look into that matter as well?
We have a massive 124 people more for every police officer than the national average. The crime rate has rapidly increased over most of the past 20 years. Closures of police operation centres are looming. The previous Government took inadequate action to help. Crime figures doubled during their term in office, and in recent years they cut police numbers. The people in Cornwall and Devon expect the new Government to show more commitment to providing an improved police service for both counties. I have acknowledged that a small start has been made.
At the election, I made a pledge to the people of Devon and Cornwall to monitor and argue for our police service and the funding it receives under the new Government. I intend to continue to do so. I hope that I will have good news to give them.
12.46 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on obtaining the debate, and on the way in which he has introduced it. The absence of Conservative Members from the Chamber shows their embarrassment on policing issues, but it allows us to have an intelligent debate. I shall try to respond sensibly to important points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been the victim of crime. The fact that that experience is so widespread is precisely why we are introducing a series of measures to cut crime in the Crime and Disorder Bill, which the House will have an opportunity to debate in the near future. That Bill contains significant measures that will make a considerable impact at local level.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the experience of car crime. I agree with him about its importance, especially in rural areas, where transport is essential. That is one reason why, in recent months, I have taken a particular interest in the matter. We have launched various initiatives, including the secure car parks schemes, which I commend to any area trying to attract visitors. We want to reach the critical mass, with enough safe car parks for people to go looking for them. That will bring about the virtuous circle, where other car parks will have to be made safe because the public will go looking for safe ones.

311
We have published a comparative document on the security of different makes of vehicle, which I commend to the hon. Gentleman. He might like to study it before he replaces his current vehicle.
The personal impact of theft, particularly when crimes of theft are associated with violence, such as mugging, is extremely damaging, not only in the immediate upset caused, but often because of the serious long-term effects of such events. We are trying through the Crime and Disorder Bill to put in place measures that will affect the prevalence of such experiences.
The Bill includes measures to nip things in the bud when youngsters start to offend; to speed up youth justice in particular; and to bring about effective sentencing. The police and local authorities are making an effort to cut crime together. It is a matter not just for the police but for everybody. I am delighted at the positive response that we are getting from the police and from local authorities in discussions about the implications and implementation of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the recruitment of specials. I have put some personal commitment into that by visiting every region in England and Wales in the past two weeks with the recruitment exercise. One thing we have seen is the much more professional training of specials. Greater demands are being made of them, but those demands are being met. The way in which specials and regular police officers work together as a professional team in many parts of the country is a particular pleasure.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister address the equipping of specials? I am not surprised that no Conservative Members are present—Labour Members are here, and there are five Liberal Democrats—as the meanness with which the previous Government approached this problem was outrageous. In my constituency, a special was recruited but could not be equipped even with a radio.
I put a similar point to the Minister, again on the prevention theme, which I acknowledge that he and his colleagues are tackling vigorously. Closed circuit television is fine, but if there are difficulties over VAT, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) said, difficulties with the maintenance and monitoring of CCTV, it is investment down the drain. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on that.
I also ask the Minister to address the point about Victim Support if he has time.
Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman needs to ask for an extra hour on the debate.
As far as specials are concerned, work has been going on. I met and listened to specials about the proposals in the working party report. I shall attend a conference in a few weeks' time that will include representatives of specials from every police force. I shall attend personally because it is so important. I hope that that will help to achieve the professional approach to specials that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
I shall deal with CCTV in a moment.
312
There are two approaches to victims of crime. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced an additional grant of £1 million to help Victim Support to continue to move forward. It is a high-priority issue for us. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I continue to work closely with Victim Support in government, as we did in opposition. We want the care of victims and attention to their needs to be at the heart of the criminal justice system, not just through the work of Victim Support.
In particular, a task force across Government Departments has looked at the needs of vulnerable witnesses and victims to try to improve the situation in court. There are quite a variety of victims and witnesses, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate—people with learning difficulties, women who have been through a traumatic experience, children who have been subject to abuse, elderly people who feel nervous about the courts. It is not an easy topic to deal with, but I hope that he will accept my assurance that we treat it seriously.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell and his colleagues have raised a number of important points. I rather suspect that, because of the additional questions, I shall not be able to cover all the points. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman afterwards to reinforce points, where necessary, and to answer the ones that I do not reach.
The hon. Gentleman raised important points about the finances of the police service. The formula is supposed to reflect need rather than the historic level of staffing. The historic level of staffing, which influences the formula, is distorting it. That element is down to 20 per cent. this year as a result of the decisions we took, which is one reason why the formula has benefited Devon and Cornwall. We intend to continue to taper that increasingly anomalous factor in the formula.
The formula includes an allowance for differences, particularly in relation to sparsity and visitor numbers to an area. The hon. Gentleman referred to those two factors.
We intend to commission research on sparsity. There has been much debate about it. There is some evidence to suggest that there is not a definable element of sparsity that causes additional problems to the police. Not surprisingly, large rural areas contend that it is there, that it affects them, and that it jolly well should be definable. We will get some independent research to try to lay that to rest. It is silly to argue about it year on year. We should try to reach an objective point where we can settle it, at least dependably, so that forces know where they stand.
The basic point that I am making is that areas differ, and the formula seeks to reflect that difference. The formula has been distorted in recent years, which is why it is taking time to taper. The previous Government put in odd sums of money here and there in what seems an arbitrary fashion, which has distorted the impact of what was intended to be a needs-based formula. All forces I have met—I have met many police authorities and police representatives in recent weeks—make detailed and compelling special cases, not all of which are about being a peninsula. There needs to be a dependable formula, one that is as fair as it can be, although I doubt that it will ever be possible to get one that is perfect.
On a specific point, I shall not prejudice next year's funding settlement, but I think that I have indicated, in the way in which we intend to treat matters and try to get

313
a wholly needs-based formula, that the approach is likely to be helpful to Devon and Cornwall. I shall not give a commitment on police numbers, for reasons that I shall come to in a moment if there is time.
On CCTV, we have announced a further round, but there are difficulties, as I explained to the House a few weeks ago. The previous Government made no provision beyond March 1999, and when we came to power we discovered that they had spent half of next year's money for us in advance. Finances are being squeezed by the various problems we found, so the amount that we are putting into CCTV is £1 million—a small sum rather than the larger figure that we would have liked.
We are asking for carefully targeted small bids to look at the ways in which CCTV might be used in fresh and innovative ways. One or two examples have been given, including one by the specials in the hon. Gentleman's police area, which have given rise to the thought that there may be ways in which CCTV would be productive.
CCTV also benefits the police, the local authority and the wider community, particularly businesses in shopping areas. A variety of places in the country that have not succeeded in getting Home Office money have gone ahead anyway. People should not wait for Home Office money before considering whether the benefits to them are substantial enough to proceed.
I had the opportunity of a discussion with the chief constable and some of his officers when I visited the police headquarters a few weeks ago. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do all we can to ensure that the police have adequate resources to play their part in cutting crime and in preventing it. We have been careful not to make rash promises about police manpower, because those promises, as the previous Government discovered, cannot always be delivered.
One of the many mistakes that the Conservatives made was to plan and project specific increases in police numbers, when, in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act
314
1994, they handed powers to decide numbers to chief constables and the new police authorities, which have the freedom to decide whether to use their available resources on recruiting more police officers or on other expenditure, such as information technology and equipment.
With the efficiency of new technology, there are gains to be made in getting police officers out on the beat and not spending a lot of time travelling back to headquarters. It is not a straightforward issue; it has to be decided in relation to the geographical area that is being covered.
I shall not fall into the trap of promising more police officers—that is a matter for the chief constable and his police authority—but I promise that Devon and Cornwall will get their fair share of police resources.
As the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell acknowledged, Devon and Cornwall police authority benefited from an increase in spending power of 4 per cent., or £6. 1 million, this year. For next year, we are committed to remaining within the previous Government's overall spending commitments. Nevertheless, I can promise even more good news for policing in Devon and Cornwall. Under proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 2 December, Devon and Cornwall will be able to increase its spending by 4.5 per cent. over this year. That is an extra £7.2 million, giving the police authority a total spending power figure of £167.5 million.
Once again, the proposed budget increase for Devon and Cornwall of 4.5 per cent. is significantly above the national average of 3.7 per cent. for police forces across England and Wales. That is a very healthy settlement, and the question for the force is how to make the best use of the finances available.
Police authorities were given the opportunity to comment or make representations to me on the proposed financial settlement for next year. We had no representations from Devon and Cornwall police authority, so it is reasonable to conclude that it is content that the proposed funding allocation gives it the capacity to police the area.

Bingley Relief Road
1 pm
Mr. Christopher Leslie: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the A650 Bingley relief road scheme, which has been debated in my constituency for longer than I have been alive. As I grew up in Bingley, the issue was constantly present. I walked to school along the Bingley main street for many a year having to breathe in and live with the choking fumes from the traffic that was spewing out emissions, so no one is more familiar than I with the congestion problems faced by Bingley, and no one is more aware of the need for the completion of the relief road scheme.
Since the general election, when I was pleased to be elected to represent Shipley, I have been involved in discussions with colleagues from the Bradford district, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). Although she cannot be here today, she supports the completion of the relief road.
To a large extent, today's debate was prompted by a 10,000-signature petition, which I have passed on to the Secretary of State, asking for the scheme to be completed as soon as possible. I pay tribute to some of the scheme's most forceful advocates: Philip Smith from the Better Bingley campaign, who organised the petition; Mark Rand and others from Bingley Civic Trust; Alan Whetton and Jim Stephenson from the Bingley environmental study group; and some of the Bingley councillors, including Eileen Sinclair and Jim Flood.
Many others have been pushing for the scheme's completion for many decades. Local people cannot believe that the scheme has been in the offing for so long, yet has never really been completed. That is the point I want to emphasise to my hon. Friend the Minister. I am not asking for a new start to a new road; I ask only that the scheme be completed, because it has already been constructed to a large extent.
There is an enormous amount of traffic in the area, and the scheme is designed to take traffic away from the Bingley main street. Bingley used to be a small market town, but now forms part of the Bradford urban conurbation. It is located in a narrow, constricted, high-sided valley where most of the existing roads converge. That has created many problems because of the volume of traffic trying to squeeze through such a small geographical area.
The scheme consists of 5 km of dual carriageway. The local authority's study on the capacity of the new relief road concludes that, given the existing traffic flows and the rat runs on either side of the valley, the new scheme will not significantly increase the volume of traffic. Capacity will be sufficiently increased to relieve congestion in the town and ameliorate the problem of rat running, but, as a trans-Pennine route, the new road will not attract an increased amount of traffic.
Work has already been done on the scheme. Indeed, about £23 million has been spent: £6.5 million on the compulsory purchase of land and property; £6.2 million on diverting a canal and building a new bridge over Park road; £3.5 million on retaining walls and sewers; £3.3 million on a new aqueduct; and £3.5 million on a new railway bridge. That is an enormous sum. A roadway has been created where the relief road is due to go and much of it is simply waiting for a tarmac topping so that it can be used.
316
Bingley has suffered dereliction, decay and decline. The town centre has been blighted for a long time because congestion has put off most shoppers, and the retail industry has seen a steady and steep decline. Vacant premises have been boarded up in the town centre and along the route through the valley. The town has experienced chronic economic decline, compounded by the recession but undoubtedly accelerated by the congestion in the centre of Bingley.
The Government's roads review was correct to focus on accessibility, the impact of schemes on the economy, safety, environmental improvement and an integrated public transport strategy. On all five criteria, the Bingley relief road scores highly. First, on accessibility, according to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, traffic flows are extremely high—38,000 vehicles a day. The A650 is the busiest A road in the Yorkshire and Humber region after the A1, so I hope that the Government will see fit to give the scheme priority. It would provide improved local access to the town centre, allowing residents to move about more freely. Currently, their options are restricted by the substandard road network in the district.
The relief road would also improve links across the district between the large town of Keighley and the city of Bradford. It would ensure that those two parts of the same district council were properly linked.
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work in trying to get the Government to support the relief road. Its effect will be dramatic not just on Bingley but on the whole Bradford district. Its completion would be an ideal opportunity to get away from the environmental damage caused by the current congestion and to develop investment opportunities in that corridor of Bradford city, which suffers from high unemployment.
In my constituency, development is concentrated around the M606 and the M62 motorways. We are overdeveloped and would like some of the prosperity, investment and development transferred to Bingley and Keighley. The completion of the Bingley relief road would help to achieve that.
Mr. Leslie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out those facts.
Secondly, the economic aspects of the relief road scheme form much of the argument in its favour. Firms such as Schindler's Lifts and Peter Black's in Keighley have reduced the number of employees, and many other firms have been put off locating in the district. Some have moved out, citing transaction costs and extra expenses caused by delays as reasons for doing so—Peter Black's said that it amounted to millions of pounds over the years. It is a significant deterrent to business.
The third criterion in the Government's roads review is safety. It is important to stress that aspect, because there is a vast amount of pedestrian-vehicle interaction on the Bingley main street. Cars and people mill about and mix together. Each year, there are an average of 35 accident casualties, some of which are quite serious. The Bingley relief road would remove much of the traffic, so the number of casualties would be significantly reduced. It would also improve access by the emergency services to Bingley and the villages on each side of the valley: ambulances and fire services have had difficulty getting to those areas.

317
The fourth criterion is the environmental impact of schemes. The Bingley relief road would not only help to regenerate the town centre environment and to rejuvenate the shopping and community areas, but would lessen dramatically town centre pollution.
A recent study undertaken by Bradford council's environmental protection division used a statistical model of emission levels to date to make projections for the future. Emission levels are at their minimum at 45 to 50 mph. Because of the congestion, traffic goes very slowly through the town. If the constant stop-start, stop-go of traffic could be ended, expected pollutants would be reduced massively. Nitrogen dioxide levels, which are currently above the European Union's health guidelines, would be reduced to a much safer level; particulates would be reduced significantly; and carbon monoxide emissions and benzene levels would be halved.
Local general practitioners and doctors often call Bingley and the Aire valley "asthma valley": the Bingley chest has been a local phenomenon for a long time. I am keen to stress the air pollution benefits that would be gained from the completion of the Bingley relief road.
Concerns have also been raised about the Bingley south bog. However, the Highways Agency has amended its design plans significantly, and has mitigated many of the problems. English Nature, the countryside service and the ecological advisory service have said that they are comfortable with the proposed scheme. According to the Department's own ecological study of the Bingley south bog, it contains no nationally rare or scarce plants, no plant species from the Department's red data book, no protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and none of the 315 plants on the Nature Conservancy Council's nationally scarce plants list.
In weighing up the environmental factors in the Bingley district, it is important to study air quality in the town and other physical factors. I strongly believe that the environmental benefits far outweigh other considerations.
The fifth criterion relates to the contribution that a scheme can make to an integrated public transport system. Moving traffic from the Bingley main street on to the relief road would create a potential thoroughfare for public transport that would link the whole of the Aire valley, and would provide an integrated public transport network across the district. Buses could be timetabled. That problem is not often mentioned, but the bus route to Airedale general hospital has been cancelled because of the difficulties of timetabling a service in such a congested area.
There is a point at which relieving congestion creates new possibilities for public transport. It facilitates cycle routes and town centre pedestrianisation, and would aid the "park and ride" facilities at Bingley and Crossflatts, where there is an electrified railway that should be used more.
Everywhere in the district has transport difficulties: Shipley and Saltaire also face problems. However, without the completion of the Bingley relief road—the link that has been missing for so long—we will face congestion and traffic problems for many years to come. My constituents find it unbelievable that the scheme has taken so long. The route has been decided, but we are waiting for the Government to finish the job.
Given the benefits of the scheme to the community and to the environment, its contribution to public transport improvements in the town, and the economic and road
318
safety aspects, I strongly urge the Government, in their roads review in the spring, to prioritise the Bingley relief road and to complete the job.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): It is usual in Adjournment debates to congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. I think that congratulations should be offered to the residents of Shipley on having returned my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) to the House. He has raised this issue, which is of particular importance to his constituents, not only this morning but virtually ever since he walked through the Member's Entrance. He has devoted a great deal of time, effort and energy to drawing to the attention of my noble Friend the Minister for Roads the need for the Bingley relief road, as perceived in his constituency.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his generosity in allowing my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) to intervene, and on being so particular in underlining the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) endorses what he has said.
The issue is clearly of great importance to the area, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley presented the case to the House succinctly and in detail. I understand that, only last week, he made an able presentation to my noble Friend when she met hon. Members from constituencies in Yorkshire and Humberside to discuss the Government's roads review.
Before I deal with the particular issue of the Bingley relief road, it may be helpful if I said a little about how the roads review fits into the overall thrust of the Government's transport policies. Our work to develop an integrated transport policy provides the immediate context for the roads review. The backdrop to that fundamental review of transport policy is a candid recognition that we cannot carry on as at present. The predicted growth of traffic and the consequent congestion are unsustainable: the environmental, economic and social implications are unacceptable. However, the appropriate response cannot be simply to hack away once again at the roads programme without taking any further action. We need to adopt a much broader view: we should examine all modes, and use broadly based criteria to assess schemes. One of the encouraging aspects of what is, we acknowledge, a hugely ambitious task is the degree to which there is consensus on the need for change.
We should examine the role of the motor vehicle in providing mobility in a more integrated transport system. Such a system should make the best use of each mode of transport. All options should be considered on a basis that is fair and is seen to be fair, and takes into account from the outset safety, environmental, economic, accessibility and integration considerations—my hon. Friend touched on all five points. That must be done in such a way as to give us all confidence and, above all, in a way that is sustainable.
That is the context for the roads review, which is an integral part of our integrated transport policy work. It is about the role that trunk roads should play alongside other modes in an integrated and sustainable transport policy.
The issue that looms largest in the roads review is undoubtedly congestion. We have three broad options: making better use of the existing infrastructure; managing demand; and providing new infrastructure.

319
Making better use of the existing infrastructure is the obvious first choice. It may also be the least painful. Making better use of the network may help to provide a much-needed breathing space, but there must be some doubts about whether it can cater for more than a small fraction of the forecast increase in demand. That means that we have to look very seriously at the other, harder options: managing demand and providing new infrastructure.
Managing demand is a vast topic which cuts across all modes. It encompasses reducing the need to travel, through land use planning, and by changing the way in which we live, work and enjoy our leisure; it must also include an assessment of the extent to which we can encourage a shift to other modes, and, inevitably, it involves the question of controlling demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms, unpopular though they may be. At the very least, managing demand is about changing human behaviour, so it follows that it is a very difficult thing to do. I am sure we could readily achieve a consensus that, as a society, we should use cars less; making it happen is another matter.
That brings us to the third and last option—providing new infrastructure. That is also a very difficult option, both financially and in terms of the impact that it may have on the environment. Circumstances vary from case to case. In some cases, a new or widened road may be the only option to provide a comprehensive solution to the problems caused by traffic and congestion in a particular community. There is no substitute for rigorous case-by-case examination of the options, and to that end we have carried out a regional consultative exercise led by the Government offices for the regions. We have looked, region by region, at the perceived traffic problems and the roads programme that we inherited from our predecessors. We regard the existence of a scheme in the inherited programme as prima facie evidence of a transport problem.
The aim of the regional consultations is to give us a view on which problems deserve the greatest priority. Once we have identified the priority problems, the next step is to ensure that all the credible options are properly evaluated. There is no presumption that a road scheme is the right solution, or that a scheme in the roads programme is the best option. We envisage two outputs from that part of the review: a short-term investment programme, and a programme of studies to examine the remaining problems. From that, we will develop the medium and longer-term investment programme.
The short-term programme will include both measures to make better use of the existing network, and new construction schemes. The new construction schemes are likely to be schemes from the inherited roads programme that address priority problems in a way that is consistent with our integrated transport strategy. We will not put schemes into that programme if it is clear that there is an alternative option that could obviate the need for the existing schemes. The right thing to do in those cases would be to study the alternatives more fully before reaching decisions.
Let me turn to the specific issue of the A650 Bingley relief road. The development of road improvement proposals in the Aire valley has a long and controversial
320
history, which—as it is part of the personal history of the hon. Member for Shipley—I will not rehearse today. However, the Bingley relief road is one of a number of schemes originally designed to provide a good route between the settlements in Airedale, the centre of Bradford and, beyond that, the motorway network. Two of those schemes have been completed: the dual carriageway sections between Kildwick and Beechcliffe and between Victoria park and Crossflatts, which opened to traffic in 1988. As well as the Bingley relief road scheme, the roads programme inherited from our predecessors includes schemes to improve the A650 Hard Ings road in Keighley, and the A629 between Skipton and Kildwick.
Significantly, in previous reviews of the roads programme, schemes to provide a tunnel under Saltaire and to build an eastern bypass of Shipley have been withdrawn. Associated local authority road schemes to improve the route between Shipley and the centre of Bradford are also being reconsidered. The comprehensive strategy to improve the route as a whole has been reduced over the years, not least on financial grounds, and we have inherited a set of proposals to address local congestion, safety and environmental problems along the Airedale route.
The regional consultation undertaken as part of the roads review has emphasised the severity of the problems in Bingley, and highlighted the strong feelings about the relief road scheme—feelings which were underlined by what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Bradford, South. The Government office has received about 100 letters in support of the proposals, and 36 opposing them. In addition, a 10,000-signature petition in support of the new road has been submitted.
The submissions supporting the scheme echo the points made by my hon. Friend, highlighting problems of congestion, road safety, pollution, commercial decline in the town centre, the need to encourage regeneration along the Aire valley and the extensive blight caused by the protection of the road line. On the other hand, a number of representations from environmental groups have argued strongly against the building of the relief road. They claim that it would generate additional traffic and shift traffic bottlenecks further down the route to Saltaire and Shipley, and that it would therefore not solve the current problems of congestion and pollution.
We shall want to give careful consideration to all the representations in reaching a decision on the Bingley relief road. The decision must be firmly based on the principles of our integrated transport policy, which I outlined earlier. I fully recognise the serious existing problems of congestion, road safety and environmental damage, which need to be addressed. We need to consider the contribution that demand management and improved public transport can make to the solution of the problems in the corridor that we are discussing. Indeed, I think that there is a great deal of common ground between different sides in the debate about the future of the relief road scheme. Many of those arguing for the construction of the new road recognise that a package of measures to improve public transport is also necessary.
I fully appreciate that the residents and business community in Bingley have been looking forward to the construction of the relief road for many years, and I am sensitive to the argument that £23 million has already been spent on advance works to create the path for the

321
new bypass; but we must assess fully the justifications for spending a further £64 million to complete the scheme, to assess the proposal within the new appraisal framework that we are developing against the five criteria set out in the roads review consultation document, and to assess the priority to be given to the scheme against other schemes that are candidates for the short-term programme. In our deliberations, we must consider solutions in an integrated way, assessing carefully the contribution of different modes, and looking at the problems of Bingley in the broader context of the strategies required for the route as a whole.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. He put the case for the construction of the Bingley relief road very forcefully. I am sure he will appreciate that, until the review of the roads network has been completed, I cannot tell him what the future of the scheme will be. The results of the review are expected to be published later this year, but we will examine all my hon. Friend's representations, and those of others, in detail.

Railway Noise
1.27 pm
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I thank those in Madam Speaker's Office for selecting my debate. I also thank hon. Members who have expressed their support, but who—understandably, given that this is a busy time—cannot be present.
One of the things that I have appreciated since becoming a Member of Parliament is the way in which Members are prepared to debate not just great matters of state, but issues that—although they affect the lives of only a small number of people—raise principles of wider significance. That is particularly appropriate when we are discussing remedies that the House intended to be available to such small groups, but which have been discovered to be defective.
The subject of the debate directly affects residents of Rupert road in Guildford—whose petition I have here—but it also raises three matters of wider principle. First, how are the railway operators to be made accountable for their impact on the environment? Secondly, are those who live near railways receiving fair compensation for that, at a time when it is intended that there will be investment in the rail network so that it will be improved and its use intensified to a greater extent than for many years? Thirdly, when the use of rail and road networks increases, do we reflect the cost to those who live nearby of the benefits that accrue to the rest of us, as a result of such intensification of use?
I have always been a friend of the railways. The garden of my previous home abutted the main railway line. Equally, those who live in Rupert road in Guildford chose to go there in the full knowledge that their road abutted a busy main-line railway station. They had been there for many years when our saga began 21 months ago, when Railtrack decided, without any apparent consultation or a requirement for detailed planning permission, to take advantage of a disused siding and erect what is effectively a new maintenance depot to service its mainline operations and to help in its vital signalling work on that line. That involved the creation of new road access, the erection of offices and electrification of disused line.
As I said, the developments did not require Railtrack to consult local residents or even the council. However, when the project was under way, the noise began for those who lived in the immediate vicinity. I shall quote from one of the letters that I received from the residents, to give a flavour of the noise and difficulty that they face. In her letter, a lady states:
"I do not think we have had an uninterrupted night's sleep this week. On Monday I was woken at 3 am by what sounded like someone throwing bricks at a metal sheet for half an hour. On Tuesday night my neighbours called the police after South West Trains left a diesel engine parked by the fence with the engine roaring and the compressors screaming every three minutes. The Environmental Health Officer came out and took measurements which recorded this at over 70 decibels."
There are many similar incidents to which I could refer. Residents have had to take days off work to recover from the night-time noise and they have had to take days away from home. A family with three children who live by the railway were especially affected by the fumes from the new activity. The three children have asthma, and I presume that "Thomas the Tank Engine" is not their favourite bedtime reading.

323
I pay tribute to Guildford borough council, and especially to the environmental health officer, Mike Keetch, who has worked tirelessly on the case from the end of 1996, when the residents asked for his help in the matter. That has required the installation of detailed recording equipment and being available at all times of the day and night to ensure that evidence is properly gathered. A council report states that on one occasion
"the normal background noise level of about 44 decibels was raised for periods as high as 76 decibels which is a loud and intrusive noise level."
Railtrack took nine months to respond to entreaties by the council, let alone the earlier entreaties by residents, for a meeting to resolve the serious problems that the new and intensive development had caused. In view of what was agreed at that meeting, it is striking how simple were the steps that Railtrack had to take to at least alleviate the problems that it had caused. They included such simple measures as erecting signs along the railway telling drivers and workers that they should keep noise to a minimum, and noise control provisions in the contract terms of Railtrack operators.
One would have hoped that such simple measures would be implemented without delay. However, a Guildford borough council officer who wrote to me about the matter stated in his letter:
"Since that date efforts have been made to contact Railtrack and seek confirmation of the steps that they propose to control noise. No response has been received … although a meeting has been arranged at my request on 3 February."
Over the past week, since this debate was scheduled and in the light of the next week's meeting, there has been a short respite in the noise and difficulty caused to residents. I hope that the attention that has been drawn to the matter will have the effect that was intended and desired by legislation.
I contacted the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and discovered that it was its understanding that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 governed Railtrack and other rail operators. Guildford borough council took a great deal of trouble in collecting the required evidence and information, and was on the point of issuing proceedings against the rail company. It discovered that section 122(3) of the Railways Act 1993 gives all rail operators a statutory defence against the Environmental Protection Act. Those who take action against the rail operators have to prove that their operations and actions were, in the words of the section, "totally unreasonable".
Hon. Members will be aware that it is difficult in law to prove that an action is totally unreasonable even if it appears to be unreasonable and, as in this case, the rail operator has admitted that an equally viable site could have been chosen away from housing. It is a measure of the deficiency of the legislation that, because no consultation was required, that alternative proposal was not presented, although its implementation would have relieved the residents of the difficulty.
The residents also examined the Land Compensation Act 1973, to see whether there were legal requirements on the rail operator to give grants to the residents for the cost of insulation. Noise regulations issued in 1996 require that, if noise during the day is more than 68 dB
324
or is more than 63 dB at night, compensation should be paid to residents. However, that is restricted to cases in which a new line is to be opened or when additional tracks are laid alongside an existing line. It does not take account of the revival of a long-derelict line. Even the electrification of such a line or the erection of depot buildings alongside do not count. Those are all signs not just of intensified use but of a material change in the use of the rail network.
It was also decided to seek the aid of the Rail Regulator, who issued environmental guidance in March 1996. The foreword states:
"There is of course in place in this country extensive and detailed legislation aimed at protecting the environment. It would not be appropriate for me to try to summarise current requirements and standards in a document of this kind."
The implication is that the regulator assumed that operators such as Railtrack would be subject to the environmental legislation. The regulator's guidance is therefore sadly lacking in specifics. When he speaks of railways' impact on the environment, for example, he states merely:
"mitigation of noise nuisance will require measures to be taken by train operators, rolling stock companies, Railtrack and the infrastructure maintenance companies".
That long list of those involved shows just how difficult it is to ensure that everyone involved in the railways heeds an effectively voluntary regime. Moreover, the voluntary regime specified in the guidance note is not nearly specific enough.
The problems at Rupert road have continued—although, as I said, they have abated somewhat in the past week. It is very much hoped that, because attention has been drawn to the matter, Railtrack will recognise its responsibilities to the community. Where Parliament has given any exemption from mainstream legislation—particularly from environmental legislation—a duty of care surely rests on those granted the exemption or licence to act extremely responsibly and, wherever possible, to observe the spirit and the letter of the law.
I believe that the Minister and her Department can make a difference in three specific matters. First, I hope that they will support the call for the regulator to issue to the rail operators new and more specific guidelines on environmental impact. I suggest that such guidelines should spell out how, before an intensification and material change of use occurs, operators should undertake a process of notifying local residents and the local authority, and undergo a period of consultation during which they must demonstrate the reasonableness of their proposals and the lack of any alternatives.
Secondly, the regulator should propose model clauses on environmental impact, so that those who work for the rail operators are bound by a legal and effective system to ensure that the type of suffering and disruption caused to the residents in Rupert road does not happen again there or elsewhere. The operators could use such clauses in negotiating contracts with their subcontractors.
Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the Government intend to introduce a new transport Bill. If so, will Ministers consider incorporating in it a revision of the terms of the Railways Act 1993—thereby changing the terms of the section effectively exempting rail operators, so that their operations are more tightly and more clearly defined when they impact on the environment and cause a nuisance to those living near railways?

325
Thirdly, there is the wider issue of the Land Compensation Act 1973. I speak as an hon. Member representing a constituency through which a main road—the A3—thunders, and in which the intensification of road use is every bit as much of a problem to constituents as the intensification of rail use. The Land Compensation Act 1973 is now 25 years old. Even if the regulations could have been extended—I do not believe that they could have been—to deal with the situation in Rupert road, there are many deficiencies in the way in which we assess and measure the effect on those living near our roads and rail networks.
I hope that the Minister and her Department, in promoting those suggestions, will bring pressure to bear on the rail operating companies so that they re-examine their scope for agreeing discretionary grants in cases that are currently in a grey area. The operating companies certainly have power to make discretionary grants to alleviate the noise caused to local residents.
Above all, I hope that this Adjournment debate will promote a wider debate on the issues that have been raised.
1.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) on obtaining this debate and on learning so soon after his election to the House that the Chamber is not reserved for matters of great moment—although I argue that no matter is of greater moment than the concerns of one's constituents. I congratulate him also on presenting those concerns so cogently and in such detail. The issue that he raises is particularly important.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, on balance, railway transport is more environmentally friendly than road transport. Undoubtedly, however, it still generates noise. Although noise from railways tends to be less disruptive than noise from motor vehicles, and noise experts consider it much less of a problem and much less disturbing to sleep than road or aviation noise, that is of little concern to those of his constituents suffering from the instance that he described in such detail.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are committed to developing an integrated transport policy and that, this spring, we intend to issue a White Paper detailing a strategy for the United Kingdom. As part of that strategy, and within an environmentally sustainable framework, the Government wish to encourage greater use of the rail network for both passengers and freight.
With greater passenger usage of the rail network and with moves to increase the percentage of freight traffic transferred from road to rail, there will inevitably be increased railway noise for many people who live close to railway lines. Our aim must therefore be to minimise railway noise as much as possible.
For many years, I lived over a very busy main line and, like everyone who has lived in a property near a railway line, I was aware that traffic patterns can change and that volumes can increase. However, some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents are particularly concerned about noise from engineering trains using sidings in the Guildford station area. Of course I regret any inconvenience caused to his constituents, but I am advised that those sidings are used by vehicles employed on
326
essential maintenance or on major investment projects to modernise signalling systems in the area. That activity is centred in Guildford because it has easy road access and the necessary services, and it is close to stores and stockpiles of necessary materials.
I regret that the efforts of Railtrack and its contractor to reduce noise at the site have not been successful in reducing the disturbance to local residents. I understand that residents have now been given a 24-hour Railtrack helpline number so that they may contact the company when necessary, and that Guildford borough council has arranged a meeting with Railtrack, on 3 February, to discuss the problems being caused to local residents.
Railtrack has advised me that the project to modernise signalling systems in the Guildford area is due to be completed in July 1999, and that that will reduce some of the disturbance to local residents. However, engineering trains and sandite trains—which put sandite on to the rails to help adhesion during leaf fall in the autumn—will continue to use the sidings at Guildford. The major Railtrack investment programme to improve signalling will bring benefits for many thousands of rail commuters across the south-east, but the related works will cause some inconvenience to people living nearby until they are completed.
Railtrack has assured me that it wishes to be a good neighbour to those who live adjacent to the operational railway—not only in Guildford but across the country—and that it tries to do all that it can to mitigate noise and nuisance caused by track or line-side works.
In major works, Railtrack gives advance notice to the local authority and line-side residents and, in some cases, has offered to accommodate residents in hotels. However, if Railtrack has to perform emergency safety-related work, it may not be possible to give advance notice to residents likely to be affected.
Although there is no statutory limit for railway noise, both Railtrack and train operators are subject to the statutory nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which are enforced by district councils. Under section 79 of the Act, it is the duty of district councils occasionally to inspect their areas to detect any statutory nuisances, and to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate any complaint made by a local resident. Section 80 of the Act provides for the serving of abatement notices where a local authority is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to occur or recur. In addition, a magistrates court may act under section 82, following a complaint by any person aggrieved by a statutory nuisance.
The hon. Gentleman referred to section 122 of the Railways Act 1993, which provides Railtrack with some defence against the Environmental Protection Act 1990 where it is carrying out works as a statutory authority, but it is not an open-ended defence to nuisance proceedings. Although the burden of proof required for conviction would be greater than if section 122 had not been enacted, it would be up to the local authority to convince a court that the noise generated by Railtrack was greater than might be reasonably thought necessary in order for Railtrack to carry out its statutory functions. I understand that the local authority has already taken up the case with the Rail Regulator. The Rail Regulator monitors the environmental performance of train companies and may be able to exert some pressure on Railtrack.

327
I turn from the specific case raised by the hon. Gentleman to railway noise more generally. There is no statutory provision for noise mitigation for those who live next to stations or shunting areas. It has always been accepted that those who buy property next to such areas do so in the knowledge that they will be affected to some extent by noise from the railway.
The Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 provide statutory noise protection measures for people who live near new railway lines, or where a line is moved or widened. That is in line with noise insulation regulations offering statutory protection to people who live near new or widened roads. In recent years, a number of new railway projects have been planned or built, ranging from light railway systems to the channel tunnel rail link. The previous Government recognised that it was only fair that people living near new railway lines should be no worse off than people living near new roads.
The 1996 regulations confer a duty on the body responsible for the construction of a new railway line or additional tracks alongside a line to offer insulation when noise exceeds certain levels. There are two noise trigger levels: one for daytime and a separate, lower one for during the night. The standards reflect the character of railway noise—usually short bursts of noise followed by longer periods of quiet—and are expressed as an average noise level over a given time period. In addition, insulation may be offered against excessive noise from railway construction. In all cases, residents have the option of receiving a grant to cover the costs of carrying out the insulation work themselves.
The adoption of national standards ensures equity of treatment regardless of the area where people happen to live. That is very important. If noise insulation standards had to be determined separately for each individual rail project, unnecessary costs would be incurred and there would be a strong chance that people in one area would receive less protection than those in other areas. The certainty provided by setting national noise insulation standards benefits both line-side residents and promoters of new railway projects.
There is no provision in the regulations for insulation to be offered when use of a railway line intensifies. Again, that mirrors the position on roads. Successive Governments have taken the view that those who choose to live adjacent to roads or railways do so in the knowledge that the volume or composition of the traffic may change, and the householder must therefore bear the risk of that.
Although the Land Compensation Act 1973, of which the hon. Gentleman is clearly aware, would not seem to benefit those in his constituency whose plight he has so cogently detailed, the Act allows householders to claim compensation from the responsible authority when the value of their property is diminished by physical factors, such as railway noise or vibration, caused by the use of new or altered public works. For railways, the Act is not specific as to what is meant by "altered works", but it refers to their being
"reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered".
There is no statutory requirement for compensation to be paid purely because traffic on a railway line has increased. That again parallels the situation for roads. For an altered
328
railway line, it is for Railtrack to determine whether particular works undertaken are covered by the meaning of the Act.
Noise mitigation measures are one aspect of tackling noise, but train operators and Railtrack need to take reasonable steps to reduce railway noise at source. For example, railway noise can be reduced by measures such as replacing jointed track by all-welded track, the use of electric locomotives instead of diesel locomotives for hauling freight trains, and the use of lighter freight wagons. The Government propose to discuss noise levels, exhaust emission levels and energy efficiency with the railway industry with a view to gaining an understanding of what improvements the industry can deliver in those areas.
Noise barriers have proved effective in some instances, but they are undoubtedly expensive and, on occasion, replace noise disturbance with visual intrusion. Although there was no statutory entitlement to noise protection, sound barriers have been erected in a number of locations in London and the south-east on lines affected by increased noise from channel tunnel trains. Voluntary jointly funded noise mitigation schemes were agreed between the British Railways Board, Railtrack and the local authorities concerned. Such noise barriers are, however, likely to remain the exception to the rule, and I expect the railway industry to concentrate its efforts on reducing noise at source. New projects such as the CTRL have been very successful in incorporating noise mitigation measures in the design from the beginning.
Looking to the future, a general European Union noise directive is likely to be the main driver of tighter standards for railway and other noise across Europe. Hon. Members may know that the EU published a Green Paper on future noise policy on 5 November 1996. The Commission proposes to establish a framework of working and steering groups to consider noise policy, which will include a railways working group.
I regret that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are suffering from noise from the sidings in Guildford. The resignalling scheme that causes part of that noise is due to be completed by July 1999, but I hope that, before then, Railtrack will be able to find ways of reducing the disturbance to local residents. In the longer term, there is always likely to be some noise disturbance for those who live next to railway sidings, and I fear that little can be done about it.
Although railways are generally more environmentally friendly than roads—the Government want to see more use made of the railway network—I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government take the wider issue of railway noise very seriously and will be talking to the railway industry about what can be done to reduce noise at source. I must stress that there are no easy or cheap solutions.
The hon. Gentleman raised three particular points. He said that the Rail Regulator should issue guidelines on the environment and that there should be consultation with residents, and he raised the issue of contractors. I believe that Railtrack should be undertaking such things anyway. There should be no formal requirement concerning the regulator. Railtrack, in the main, exists only as a result of vast public subsidies, which go into our railways via access charges. It is surely in Railtrack's best interests, as a good private company that wishes, as it has

329
said, to be a good neighbour, to ensure that the kind of actions that the hon. Gentleman has proposed are part and parcel of its work in every way.
With regard to the possibility of a transport Act, we shall be publishing a White Paper on our integrated transport policy—how we can make best use of all transport modes, including roads, railways and waterways. I am not able to say that there will be a separate transport Bill, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking at the creation of a strategic rail authority.
330
I am in no position to comment on—nor have any knowledge of—the possibility of a review of the Land Compensation Act. I have made a note of what the hon. Gentleman said. His comments stem directly from his constituents' concerns about a particular incident, and I shall look further into the matter.
It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Dependent Territories (Assistance)
    Mr. Swayne: How many of the United Kingdom's remaining dependent territories receive development assistance; and if she will make a statement. [23858]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The dependent territories receiving British development assistance are Montserrat, St. Helena and, to a lesser extent, Anguilla, the Turks and Caicos Islands, the British Virgin Islands and Pitcairn. The scale of our support to the poorer islands in particular illustrates the UK's commitment to the development of those territories.
    Mr. Swayne: There seemed to be a note of menace in the Foreign Secretary's remarks, reported at the weekend, urging dependent territories to adopt our practice and expand their range of sexual experience. Who is in charge of the budget? Does the Minister believe that it should be transferred to another Department? Mindful of the fate of the cities of the plain, is he prepared for the Secretary of State to be cast in the role of Lot's wife?
    Mr. Foulkes: There is no menace in my voice, despite the obvious temptations. Responsibility for the dependent territories is under consideration. We are looking at the representations made by the International Development Select Committee, which were far more reasoned and reasonable than the hon. Gentleman managed to be.

    Tibet
    Mr. Godman: When she last met her colleagues from other member states of the European Union to discuss matters relating to the provision of multilateral aid to the indigenous people of Tibet. [23859]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I have not personally discussed aid to Tibet with my European colleagues, but my officials are in touch with the Commission about the proposed Pa Nam rural development project, which will provide assistance for indigenous small farmers in Tibet. One condition of the agreement with the Chinese Government was that there should be clear provision for participation by local communities.
    Mr. Godman: Not a penny of European Union funding should be given to the project until certain guarantees are met, one of which should be that the project must be managed and staffed by indigenous Tibetans. Before the agreement with the Chinese Government is signed, the involvement of non-governmental organisations must also be guaranteed. I understand that the Save the Children Fund could help with the project.
    Clare Short: Agreement has been reached with the Chinese Government that the project should involve
    332
    indigenous Tibetans and NGOs. On the non-renewal of a visa for an education worker with the Save the Children Fund, Sir Leon Brittan decided, without consulting member states or the Save the Children Fund—I think that my hon. Friend will approve of the decision—to suspend implementation of the project until the problem is resolved. We very much hope that it will soon be resolved.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: During a recent visit to India—at my own expense—I joined Lord Weatherill to visit Dharmasala. Would the Secretary of State be prepared to consider, and perhaps act, on providing scholarships for young Tibetans to come and be educated so that they might give leadership to their own people?
    Clare Short: Most of the help which Britain bilaterally gives to Tibet is provided through local non-governmental organisations to get the help into the hands of local Tibetans. On scholarships, we are trying to move the emphasis towards training in the country because we can achieve more for our money and provide training that is relevant to the needs of that country. I will look at the hon. Gentleman's proposal, but that is the way in which we are moving.

    Development Issues
    Mr. Hope: What initiatives she is taking to promote greater awareness of development issues; and if she will make a statement. [23860]
    Mr. Foulkes: We attach great importance to this area. Everyone has a right to understand the global considerations which shape their lives. I will have the privilege of chairing the first meeting of our new development awareness working group in March which will put in place an ambitious and exciting new strategy.
    Mr. Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and I congratulate him and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the excellent nationwide tour that is currently taking place in which local organisations, Church groups, non-governmental organisations and councils have the opportunity to debate at first hand the issues in the White Paper. I stress that we are impatient for change on development education, and raising awareness is important. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the development awareness working group will meet soon, will have proper terms of reference and will take early action to raise public awareness of the need to eradicate world poverty?
    Mr. Foulkes: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the programme of visits. I had the great pleasure of starting off the programme, and we chose Belfast as an appropriate place to start. In Belfast, and in Aberdeen, I found great enthusiasm for the principles and the programmes of the White Paper, and very great enthusiasm for the work of the Department. I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just sent out invitations to hon. Members to join that working group. We hope to have the meeting as quickly as possible to produce the kind of programme of activities which I know my hon. Friend will enthusiastically endorse.
    Mr. Rowe: Without seeking to prejudge what the working group will decide, I must point out that the

    333
    Minister will be well aware that most of the development education so far undertaken has been undertaken by NGOs. It seems to me that there is very little need for huge Government funds to be involved—merely the facilitation of high-quality education, sponsored by those NGOs.
    Mr. Foulkes: Part of the work of the working group will be to mobilise and extend the work being done by NGOs, to learn from their best practice and to spread it around. There is a big job to be done in relation to the formal curriculum. The working group will look at the curriculum and informal education, and will try, through the wider media, to get the message over to as many people as possible.
    Ms Squire: I welcome the initiatives taken by my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to increase international development awareness throughout the UK, and I especially welcome the establishment of the working group. Will that group address the concerns which all of us have about child poverty and exploitation, especially when such exploitation produces goods that go on sale in our high street stores? What specific action do the Government intend to take to raise awareness of the part that we can all play in ending such exploitation throughout the world?
    Mr. Foulkes: The Department is taking action through our contribution to the Independent Labour Organisation, where work is being done on core labour standards. I am sure that the working group will look at this matter to get over a wider awareness of the way in which children are being exploited—for example, there is bonded labour in some countries. This is a way of making people in the UK aware of some of the practices currently taking place which ought to be stamped out.

    UNESCO
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What is the annual cost of the United Kingdom's UNESCO membership. [23861]
    Clare Short: The cost of UK membership of UNESCO for the calendar year 1998 is £11 million, although that might vary slightly with currency fluctuations. UNESCO's remit is the promotion of international co-operation in education, science, culture and communications. We welcome UNESCO's commitment since we rejoined to strengthening its contribution to meeting the international commitment to primary education for all children in the world by 2015.
    Mr. Bruce: I know that the Secretary of State will be proud of meeting the commitment in the Labour party manifesto to rejoining UNESCO; but there was also a promise to pay for that out of savings from the rest of her budget. I understand from answers given by the Minister that membership is being paid for out of the contingency reserve. The previous Government would not have rejoined UNESCO, because the £11 million could otherwise have gone directly into schemes that we know get better value for money than UNESCO ever provides.
    Clare Short: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern for my budget. I am concerned to ensure
    334
    that every farthing is well spent. In fact, the payment came out of my contingency reserve, which is part of my budget. If it had not gone on that, it would have gone on some other project.
    We are proud of the quality of our bilateral programmes, but we are strengthening our commitment to the multilateral system. We cannot reach the poverty eradication targets alone, no matter how good our programmes are, so we must strengthen our commitment to making the international system work well, so that the targets can be reached in every country, including the ones in which we do not work individually.
    Dr. Palmer: In view of the concern expressed by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) about the Department's budget, will my right hon. Friend urge the Conservative party to donate the £ 1 million that it has received from drug dealers?
    Clare Short: I am grateful for the suggestion, but I am proud of the fact that the House has generally dealt with International Development questions in a bipartisan way, without playing political games. That is right, because these matters are of such concern to all parties. I hope that Opposition Members will support our tightened commitment to poverty eradication and our strengthened commitment to the multilateral system. In that way, Britain can make a bigger contribution to eradicating poverty throughout the world.

    Montserrat
    Dr. Tonge: What progress has been made on a sustainable development plan for Montserrat; and if she will make a statement. [23862]
    Clare Short: Discussions have taken place at official level on the basis of an initial Government of Montserrat draft of the sustainable development plan. A revised draft will be circulated for comments in a few weeks' time. We are working on a plan for meeting the needs of those on the island while the volcano is active—as the hon. Lady knows, we do not know how long that will be—and we are also taking account of the longer-term investment needs once the volcanic activity has abated.
    I want to take this opportunity to inform the House that I have approved £1.3 million in budgetary aid to cover Government of Montserrat costs for the first quarter of this year, and £450,000 to support small and medium-scale enterprises on Montserrat, to help people to be self-sufficient. That brings my Department's total commitment to the island to £51 million since the crisis began.
    I have also approved £410,000 to help Montserratian small businesses on Antigua; and this week, because of the need to relocate from the central region, we are providing for 50 more houses and sites for 150 houses, some of which will be used for self-build.
    Dr. Tonge: Does the Minister accept that while the volcano remains active there is a continuing threat to the people remaining on the island? There is a threat in the long term of damage to their lungs from the ash. There is also a threat of loss of life from an inadequate evacuation, should the volcano explode, as people try to get off the very temporary jetty.

    335
    Would it not be better to spend aid money on persuading people to leave and relocating them comfortably in Antigua, Britain or elsewhere, than to pour it into the northern tip of the island, which may, some say, benefit the rich landowners of Montserrat more than the people themselves?
    Clare Short: As the hon. Lady knows, I am desperately concerned to ensure that all the people living on Montserrat understand the danger that the ash poses to their lungs. We have taken scientific advice, but no one knows exactly what will happen. We are monitoring people's health, but there is a link with silicosis, which is extremely serious.
    We can get scientific risk projections, but the volcano is extremely unpredictable and there could be an explosion that leads to loss of life in the central zone. So I have been putting enormous effort into a public education programme to get people to understand the risks and the support that is available to enable them to come to Britain, relocate in the Caribbean or remain in the north of the island. I share the hon. Lady's concern that that communication has not been as effective as it should have been. I promise her that I will do everything in my power to make sure that it is.
    Ms Abbott: Will the Secretary of State accept my thanks and the thanks of the many thousands of Monserrat evacuees living in Hackney and thereabouts for the extra aid that she has announced today? Will she bear in mind that the people still on Monserrat are aware of the risks? They are covered in ash and see the smoke every day. People in Monserrat and evacuees in my constituency tell me that, as long as it is possible to live in the north, the people still on the island want to maintain a community on Montserrat. They are passionate about some kind of stable development for Montserrat. I am sure that she is aware of that.
    Clare Short: There are a number of evacuees from Monserrat in Ladywood. I know that what my hon. Friend says is true. I agree that there are people who wish to remain on the island. Elderly people, for understandable reasons, are less keen to relocate. I have never had any wish to tell people on Montserrat what to do. I am enormously keen that they understand the risks and the choices and that they really can choose which is the best solution for them. Our communications could still be better so that people really understand the risks and that no one is taking a political position. Some people have been led to believe that that is not the case.
    Sir Alastair Goodlad: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Select Committee's report on Monserrat was published as long ago as 18 November 1997? It would be helpful to confidence in Monserrat as well as to the House if she could produce an early Government response. When might it be available? Is she also aware that the criticisms of the Government's strategy for Monserrat were recently echoed by the Chief Minister, giving rise to unease among hon. Members on both sides of the House that confidence among the people and in the Government of Montserrat in the Government's handling of the emergency is at a
    336
    low level? Could she give some forecast of her response to the question of sustainable development or otherwise in the north of Monserrat?
    Clare Short: Yes, I am conscious of the Select Committee report. I gave a large amount of evidence to the Select Committee. It is an excellent report and the analysis that it contains is very much in tune with the evidence that I put before the Committee.
    Montserrat is a complex emergency because the volcano's behaviour has been unpredictable and has constantly changed. Great parts of the island have become uninhabitable bit by bit. Most of the activity occurred when the previous Government were in office. It has never been possible to plan for the position that faces us now because the volcano's behaviour has changed.
    I am aware of some of the statements made by the Chief Minister. Some of them are highly political. My concern remains that the people of Montserrat know the truth about the risks that they face and the commitment of the British Government. Our response to the Select Committee will be ready soon. There is to be a debate in the House, in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will participate. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are determined to do everything that we can to protect the interests of the people of Montserrat. This is an ever-changing emergency. We are just evacuating zone 3 and many people in quality houses are having to move again. That makes things very difficult.

    Know-how Fund
    Mr. Llwyd: What current projects are being supported from the know-how fund; and if she will make a statement. [23863]
    Clare Short: A full record of projects is set out in the know-how fund report for 1996–97, which has been widely circulated and which I am placing in the Library. I published my new strategy for the know-how fund in mid-November which will shift the emphasis of our work to take more account of the terribly high levels of poverty while continuing to help build democratic and free-market institutions.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Lady for that response. In view of the perilous state of the Belarus economy, does she agree that it is important that further technical advice and financial assistance should be given to develop the role of non-governmental organisations in Belarus? It seems that that is the way forward for that country.
    Clare Short: I cannot pretend that I have any personal expert knowledge of Belarus. Generally, we are moving efforts on the know-how fund eastward because the EU accession countries are most advanced and are receiving other assistance. We are trying to support good regulatory systems, better social provision—because so many people are falling through the system—and the building of civil society. To get local non-governmental organisations operating helps to create a democratic culture, and that is a major part of our strategy.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that know-how projects, and many other projects,

    337
    are beneficial to organisations such as UNESCO which have a positive role to play in evaluating different nations' and different regions' attitudes to helping those very economies that need such know-how help? Does she agree that UNESCO plays a vital role in spreading that best practice in information?
    Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend, but we are moving to a new phase where Government and UN institutions and NGOs see their work as complementary, not in conflict. We get the best programmes where civil society, lively voices, different interests, UN agencies and Governments are all in honest dialogue. That is true of UNESCO and all the rest of our work.
    Mr. Soames: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the know-how fund has been an astonishing success and represents extraordinary value for the taxpayer's money? The British taxpayer can be proud of the work that has been done through the Department for International Development, both under the previous Administration and her own. Does she further agree that the concept of the know-how fund could be applied to other countries? Will she consider whether it might be a good idea for us to consider establishing a know-how fund specifically for the Palestinians, who badly need to rebuild their self-confidence in order to make them a real, equal partner to Israel and more capable of paddling their own canoe?
    Clare Short: The know-how fund's work is respected everywhere, and more respected than some other programmes with more funds which are disbursed less effectively. We are considering how the lessons of that transition might be applied to help China with the sort of restructuring that it is planning.
    I share the hon. Gentleman's concern with regard to the Palestinians. We have a considerable programme with the Palestinian authority and we have been moving from the phase of emergency intervention to helping the Palestinians to build their own institutions and prepare for self-governance. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the peace process is going slowly, and that makes it difficult to take that work forward.

    Micro-credit Schemes
    Mr. Reed: What measures she is taking to promote micro-credit schemes in developing countries. [23864]
    Mr. Foulkes: We are increasing support to micro-credit and saving institutions in developing countries. Our total funding now amounts to nearly £42 million. Most of our funds go towards capacity building and encourage best practice in collaboration with developing country Governments and other donors. My hon. Friend will welcome the news that following the election we joined Results International.
    Mr. Reed: Yes, I welcome that important news. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we welcome many large projects in developing countries, capacity building is one of the most important aspects of micro-credit schemes? Micro-credit schemes play a vital part in helping those in the poorest developing countries. Will my hon. Friend assure me that in future, when the aid programme is being
    338
    considered, micro-credit schemes will play a much larger role in the way in which we help local developments and communities?
    Mr. Foulkes: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome of our joining Results International and I direct his attention to a project that the Government have been supporting since 1993 in Kenya, the rural enterprise programme, which is now witnessing its transition to a banking institution, helping the poorest people, particularly women, to create their new enterprises. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is a model for other countries to follow.

    Water Scarcity
    Mr. Ottaway: If she will make a statement on measures to address water scarcity in developing nations. [23865]
    Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this very important issue. As he knows, water scarcity is a critical issue for many developing countries. Twenty per cent. of people lack access to clean water and—this is very serious—on current trends, two thirds of the world's population will face water shortages by 2025, with the pain and conflict that that might cause. We have a special responsibility through our presidency of the EU to work with the Commission for Sustainable Development to reach international agreement to conserve and share water resources equitably and to meet the international target of providing clean water and sanitation to all by 2015. I shall attend the ministerial and expert meeting hosted by France in March, which will help to build support for an international programme of action.
    Mr. Ottaway: From that answer, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that water scarcity is the sleeping tiger of the world's environment programmes, with water consumption increasing at twice the rate of population growth. May I draw her attention to the Population Action International report, which illustrates that population programmes are an effective way of conserving the world's resources, especially water, by stabilising population growth and protecting the environment?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right. Our commitment is to give access to basic health care and reproductive health care to the whole population of the world and to let people take control of their own fertility. When that is done and people can raise healthy and educated children, population levels fall because people know that their children will live and be safe. We must also take action on water: the projections for water consumption are greater than for population growth and we must move on both fronts. We intend to ensure access both to reproductive health care and to clean water and sanitation for everybody in the world.
    Mr. Pike: What projects in the world for desalinating water to make it fit for drinking are the British Government helping?
    Clare Short: I have to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot answer his question. Desalination is relevant in some

    339
    places, but tends to be very expensive. The challenge is not only to provide water to everybody, but to get agreement on the world's use of its water resources. Otherwise, we will have a security problem as well as one of human suffering.
    Mr. Brooke: What danger does the Secretary of State see of international warfare due to water scarcity during the coming decade?
    Clare Short: The right hon. Gentleman points out the logic of the figures on water scarcity by 2025, which will be a serious problem. We need an international programme of action in respect of the world's shrinking water resources. That has been a priority since the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly special session on environment and development. If we fail to get such an international agreement, as well as pain and suffering, there will be conflict across the world over water. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

    EU Aid Policy
    Mr. Bayley: What are her Department's priorities during the EU presidency in respect of EU-wide aid policy. [23866]
    Clare Short: During the UK presidency, our top priority is to agree the EU negotiating mandate on the future of the Lomé convention, which governs the trade and development relationships between the EU and 71 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. We shall also seek to secure commitment to the international development targets across all the EU development programmes and to increase the effectiveness of such programmes.
    Mr. Bayley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. May I tell her that people throughout the development lobby in Britain have warmly welcomed the tough targets that she has set for the UK aid programme on poverty reduction, literacy, primary health care and child deaths? Given that 30 per cent. of our aid budget is channelled through the EU, will she make it a high priority to get the same targets agreed by all the other EU member states, both for EU aid and, as far as possible, for their domestic aid programmes?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. The EU spend is £4.5 billion and our total budget is £2.2 billion, of which one third goes through the EU, so efforts to make the EU contribution more effective are enormously important. The beauty of the international poverty eradication targets—if we can get the institutions of the world to take them seriously—is that they can provide a framework for all our international work and enable us to measure progress, year on year and in every country, in health, education, clean water and so on. That is one of my overriding objectives for the EU presidency and we are holding a seminar on 17 March to try to get the member countries, the Commission and the European Parliament committed to that objective.
    Mr. Faber: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the conditions attached to the European Union aid programme to Zimbabwe, negotiated by Mr. Jens Laerk, head of the EU delegation, will only delay, not cancel, the proposed seizure of farms by the Government there? Will she explain why, in our role as president of the EU, we are happy to promote the tying of aid to Zimbabwe on condition that farmers there can seek redress through the courts, but refuse to stand up for those very same farmers' democratic rights ourselves by insisting on similar conditions for our own bilateral aid programme?
    Clare Short: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's question, as we discussed the subject at the last Question Time, when I made it clear to him that we have said that we think that there is a need for land redistribution in Zimbabwe, but it needs to be properly organised, transparent, relocated—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would let me answer, instead of hectoring, he might learn something.
    I have discussed the subject with Commissioner Pinheiro, and the European Union is taking exactly the same position as us on land redistribution. There have been separate talks with the International Monetary Fund and the World bank—and we are in communication with them. We believe that, if we can get everyone to hold together on a sensible land redistribution strategy that complies with Zimbabwe law—that means that compensation has to be paid, as that is the law of Zimbabwe—we can pull Zimbabwe back from the brink of what might otherwise happen to its economy.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Palmer: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for that information.
    Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have a three-part strategy for welfare reform: the welfare-to-work programme to get people back into jobs, the minimum wage so that the jobs are worth while and the benefits reform so that people who cannot work receive the help that they need? Does he agree that, as the Conservative party opposes the first two and is interested only in cuts in the third, its offer of help is nothing more than pathetic political posturing?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The welfare-to-work programme will be of enormous benefit to hundreds of thousands of people, particularly young people and the long-term unemployed. Of course, the provisions that will allow more people to get off benefit and into work, through changes in the benefit system, will do likewise.

    341
    The 10p tax rate will help many low income families and the minimum wage will provide the first real attempt to put a floor under wages and get rid of the appalling poverty pay that exists in many parts of our country. It is fair, it is right, and the fact that it is being opposed so staunchly by the Conservative party only reveals the difference in values between the two political parties.
    Mr. Hague: Does the Prime Minister agree that there is a difference between a spouse and a partner?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, and the rules that have been applied are the same rules that have been applied under all Governments.
    Mr. Hague: They are not the same. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) never applied the rules in the way that the Prime Minister has applied them. If he thinks that there is a difference, will he say whether Ministers who treated the word "spouse" in their code of conduct as meaning "partner" have broken that code?
    The Prime Minister: No, they have not.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has made those bland assertions. He published a code of conduct with a great fanfare; he ordered Ministers to obey, not just the spirit, but the letter of that code. The first time that it is not obeyed, he says that it meant something different anyway. Will he now publish a new code of conduct for Ministers so that taxpayers can be clear when they are paying for spouses and when they are paying for partners, and that they are not paying for both at the same time?
    The Prime Minister: No.
    Mr. Hague: I am sorry that the Prime Minister is so tetchy today. Let me ask him another question. He said that his Government believe in high standards. Let us get this straight—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I want less of that behaviour.
    Mr. Hague: Let us get this straight. If it were true that a Minister sacked a civil servant and sought to replace her with a close friend at public expense, that would be unacceptable. Does the Prime Minister agree with that?
    The Prime Minister: Of course that would be wrong. That is not, however, what happened. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the particular person was not a career civil servant. She was appointed personally by a former Conservative Foreign Secretary. When her contract came to an end, she was replaced by a career civil servant.
    Mr. Hague: Will the Prime Minister agree that the Foreign Secretary's behaviour was certainly secretive, clearly open to misinterpretation, probably unwise and possibly worse? Is it not time, in everyone's interests and so that the Foreign Secretary does not have to use the time in international press conferences to mount a public attack on one of his own office staff, for him to come to the House and give a full statement to clear the matter up?
    The Prime Minister: No is the answer to that. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman engages in that type of
    342
    question shows how completely useless and pathetic the Conservative Opposition are. Since he appears to be suggesting that the sleaze and scandal that enveloped the previous Conservative Government are the same under the present Government, let me tell him what people objected to. They objected to cash for questions for Conservative Members of Parliament. They objected to money in brown envelopes for Conservatives who became Ministers. They objected to money coming from Chinese drug dealers. They objected to parliamentary Committee reports about Back-Bench Members of Parliament being suppressed before the most recent general election.
    You know, Madam Speaker, since he became Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman has not asked a single question on schools, on health, or on crime. He is Leader of the Opposition, and today we have seen why he will stay so.
    Mr. Hague: It is not the Opposition who have made this an issue; the behaviour and incompetence of Ministers have made it an issue. People throughout the country think that the way in which Ministers have behaved in recent weeks shows that power has gone to their heads, and, if they have nothing to hide, they should be prepared to come to the House and make a full statement and be accountable to it.
    The Prime Minister: Since I am on my feet and the right hon. Gentleman has made mention of other allegations, let me give the House the facts on the so-called amount of money being spent by Ministers. On overseas visits, considerably less money will be spent by the Government this year than was spent by the Conservative Government in their last year. On official residences, including refurbishments, more money was spent by the previous Conservative Government than has been spent by the Government this year. On ministerial hospitality, in the last full year of the previous Government, more than £2 million was spent; this year, we have spent £1 million.
    While I am on my feet, on the subject of Downing street receptions, there will be fewer receptions this year, under me, and they will cost less money than under the previous Prime Minister. My case rests.
    Mr. McAllion: Friday marks the 26th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Deny, and my right hon. Friend knows that the families of those who were killed and wounded by British Army gunfire on that day have been trying, ever since, to establish the truth of what happened and the truth about who is responsible for what happened. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of this anniversary week to announce his intention to establish an international committee of lawyers to carry out an open, honest and comprehensive inquiry into all the events surrounding Bloody Sunday, so that those matters may be finally laid to rest?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend might have anticipated, we are discussing and considering the

    343
    material that has been submitted to us. When we are in a position to make a statement, we shall do so, and it will be announced to the House in the usual way.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister might like to address a serious question. Does he rule out the possibility of a referendum on a single currency in this Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: As I explained to the right hon. Gentleman last week, we have made it clear that we do not believe that this country will be in a position to join a single currency or to have a referendum on that subject during this Parliament.
    Mr. Ashdown: The question that I asked the Prime Minister was whether he rules that possibility out. His answer last week and today was so "majoristic" that it might have come from his predecessor. To the question, "Is it possible to have a referendum on a single currency during this Parliament?", there are three possible answers: yes, no or maybe. Which is it?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear that we believe neither that there will be a referendum during this Parliament, nor that there should be, for the reasons that I have given. I gave them to the right hon. Gentleman last week, and I shall give them to him again this week. The position is such that the economic convergence necessary simply will not be in place. That is why we have said no.
    Mrs. Gilroy: Is not the minimum wage a key part of helping people out of poverty and into work? Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating our hon. Friends who have just completed a marathon twenty-six and a half hours in Standing Committee to make progress on the National Minimum Wage Bill, in the face of ill-founded delaying tactics from the Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to point out that a huge benefits bill is paid by this country—more than £3 billion a year—as a result of low pay. It is surely right that we should bring Britain into line with virtually every other civilised country by providing a floor underneath wages, so that they should not fall beneath a certain minimum level. Many countries, including the United States, have even lower levels of unemployment, yet there is a minimum wage. I do not believe that treating people fairly, paying them a decent minimum wage and offering them good job prospects are inconsistent with each other.
    Mr. Green: Can the Prime Minister explain how Britain's reputation in the world is improved by having a Minister in his Government who dare not set foot in Belgium because he is wanted for questioning by the Belgian tax authorities?
    The Prime Minister: That is rubbish, again. On this smear, the Tories began by claiming that the Paymaster-General had taken money out of the country and avoided paying UK tax. Neither of those allegations is true. The Tories carry on making those allegations because, as ever, they have nothing to say about the important issues of the day.
    Mr. Paul Clark: I welcome the decision to abolish the nursery voucher scheme, which was bureaucratic and
    344
    wasteful. We know that that will release £126 million towards implementing our pledge to provide a place for every four-year-old who wants one. Young families and those involved in that service provision in my constituency of Gillingham welcome that decision. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the pledge is rapidly implemented, so that we give our children a good start in life?
    The Prime Minister: We are making as much progress as we can. We shall be able to fulfil our pledge of nursery places for four-year-olds, then we shall make a start on three-year-olds as well. That is an important part of providing the education system that we need for the 21st century. Across every aspect of education—in primary schools, secondary schools and higher education—we are making progress in raising standards and giving our children the education that they need.

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Edward Davey: When he next plans to visit the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames.
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Davey: I am disappointed that the Prime Minister is not planning to come to Kingston, as there are some people whom I should like him to meet. Has he heard of the case of the head teacher at St. John's Church of England primary school, who has resigned because he is fed up with having to implement Government education cuts every year? Ofsted described that head teacher as inspirational. Is the Prime Minister happy to lose head teachers of that quality, just to implement Tory spending cuts? Now that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that the Treasury has a war chest, will the Prime Minister assure the people of Kingston that his Government will start to invest in education to meet his early years pledge before he reduces income tax to 10p?
    The Prime Minister: First, of course I regret any head teacher who does not want to be part of our education system.
    In relation to the IFS, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It does not confirm the Liberal Democrats' figures at all. Indeed, it is extremely important that we keep a tight rein on public spending because of the mess that we inherited—a large structural deficit that we must cure. We have to do that.
    However, substantially more money is going into education under this Government than under the previous Government. An extra £1 billion is going into next year's budget. There is the £1.2 billion school repairs programme. As I have pointed out before from this Dispatch Box, the Liberal Democrats before the election asked for money to be spent on school repairs, and on current expenditure.
    Mr. Davey: This year.
    The Prime Minister: We have the school repairs programme, and the money is going in this year. They asked for £500 million. We have given £1.2 million and they still complain about it.

    Engagements
    Mr. Pike: Until 1 May last year, we had 18 years in which the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The people in my constituency of Burnley welcome the steps that the Government have taken to address the problems of giving the poor a fairer deal. What other steps does my right hon. Friend consider as priorities to eliminate poverty for those in work and those out of work?
    The Prime Minister: The first thing to do to eliminate poverty is to get into work those who are presently out of work and who could and want to work, which is why we are making the largest single investment that any Government have ever made—£3.5 billion into the welfare-to-work programme. That is already helping young people and others to come off the benefit system and into work. Under the Conservative Government, the number of workless households doubled in 20 years. Many people on benefit want to work.
    Secondly, the 10p starting rate for tax will help to incentivise many people and reduce some of the problems in the interaction of the tax and benefit system.
    Thirdly, of course, the minimum wage will make a difference, because it will allow people some dignity in the pay packet that they get and make it clear that employers cannot undercut other employers by paying poverty pay.
    Mrs. Gorman: Given that the Prime Minister and his Government are now in office, and therefore are answerable for their spending, does he agree that the £12 million that was detailed in the national press, and that his Government have squandered on wallpapering, partying and taking their friends and relatives abroad goes against the exhortation that he gave to his own Members of Parliament: that they were not in office to enjoy the trappings of power? Does that not mean that his exhortation has fallen on deaf ears?
    The Prime Minister: No. The hon. Lady obviously was not listening to what I said earlier, when I made it clear that, on all those items that the Conservatives are belly-aching about, spending by this Government is less than that by their own Government.
    As for the other items that the hon. Lady mentioned—all that stuff about VIP suites and everything—again, the rules are precisely the same. The spending is precisely the same. Those are never criticisms that we made of the Conservatives. The criticisms that we made of them were to do with the conduct of Members of Parliament, in particular taking money for questions. That has not happened under this Government, and never will.
    Ms Blears: The Prime Minister has reiterated today his belief that education is the foundation for success in life. Will he join me in congratulating Lowry high school, an inner-city school in Salford that was virtually written off by the Tories—[Interruption]—where school attendance has improved by a massive 20 per cent. in the past 12 months? Does that not show that, with confidence, determination and the support of a Labour Government, we can all succeed? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: Just look at Conservative Members, who were shouting and bawling during that
    346
    question. When questions are about schools, they now groan as if they were irrelevant. The education changes that we are putting through are already yielding results. These are difficult times, given the spending proposals that we inherited from the previous Government. But the extra money will get there, the reform will take place, standards will improve and the education revolution that we promised will be delivered.
    Mr. Yeo: Why did the Government overrule the unanimous view of all three political parties on West Sussex county council and the view of their own specially appointed expert panel, and insist that West Sussex accept another 13,000 homes over and above the 38,000 already agreed?
    The Prime Minister: We did it for precisely the reasons that, under the previous Government, such plans were also altered on several occasions. That happened in relation to Kent, Berkshire, Bedfordshire and several other counties. As Conservative Members keep talking about the green belt, may I say that we are applying precisely the same policy as the previous Government, except that we plan to tighten it to ensure that the green belt is better protected. Once again, the Conservative party defines opposition as opportunism and hypocrisy.
    Ms Keeble: Does my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the improvement in primary school test results?
    Mr. Soames: What about Cheltenham Ladies College?
    Ms Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Northamptonshire, the decision to switch funding from the assisted places scheme to primary schools means switching the equivalent of £949,000, which is enough to employ more than 50 extra teachers? Does he agree that that is a powerful sign of the Government's determination to improve education for all? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: There they go again—it is unbelievable. What about Cheltenham Ladies college? That is the Conservatives' education priority—[Interruption.] We are trying to raise education standards for all the children of the country. Just look at Conservative Members—they have nothing to say about it. We are getting the extra money from the assisted places scheme and using it to reduce class sizes; we shall have extra money next year; and primary school results are improving already. In both secondary and higher education, we shall achieve results that are the product of investment plus reform. Twenty years of educational betrayal by the Conservatives will be turned round by a new Labour Government.
    Mr. Brazier: The Government have shown a lenient and compassionate attitude towards terrorist prisoners, particularly over the Christmas period. Will the Prime Minister turn his mind to the plight of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright, who were convicted of a killing that was carried out on duty, unpremeditated and in dangerous

    347
    circumstances? After nearly six years in prison, is it not time that those two young men, who risked their lives to serve all of us, were granted a compassionate release?
    The Prime Minister: I understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises, but, rather than comment on the individual cases, it may be better if I express my view to him in writing.
    Ms Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency of Watford, the previous Government's legacy is an ever-increasing housing problem caused by their refusal to release capital receipts for house building? A constituent who came to my surgery on Friday has been on a council house waiting list for more than 11 years, with no prospect of getting accommodation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to support Hertfordshire county council's plans for building on both urban and limited green-belt areas is right? It will ensure that homes are available to my constituents, that the environment and green belt are protected, and that urban areas are not further packed with housing, taking away the green belt available to my constituents.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, and on Hertfordshire my hon. Friend did not mention that, as a result of the proposals over all, there is greater protection of the green belt. In Hertfordshire, as in Newcastle, which the Conservatives have also been going on about, the rules have been applied in precisely the same way as before. The big difference, to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention, is the additional £900 million from the release of capital receipts that will allow homes to be built and refurbished for people in our constituencies who really need them. As a result of the previous Administration's policies, whereas we used to spend £11 billion on housing investment, we now spend roughly that or more on housing benefit. We must build homes for our people to live in, and clean up the mess and the rubbish left to us after the Conservative years.
    Mr. Malins: All hon. Members want to continue the battle against crime: the Prime Minister has said so on many occasions. Is he not making a mistake, so far as the county of Surrey is concerned, by cutting dramatically the budget of the probation service and the police? Does that not send the wrong message? The only people to benefit will be those who practise crime.
    The Prime Minister: I do not know enough about the particular circumstances in Surrey, although I shall look into the matter, given the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Overall spending on the police has increased, not diminished, and is more than the Conservative Government intended to spend. I do not doubt that there are problems with his police authority. Indeed, there are problems in schools and hospitals in many parts of the country: that is what the new Government are addressing. The plain fact of the matter is that we are being more, not less, generous than the Conservative Government whom he supported.
    Mrs. Ellman: Does the Prime Minister agree that concentrations of chronic ill health found in constituencies such as mine after 18 years of Tory rule can be tackled only by mounting a major assault on poverty, unemployment, poor housing and social exclusion? Does he also agree that, to be successful in achieving change, efforts are required at national, regional and local levels?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The social exclusion unit is designed precisely to bring together the work of different Government Departments. In the past 20 years, an increased number of people have suffered problems of poor housing, poor educational opportunity, crime, drugs and low levels of employment, which must be tackled together. That is the purpose of the new unit that we have established. The additional money from capital receipts, the welfare-to-work programme and the raising of standards in schools will all play their part in regenerating such areas, many of which are urban areas where levels of unemployment among young people are sometimes as high as 50 per cent. We must tackle unemployment, because it is not just a problem for those individuals; it is a blight on the whole country.
    Sir Peter Emery: Can the right hon. Gentleman be happy, as he promotes policies for the unity of the family, at the private actions of his Ministers at the Foreign Office? Would he recommend their behaviour as an example to the rest of the country?
    The Prime Minister: There have been Ministers in Conservative Governments whose marriages have broken up and who have remarried. That will happen in our society today. It is typical of Conservatives that they seek to exploit that, and it is beneath the right hon. Gentleman. Let me nail another part of the lie, which is that I used to go on about the private lives of Conservative Ministers. That is rubbish: it is not correct. Conservatives pretend that the problems that they got into with financial sleaze are echoed in the Labour party, so they continue to raise those matters. However, the country will not be fooled.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: When the President of the United States rang the Prime Minister to ask about plans to attack Iraq, did my right hon. Friend inform him that there would be no international consensus in support of such adventurism? Whatever plans the President may have, at this time more than any other, he would be well advised to keep them in his pockets.
    The Prime Minister: It is foolish to call "adventurism" attempts to bring Saddam Hussein back into line with United Nations Security Council resolutions. In the past few years, the inspectors who have been inspecting the so-called sites in Iraq have uncovered detailed evidence of the building of biological and chemical weapons of warfare and of nuclear weapons. That process carries on the whole time. Saddam Hussein has tried to prevent access to 45 presidential sites. There is no doubt at all about what is going on beneath cover of those sites.
    Incidentally, lest people think that this is a case of Saddam Hussein's not having enough money to provide

    349
    for his people, let me point out that he is spending billions of dollars on new presidential sites and on weapons of destruction while his people are starving. He could get the money perfectly easily under the food-for-oil provisions, but he is not doing that, because from the very beginning he has been embarked on the process of building up weapons of mass destruction.
    350
    Let me say to my hon. Friend that, while it is all very well to make remarks about the President and all the rest of it, it is not very sensible when we are dealing with circumstances in which a dictator is prepared to abuse his power to launch war on his neighbours—and if he is not stopped, and stopped soon, the effects will be worse for the whole world in the long term.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You and your predecessors have often ruled that questions should relate to the work of Ministers. Is it acceptable for questions to be asked that relate to their private lives? Many of us consider such questions to be unacceptable and trivial. I ask you to rule—as you have on other occasions—that questions should relate to Ministers' political work, rather than to matters that do not relate in any way to their political responsibilities.
Madam Speaker: I follow the questioning on these issues carefully, and I am very concerned about it. Such questions were allowed today—which I believe was absolutely correct—and they were properly answered. It is right for the House to hear the questions and to know of the concerns, but also to hear the answers—as we have today.
Mr. Richard Page: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As this is only the third time in 22 years that I have raised a point of order, I hope that I cannot be accused of abusing the privilege that we are given in that regard.
Since the beginning of October, I have been trying to lead an all-party delegation of local councillors from my constituency to the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to debate and ask about the green belt and planning requirements. My request has been refused.
At the beginning of December, I asked the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), whether I could bring an all-party delegation of Hertfordshire MPs to discuss the same matter. On 20 December, I received a letter stating that, as the matter was now not to be called in:
"It would not be appropriate for me to offer you or other Hertfordshire Members a meeting as it is now for Hertfordshire County Council"
to progress.
You will understand my surprise, Madam Speaker, when I learned within 24 hours that Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions were holding a meeting for Labour Members of Parliament only, to discuss exactly the subject that I wanted to discuss. I consider that an example of double standards, and it has prohibited me from representing my constituents who are definitely worried about what is happening.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me some indication of his point of order, and I am grateful to him for so doing.
352
It is a generally accepted convention of the House that Members should have the right of access to Ministers to discuss constituency issues that lie within the responsibilities of those Ministers. While Ministers may, for good reasons, postpone a meeting from time to time, in my experience it is extremely rare for a request for a meeting to be refused altogether, and I would deplore such an occurrence. At the end of the day, however, that must remain a matter between the Minister and the Member concerned—but I hope that the Minister may reconsider.
Mr. Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a member of the Standing Committee considering the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill—Standing Committee C. After four days, we are still only on line 2, as a result of the conduct of the Bill's supporters.
I think that I can cope with that without your aid and comfort, Madam Speaker. What really concerns me is the fact that other Bills will be prevented from being enacted because of the filibustering of those hon. Members. What worries me more is that some of those Bills are supported not just by Labour Members but by new Labour Members who may not realise that Bills that they have taken such care to present to the House are being blocked by their hon. Friends.
May I refer you, Madam Speaker, to some of the Bills that ought to be on the statute book and which are being blocked—
Madam Speaker: No, I can read the Order Paper.
Mr. Garnier: I am looking at pages 278 and 279 of today's Order Paper.
Madam Speaker: I read it this morning.
Mr. Garnier: I thought you might have done, Madam Speaker. Those pages contain some worthy Bills that are supported by Labour Members, and they are being denied passage to the statute book because of the conduct in Committee.
Madam Speaker: I have to concern myself with the Committee to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred in his point of order. I am sad to learn about the lack of progress in that Committee, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues are working hard to make progress on the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill so that it reaches the statute book. Is not that correct?
Mr. Garnier: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: If there is a serious delay in Committee, its Chairman must report the matter to me and I shall seek to deal with it. However, my view now is that I want to see some progress in that Committee, so that other hon. Members can have their Bills taken forward.

Door Supervisors (Registration)
3.35 pm
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish national standards for door supervisors; to establish a national register of door supervisors; and for connected purposes.
More than 120 million people a year in Britain enjoy a good night out in night clubs and discotheques, and I understand that an equally large number enjoy a good evening out in the pub and that millions, especially young people, go to pop concerts and festivals. At all those venues, door supervisors, popularly known as bouncers, play a crucial role in public safety. If the public are to have confidence in those supervisors, they must be trained, competent and honest.
Proposals for a national registration scheme for door supervisors are not new. In 1995, the Select Committee on Home Affairs reported on the whole private security industry, and strongly recommended a national registration scheme. Unfortunately, the previous Government refused to follow that recommendation, and instead contented themselves with giving guidance to local authorities on setting up voluntary schemes for door supervisors.
More than 100 local councils have set up such local registration schemes, usually in partnership with the police. They operate through public entertainments licences, and in some places also through magistrates' liquor licences. Those local schemes can have beneficial effects.
When Newcastle introduced a scheme in 1992, it registered 700 local door supervisors, and there was a 75 per cent. reduction in violent and drug-related offences involving door supervisors. Milton Keynes has ClubWatch, a scheme which has excellent co-operation with the police, the local authority and local clubs.
However, there are problems with local schemes. Standards vary from one place to another, and door supervisors have to be registered for each local authority within whose area they work. For example, Milton Keynes recognises the training given by Westminster council but, paradoxically, not that given by Northampton council, which is an adjacent authority.
In some areas there are no controls, and the criminal tendency tends to move to those areas from the more regulated ones. Pubs are not always included, and hon. Members will be aware that pubs are increasingly engaging door supervisors.
There is an additional problem that is relevant to my constituency. It contains a large outdoor venue called the National Bowl, where large pop concerts and other events are occasionally held. It is quite impractical for the Milton Keynes council scheme to register sufficient door supervisors for that event, so people are brought in from outside.
The added urgency about action on registration schemes is that there has been a recent challenge to the legal basis on which councils operate the schemes. Although the London boroughs have been given specific powers to regulate doormen under part V of the London Local Authorities Act 1995, councils outside London rely on the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions)
354
Act 1992. It is being challenged that, although the 1982 Act applies in licensing premises, it does not necessarily allow the licensing of individual doormen. Thanet council, which has been the subject of a challenge, has consequently suspended its scheme.
Weaknesses in local schemes are exploited by criminals, and a minority of door supervisors pose a very real threat to public safety. There have been numerous reports of assaults on customers by door supervisors, some of which have been so serious that deaths have occurred. Deaths have been reported in London, Bedfordshire and Cleveland.
This week, I was contacted by Mrs. June Steel, of Cheltenham, who has collected 2,500 signatures to a petition demanding registration of door supervisors. Her 28-year-old son Paul was assaulted by a bouncer outside a nightclub. Although he was punched only once, it was sufficient to leave him brain-damaged. The door supervisor was employed by a security firm operating from Birmingham. He had only just been released from prison, where he had been serving a sentence for manslaughter. His employers were unaware of that.
The problem of door supervisors at pop concerts and pop festivals has only recently been brought to my attention. Hon. Members will be aware that, although it depends on the band, many pop concerts have audiences consisting of extremely young girls, or are particularly attractive to young teenagers. There have been instances in which people with convictions for rape and even for paedophile offences have been employed as door supervisors at pop concerts, which is clearly highly unsatisfactory and is putting young people at risk.
Door supervisors have also been involved in the organisation of the supply of illegal drugs in clubs in London, Durham and Cleveland. The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who has been very active on the issue of registration, can testify to the violent and intimidatory tactics of door supervisors in his area.
A few years ago, a survey was conducted of 476 door supervisors in Merseyside that showed that three supervisors had murder and manslaughter convictions; two were out on bail; 32 had weapons and firearms convictions; and 101 had convictions for assault. Moreover, the Chancellor might be interested to know that 97 of those 476 door supervisors were claiming unemployment benefit while working, and were therefore part of the black economy—reducing still further the status of door supervisors and adding to their involvement in criminal activity.
The current situation should not be allowed to continue, and I know that the Government are proposing to introduce legislation on the entire private security industry. The United Kingdom is apparently the only country in the European Union that does not regulate its security industry.
The issues relating to property security are not the same as those relating to the security of people. There is an urgent need to regulate the leisure security industry now, both to prevent further injury and death to members of the public and as a contribution to the Government's overall strategy to curb drug abuse. The public who would be most affected by regulating door supervisors are mainly young people, making it all the more urgent that the House take action.

355
Mandatory national registration is supported by all the major players in the industry. The British Entertainment and Discotheque Association—representing 700 operators, large and small—supports mandatory national registration, which it would wish to be financed through charges to the industry so that it would cost the taxpayer not a penny. BEDA believes that registration is particularly important for one-venue operators, which are very vulnerable to protection rackets organised by door supervisor agencies.
The GMB trade union and the National Association of Registered Door Supervisors both support a national register, because they believe that it would eliminate disreputable operators and recognise the value of properly qualified door supervisors. The police, through the Association of Chief Police Officers, support it.
My Bill would ensure that, wherever one goes in the United Kingdom, one can be sure that door supervisors have been checked to eliminate those with relevant convictions for violence, including sexual violence, and for drugs or weapons offences. They would also have completed a nationally recognised training course.
People would be trained in crowd control, in safe ways of restraining people—because customers can be very aggressive when under the influence of drugs or alcohol—in recognising drug abuse and knowing how to act in response it, and in first aid and fire safety. It would be made an offence to act as a door supervisor without being on the national register. That would cover all sorts of venues—pubs as well as night clubs, pop concerts and festivals.
Interestingly, the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 gives such protection to football crowds. Stewards at matches have to be trained. Clubgoers and others enjoying themselves on a good night out have a right to expect the same protection. This Bill would give it to them.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Ms Karen Buck, Ms Beverley Hughes, Miss Melanie Johnson, Mr. Lawrie Quinn, Mr. Jonathan Shaw, Angela Smith and Dr. Alan Whitehead.

Door Supervisors (Registration)
  DOOR SUPERVISORS (REGISTRATION)
  Dr. Starkey accordingly presented a Bill to establish national standards for door supervisors; to establish a national register of door supervisors; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March, and to be printed [Bill 114].

SCOTLAND BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That the Report [22nd January] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. McFall.]
Question agreed to.
Report considered accordingly.
Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in its Resolution.—[Mr. McFall.]
Following is the report of the Business Committee [22 January]:
That—
(1) the order in which proceedings in Committee are taken shall be Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 20, Schedule 2, Clause 21, Schedule 3, Clauses 22 to 28, Schedule 4, Clauses 29 to 91, Schedule 6, Clauses 92 to 109, Schedule 5, New Clauses, New Schedules, Clause 110, Schedules 7 and 8, Clauses 111 to 116.
(2) the eight days allotted under the Order [13th January] to proceedings in Committee shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion (in accordance with the Order) at the time specified in the third column of the Table.

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings in Committee

Time for conclusion of proceedings

First day

Clause 1 (to the end of subsection (2))

7:00 p.m.

Clause 1 (remaining proceedings)

Schedule 1

Clauses 2 to 17

10:00 p.m.

Second day

Clauses 18 to 20

Schedule 2

Clause 21

Schedule 3

Clauses 22 to 28

Schedule 4

Clauses 29 to 40

10:00 p.m.

Third to eighth days

Remaining proceedings (according to time limits to be determined by a further report or further reports of the Business Committee)

10:00 p.m. on the eighth day

Orders of the Day

  Scotland Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.

  Scotland Bill
    Clause 1

      THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
      3.47 pm
      Mr. Michael Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 8, at end insert—
      '(1A) Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliament, or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters and things in Scotland.'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 79, in clause 27, page 13, leave out lines 30 and 31.
      Amendment No. 169, in clause 27, page 13, line 30, leave out 'section' and insert 'Act'.
      Amendment No. 23, in clause 27, page 13, line 31, at end add
      'in relation to reserved matters'.
      Amendment No. 198, in clause 27, page 13, line 31, at end add
      'which may not be amended or repealed by the Scottish Parliament'.
      Amendment No. 189, in clause 35, page 16, line 44, leave out
      'have effect subject to this Act'
      and insert
      'shall be construed together with this Act, and those sections of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 and the Union with England Act 1707 which relate to Scotland shall together with this Act be known as the "Government of Scotland Act"'.
      The question, That clause 35 stand part of the Bill.
      Amendment No. 3, in clause 116, page 52, line 19, after 'the', insert 'Government of.
      Mr. Ancram: I welcome the fact that we are considering such a constitutional measure in a Committee of the whole House. As happens on these occasions, groups of amendments tend to be fairly widespread. It always fascinates me to see which amendments are grouped together and how far through the Bill we go on each group.
      Amendment No. 3 relates to almost the very end of the Bill. It seeks to change its title to the "Government of Scotland Bill." The reason is consistency. The constitutional Bill relating to Wales is called the Government of Wales Bill. Indeed, the last time that there was devolution in the United Kingdom—in Northern Ireland—it was under the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
      As part of the devolutionary package, there would be some merit in such consistency. The Secretary of State might like to take the suggestion seriously and give it some consideration. There is not a great deal of party
      358
      political force behind it, but it would make the statute book rather tidier. I know that, as a Scottish lawyer—as I am myself—the Secretary of State likes tidiness.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): An Edinburgh lawyer.
      Mr. Ancram: As the Minister says, I was an Edinburgh lawyer. The Secretary of State will remember that I practised most of the time in the Glasgow High Court, sometimes under his beneficent instruction.
      Amendments Nos. 2, 169 and 198 all relate to what has become known in popular jargon as the supremacy question. Although they refer to different parts of the Bill, they should be looked at together. Throughout the referendum campaign, and on Second Reading, the Secretary of State claimed that the proposals would strengthen the United Kingdom. The amendments are addressed to that important assertion.
      We accept that the democratic case for a Scottish Parliament has been made in the referendum. We must now ensure that it fulfils the claims made for it, and avoids the pitfalls with which it could be surrounded and against which we have warned in recent months.
      The Bill is a major constitutional measure. That is why the entire Committee stage is being taken on the Floor of the House. Like all constitutional reforms, it could go one way or the other. It could create turmoil, as Sir Malcolm Rifkind predicted at the end of the referendum. He saw the danger not of the break-up of the United Kingdom, but of a generation of constitutional turmoil. On the other hand, it could be used to create stability. As there will be devolution and a Scottish Parliament, it is our common task on both sides of the House to try to ensure the latter.
      To achieve stability and to fulfil the claim that the measure will strengthen the United Kingdom, the reform must be subject to clear constitutional anchors. The first is the sovereignty of Parliament.
      Mr. Alex Salmond: At what stage did the right hon. Gentleman stop believing that devolution would inevitably lead to independence, as the Conservative party claimed during the referendum campaign, and start believing that it could go one way or the other, as he has said this afternoon? Can he put his finger on a precise date?
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will have difficulty in finding any occasion on which I said that the process would be inevitable. I said—and I repeat—that the proposals contain flaws that could lead to that break-up which I wish to avoid. Since the referendum, I have made it clear that our responsibility is to try to cure those flaws, and to create stability and balance where there is currently instability and imbalance.
      As I was saying, to establish stability constitutional measures have to meet four constitutional anchors. The first is the sovereignty of Parliament, which is of great importance in this country because we do not have a written constitution. The sovereignty of this House and its ability to decide on the constitutional position are essential parts of the stability of the constitution.
      Mr. James Wallace: As a distinguished Scots Queen's Counsel, how does the right

      359
      hon. Gentleman square what he has just said with what Lord President Cooper said in the case of MacCormick v. the Lord Advocate? He said:
      "The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law."
      We are dealing with the Scotland Bill.
      Mr. Ancram: At the moment, all I have said is that I believe that one of the anchors is the sovereignty of Parliament. I will deal with that point, because we must look at the distinction between legal and political sovereignty, which is recognised and is of importance.
      I would merely say that, in the case mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman—MacCormick v. the Lord Advocate—that remark was not in the main judgment, but was part of the obiter dicta. If I remember my constitutional law correctly, there are many other remarks which can be drawn upon from that case—not only from Lord Cooper, but from other judges—which, while interesting, have no legal implication. I will come on to that.
      The second anchor is the integrity of the United Kingdom, even if constitutional changes are made within it. I hope that that will be common ground across the Dispatch Boxes, and that we are looking to maintain the integrity of the UK in what is being done. The third anchor is the importance of the constitutional monarchy, and the fourth is the balance of the interests of an individual with the powers of the state. Those are the four anchors against which all constitutional measures should be tested. In this instance, there are two specific anchors to which I wish to return.
      Mr. George Galloway: Unlike the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I am not so much interested in when the sinner repented as in that he has repented. I welcome it, and we should not be churlish about welcoming the transformation in the views of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on the subject.
      In that context, I make a sincere plea to the right hon. Gentleman. One of the best contributions that he could make to making a success of the project is to drop the dog-in-the-manger churlishness which characterised his performance and those of some of his hon. Friends on the previous occasion we debated the Bill. I honestly cannot see how that is even in the interests of his own party. Devolution is now the settled will of the people, and the Bill will pass through this House. Let us make a success of it, and approach it constructively and with good will. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at this early stage to do so in today's debate.
      Mr. Ancram: I will always take lessons in constructiveness and good will from the hon. Gentleman, given his past record. I hear what he has to say; I merely say this. I have said that I believe that devolution contains great dangers to the United Kingdom—I would be less than honest if I did not continue to say that. I believe also that this Bill has substantial flaws, which I believe enhance that danger. I wish to see those flaws cured.
      I also take the view that it is dangerous ever to suggest—as the hon. Gentleman appears to be doing—that the Bill is somehow perfect and incapable of
      360
      amendment, and that anyone criticising it is somehow criticising the future existence of a Scottish Parliament. I have said that I accept that there will be a Scottish Parliament, but I would be doing less than my job and my duty if I failed to scrutinise the Bill carefully, and, when I saw gaps in it, to say so. If that is churlishness or being a dog in the manger, I am afraid that that is the job not only of the Opposition, but of Back Benchers from all parties; that is the duty and responsibility of the House of Commons.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look seriously at the flaws which exist, and will desist from the suggestion that it is somehow heresy to criticise in any form any of the proposals that are made. His case might have been stronger had the referendum been held after the publication of the Bill, so that the people of Scotland could have said, "Yes, we agree with every single word; every dot, tittle and comma"—or whatever the phrase is. That was not the case, and we have a responsibility to look closely at the Bill.
      For a start, we know that devolving power inevitably creates a momentum of what has been called unbundling, and creates the appearance of a slippery slope towards separation and the break-up of the UK. At best, it creates the prospect of turmoil. This is compounded by the dangerous flaws in the Bill, which will create imbalance, instability and the threat of Anglo-Scottish confrontation if we do not deal with them now. To counteract that, there is a necessity to ensure the application of two of the anchors I mentioned—the integrity of the United Kingdom and the sovereignty of Parliament.
      As it stands, the underlying dynamic of the legislation has the effect of undermining the integrity of the United Kingdom. It is consistent with the view that devolution is not so much an event as a process; that this is a start, not an end; and that there is all for nationalists to play for in trying to achieve their goal of independence.
      This is a test of the Secretary of State's undertaking about whether the Bill will strengthen the United Kingdom. I believe that, as it stands, it cannot deliver that. To create credibility and stability, we need to establish that the concept of the Bill is not federalism, which by definition divides powers, but devolution, which delegates them, and that it is also not quasi-federalism; if it were, the clause would not be a part of it.
      The Bill is drafted to suggest that we are to have devolution, with delegated powers, not federalism, with divided powers. The clause helps to establish that, but it begs several questions. We know that it is replicated from section 4(4) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, and presumably it is there to fulfil the same function of reassurance.
      We must accept that, legally, the clause adds nothing to existing sovereignty, but the absence of such a reassurance in the Northern Ireland context, at least, could have been regarded as significant. I suspect that the same could have been said in this context, and that is why the clause is there; but it is not satisfactory as it stands. It does not state, for instance, whether, if the United Kingdom Parliament were to make laws for Scotland, they would take precedence and prevent further amendment or repeal by Scottish Parliament legislation, or whether they could be the beginning of a shuttlecock game between the two Parliaments.

      361
      On Second Reading, I asked whether private Members' legislation could be included, and I think that the Minister said no. I hope that he has reconsidered, because a power for this Parliament to legislate in Scotland must inevitably include the power for a private Member's Bill to be part of such legislation.
      As it stands, the clause could be a cockpit for a struggle between the two legislatures. The power to legislate could be within the vires of this Parliament, because it is sovereign, while the power to repeal legislation, because it was not a reserved matter, would be open to the Scottish Parliament, and legislation could be batted back and forth, with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council unable to make a decision, because both Parliaments would effectively be acting within their vires. If I am wrong about that, I shall be pleased to be corrected; but that is my concern about the clause.
      That is why we want to amend the clause through amendments Nos. 169 and 198. We want to ensure that, if an Act of Parliament is passed relating to Scottish matters, that Act will be incapable of repeal or amendment by the Scottish Parliament. It is a power that would, I believe, be very rarely used, but it is relevant in making the clause credible.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman says that the power would be very rarely used. Can he give an example of circumstances in which it could be used?
      Mr. Ancram: Only a hypothetical example: the House might decide to pass a private Member's Bill that included Scotland and affected a matter that was not reserved to the House—there is nothing in the clause to prevent it from doing so—and the danger is that the Scottish Parliament could decide that, as the matter was not reserved, it wanted to repeal or amend it; then, in my reading of the clause, this Parliament would have the power to establish that law if it wanted to.
      Mr. Galloway: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Ancram: No.
      I said that it would happen rarely. In constitutional experience, the way in which responsible parliaments work means that such occasions would very rarely occur. The experience of Northern Ireland in the Stormont period underlines that. Once again, I make the point that, where there is such a danger, we should pre-empt it by legislating in the way that makes it least likely to happen.
      Mr. Salmond: The right hon. Gentleman is not pre-empting conflict but trying to consolidate the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. Does he think that it would be constructive—let us put it that way—for a Back-Bench Member of this Parliament or the Government to legislate on devolved matters? If not, why is he trying to enshrine that right in the legislation?
      Mr. Ancram: For the reason that I have already given, and one that the hon. Gentleman obviously has not yet taken on board. If one accepts—I know that he does not, but the Secretary of State does—that this Parliament remains sovereign, it is important that no legislation
      362
      allows for that sovereignty to be constantly undermined, as I have said could hypothetically be the case under clause 27.
      I have tabled the amendment because I believe that, if clause 27 is to last, we need to make it as effective as it can be. I believe that we need a further clause, and that is what I want to deal with next.
      Mr. Galloway: I invited the right hon. Gentleman, and he seemed to respond, to approach these matters constructively. What could be more destructive or certain to lead to turmoil—to borrow his words—than such an occasion as he postulates? A Member of this House could exploit the amendment to create conflict on constitutional grounds between the two Parliaments. Is that the constructive law-making to which we can look forward from the right hon. Gentleman for the rest of the day?
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. I am saying that we must try to prevent conflict arising. I do not want to see conflict, but where a clause, by its definition and nature, allows conflicts to arise—as clause 1 does—it is right to amend it to prevent confrontation and to avoid making the shuttlecock legislation that I fear.
      Clause 1 was put in the Bill not by me but by the Secretary of State and the Government. All I am saying is that, if this is to be the clause that underlines the sovereignty of Parliament, it should be drafted in such a way as to achieve that.
      Our responsibility is to pre-empt confrontation. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) asks me to hope that all will be perfect in a perfect world, and that conflict will never arise. That is not the right way to deal with constitutional legislation.
      Mr. Wallace: I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he saying that, when this Parliament passed the Church of Scotland Act 1921, which gave the Church of Scotland, its general assembly and its courts sovereignty over all matters within the spiritual domain of the Church, Westminster retained the sovereign right to remove those powers at a later stage? If that is his position, is he not provoking a constitutional difficulty with the Church of Scotland?
      Mr. Ancram: I am always keen to avoid confrontation with any Church. I understand that this is a matter of debate in another place. I shall be interested in the outcome of that debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is being made against the Government's proposal in another place. I shall read carefully the outcome of that dispute.
      We propose a broader amendment that avoids this rather intricate argument. I am looking for a clearer statement of the supremacy of this Parliament of the United Kingdom, which fulfils in terms the requirements of the two anchors I mentioned, and which has respectable precedents in section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The amendment can hold no fears for those who proclaim, as does the Secretary of State and as did the Prime Minister in a felicitous phrase that I need not repeat to the House, that sovereignty and consequently the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament resides in this House and this Parliament.

      363
      The purpose of my amendment, as was the purpose of section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, is to make the position clear in language that is comprehensive, unambiguous and reassuring. I readily concede that it can have no added legal effect to the legal sovereignty that already adheres, but neither can clause 27. There is, however—this is the point that was raised with me earlier—the legal concept of sovereignty, which is understood, and the political concept. In a dynamic situation, such as that which the Bill creates, the legal concept is not of itself sufficient. Had it been so, it would not have been possible for the Scottish convention in its claim of rights to assert that sovereignty rested with the Scottish people. That was an assertion of political sovereignty which, left unchallenged, would seriously undermine the United Kingdom's integrity.
      I do not question the reality stated some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) that one could not hold a component part of the UK within the Union against the wishes of the majority of the people of that part, but that is the ultimate definition of political sovereignty, not what we are dealing with here.
      At issue here is the ability of a Scottish Parliament to use its legislative and devolved constitutional muscle to challenge the Westminster Parliament's political sovereignty and to create the slippery slope so beloved of nationalists, but apparently eschewed by the Secretary of State and certainly rejected by us as inimical to the integrity of the United Kingdom.
      The amendment, by definition, is declamatory, but it proclaims the political sovereignty and the supremacy of this Parliament. It contradicts the slippery slope and it redirects the Bill's dynamic in a way which is consistent with the claims made by the Secretary of State that the Scottish Parliament will strengthen the United Kingdom. It will give reassurance to those in Scotland who voted for the Parliament but would recoil from any further move towards separation. It will anger those nationalists who proclaim Westminster sovereign to be a fiction, but it does lay down the anchor. It is a beacon of intent that the phrase "devolution within the United Kingdom" means what it says and that any future moves to use this legislation or the Parliament that it creates to undermine the Union would be contrary to the spirit and intention of the Bill and the House.
      Mr. Donald Gorrie: As I am not a lawyer and am new to this kind of thing, will the right hon. Gentleman explain what exactly he means? As I understand it, clause 27, as amended, will say that the Westminster Parliament could make Acts relating to matters that are under the control of the Scottish Parliament and that the Scottish Parliament could not reverse that. If that is so, could the Westminster Parliament introduce a completely new education or health system in Scotland against the wishes of the Scottish Parliament? That is what I understand to be the effect of the amendment.
      Mr. Ancram: No, that is the effect of the clause, unamended. Clause 27 states:
      "This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland."
      364
      It does not say "only over reserved matters"; it says
      "to make laws for Scotland."
      That includes matters which are not reserved. It must, by definition.
      The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish)indicated dissent.
      Mr. Ancram: If it does not include matters which are not reserved, where does it say so in the Bill? I have looked closely. The whole point about the clause, as was the case in the Government of Ireland Act from which it was drawn, is that it reasserts the supremacy of this House over all areas of legislation.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) makes the point that I was making about clause 27. My concern was that that could have a knock-on effect between the two Parliaments, something which amendment No. 198 seeks to avoid by adding the words
      "which may not be amended or repealed by the Scottish Parliament."
      That makes it clear that this Parliament's sovereignty exists and is established by clause 27.
      I left clause 27 for the very reason that I find it an unsatisfactory vehicle. It is made better by my amendment, but if that is not successful I hope that I can persuade the Secretary of State that amendment No. 2 is a more secure way of achieving his and my purpose.
      Amendment No. 2 is, in many ways, a test of the Secretary of State's good faith. Nothing in it is inconsistent with any claim that he has made in promoting devolution and the Bill. It encapsulates the undertakings that he gave so fervently and persistently during the referendum about the Bill's effects on the United Kingdom, and for him to accept the amendment would be a sign of good faith to the Scottish people to whom he gave those assurances. If he turns it down—
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Which amendment?
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Ancram: Amendment No. 2—my main amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman turns it down, his words will turn to dust in his mouth, and many who put their trust in him, as he asked them to do, will feel that that trust has been betrayed.
      I know from previous debates that we shall be challenged yet again as to why we argue this case. We shall be told that it is somehow contrary to the spirit of devolution—indeed, the hon. Member for Kelvin has already made that point. We shall be warned in menacing tones that we are committing heresy against the settled will of the Scottish people. We shall not be intimidated by such rhetoric, nor will we accept such accusations.
      Mr. Dewar: I am a little bit puzzled. I do not want words to turn to dust in my mouth, as that sounds like a rather uncomfortable experience, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain this to me.
      As I understand it, the words he wishes to insert in the Bill are largely based on section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920; but the words we are using are based on the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. 1 do not want to make this a competition between the two Acts,

      365
      but presumably the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's words is that the 1973 Act was a betrayal of people in Ireland, because it was so much weaker than 1920 Act. Does he not think it a more likely explanation that in 1973 it was seen that plain, straightforward and rather more modern language was preferable?
      Mr. Ancram: If that had been the case, section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act would have been repealed, as were many other parts of that Act, but it was not. Section 75, from which my amendment is drawn, could have been repealed at that stage, but it was not, and it is still extant. Both provisions are in place in relation to Northern Ireland, and all I am suggesting in my amendment is that both provisions should also be available in the Scotland Bill.
      Mr. John McAllion: I have just returned from a visit to Northern Ireland. I spoke to groups in Belfast and Derry, and none of them want to see a return of the Stormont Parliament, so why are right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House trying to write into the new Scotland Bill a situation like that of the Stormont Parliament in Northern Ireland? If the Irish people do not want it, the Scottish people certainly do not want it imposed on them, either.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman makes my case for me. The power by which the Stormont Parliament was prorogued and direct rule established at the time of the civil rights marches was exercised under the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament, as stated and asserted in section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act. I am trying to introduce a similar provision into the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman feels that protection is needed against that sort of thing, the amendment offers precisely that protection.
      The reason why we have tabled the amendment and why we press it now is that we believe not only in the United Kingdom, but—more important—in the central and vital role that Scotland can play within the United Kingdom. I am prepared to confess that I am unashamedly a unionist. I believe that the Union is an enormous benefit to the people within these islands, and a great force for good beyond them.
      I believe, too, that Scotland has benefited from the Union and has contributed disproportionately, but magnificently, to its history. The partnership continues to hold out great promise and prospects to Scotland, even with a devolved Parliament; and to undermine those prospects would be a disservice to the people of Scotland and their interests.
      I want the Union to prevail, with Scotland continuing to play her historic role within it. The amendment proclaims that Union; it asserts the supremacy of the Parliament of that Union; and it establishes devolution within that Union. I call on all those who believe in and value the United Kingdom, and who, above all, believe in and value the role of a devolved Scotland within it, to support this historic amendment.
      Mr. Dalyell: I fear that beacons of intent do not always make good and stable law. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made a rather "have your cake and eat it" speech in favour of his "have your cake and eat it" amendments.
      366
      Because of the guillotine time problem, I shall concentrate on clause 27(7), which states:
      "This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland."
      Subsection (7) may conceivably be true in an arcane legal sense, but in the political reality of 1998 it is palpably misleading and about as true as it would be to say that the Queen can veto any legislation.
      Let us pretend no longer that when the Bill becomes law, Westminster will remain sovereign; it will not. Westminster is—it is better to be very candid about this—effectively stripped of sovereignty. There is no glass ceiling and we should not imagine that the Bill does or can put a tight cap on Holyrood's powers.
      I thought that the right hon. Member for Devizes was whistling in the wind when he talked about the integrity of the United Kingdom; the integrity of the United Kingdom may not be possible, given this Bill. How can the House of Commons bestow legislative responsibility on another institution without diminishing its own powers?
      If the House of Commons is ceding to another elected authority the right to rule in education, housing, health and other gut issues of politics, how can our hitherto monopoly of sovereignty remain intact and undiminished? Frankly, of course, it cannot. As soon as Members of the Scottish Parliament are elected in 1999, they will behave as a separate constitutional entity when dealing with domestic affairs.
      Furthermore, heaven help the Members of the Scottish Parliament if they are not perceived to do things differently. In the eyes of those who wanted Holyrood, that is what they are for. If they do not sort out tuition fees for students quickly, electors will ask, "Why go to all the trouble, and why have all the hoo-hah and expense of setting up Holyrood?"
      There is no glass ceiling. I know one reason why—it is that any glass ceiling, or explicit limit on Holyrood's freedom to evolve into independence, would create enormous party problems for, for example, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Substituting flimsy cellophane for glass was part of the price of his support at the referendum.
      Another deeper reason why there can be no glass ceiling relates to political imperatives. What happens when the expectations of Holyrood are unfulfilled? What happens about lone parents? I bet every candidate who goes before a constituency selection conference for the Labour party or any other party, including the Conservative party, will be asked his or her views on lone parents.
      Scotland will be strewn with commitments that lone parent benefit will be restored to the full. The leadership of Holyrood Members of Parliament, fresh from the hustings, will then come to the Treasury in Great George street, London, and say, "We need more money to restore lone parent benefit." Doubtless they will say the same about a host of other perceived ills.
      Are we sure that English Government Members of Parliament will acquiesce in giving more money per capita to the Scots to sort out lone parent benefit and many matters that are, purportedly, outwith Holyrood's powers—for that matter, tuition fees are within Holyrood's powers—than to their own constituents,

      367
      faced with diminishing lone parent benefit and tuition fees? The notion that all will be sweetness and light defies human nature and all political experience.
      Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and, knowing the care with which he approaches such matters, I hesitate to contradict him, but will he not accept that lone parent benefit is not a devolved subject? It is a reserved subject; there is therefore no question of anyone going to the Treasury to ask for more money to pay more lone parent benefit in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman may make the point that expectations may be raised that cannot be delivered, but candidates should be on notice of which powers are held by the Parliament for which they are standing.
      Mr. Dalyell: Of course; the hon. and learned Gentleman is right—I said that it was outwith the powers, but whether it will be perceived as being outwith the powers is a totally different matter. There will be enormous pressure, will there not, to get reserved powers—
      Mr. Gorrie indicated dissent.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. This is a difference of judgment, but it is a judgment about human nature. The expectations that have been aroused in Scotland on welfare and other subjects are enormous, and I do not think that it is within human or political nature—although, doubtless in good faith, Ministers have proposed it—to respect the division of powers on gut political issues when there is the whole panoply of a Scottish Parliament.
      The difficulty lies in the assumption that there will be an eternally amiable relationship. I wish I thought that that could happen, but it is very difficult. As was said in a previous debate on the Government of Wales Bill—the fascinating debate on Welsh devolution, at which I have been a constant attender—a Czech and Slovak problem will gradually develop. It will be relatively amiable to start with, but, once there is strife on delicate welfare reform subjects, one will get into a variety of difficulties.
      What is the Secretary of State's attitude to the Scottish National party and others—I do not mean this pejoratively—using Holyrood as a forum in which to promote independence? Is it not true that, as he is reported as telling the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan on 24 July 1997, it would be "futile" to oppose the will of the Scottish people? He is quoted as saying:
      "The boundary between reserved and devolved powers may be adjusted as the need arises."
      Therefore, we should not pretend that this is a lasting settlement; it is really a process. Power devolved is not power retained. The idea that Westminster is the ultimate authority will be little more than a formality.
      I conclude by asking a question, as I hope to do, keeping any interventions short. Under subsection (7) of clause 27, will the status of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to the Scottish Parliament be rather like that of the Queen as titular head of state? Does not what the subsection says about the powers of the United
      368
      Kingdom Parliament sound like the Queen's ability to veto parliamentary legislation, which we know, in reality, to be impossible?
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) painted a gloomy picture. I am under no illusions that there will not, from time to time, be tensions between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. Such tensions are present in any system. Canadians have told me that tensions often exist between their federal Government and provincial Governments.
      We are kidding ourselves if we suppose that we are embarking on something novel in the experience of countries worldwide. In fact, we are probably in the minority in having such a centralised system; it is commonplace to have divisions of responsibilities between different layers of government. Although, undoubtedly, there will be tensions, we will be obliged to find a means of resolving what will then be a political reality. We hope that we are grown-up adults and can resolve those tensions maturely, without always resorting to haranguing.
      Unfortunately, the political system that we have grown used to over the years, breeds in us a view that any political dispute or debate can be resolved only by conflict and confrontation. However, the Bill is a product of the constitutional convention, where we defied the critics who said that it would be impossible for the parties that joined the constitutional convention, working by consensus, to produce a set of proposals. The fact that we achieved it gives hope that there can be a new style of politics. We will have to learn new tricks and new ways of resolving conflicts, because it will not always be sweetness and light.
      I do not accept that, because there will be tensions and friction, that will inevitably lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom—far from it. I have always strongly believed that the swiftest road to breaking up the United Kingdom would have been to deny the people of Scotland the legitimate aspirations that they have expressed time and again for more say over our domestic agenda.
      4.30 pm
      The lead amendment shows the Conservative party defending the traditional position of Westminster sovereignty. I do not accept the argument of parliamentary sovereignty as advanced by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I do not believe that that ever was the constitutional position in Scotland.
      When I was studying constitutional law at Downing college, Cambridge, in the early 1970s, we would go through interminable legal problems about trying to entrench powers so that Acts could be amended only with a two-thirds majority, and discuss whether a subsequent Westminster Parliament could overturn that and amend the Act with a simple majority. It was fascinating and enjoyable, but did not advance us very far.
      The proposition of Westminster's sovereignty was very much an English one. The workings of Professor Dicey.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises authorities from the past. I raise an authority from the present and refer him to the debate on the White Paper, when the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
      "We accept that sovereignty within a devolved system lies with the United Kingdom Parliament."—[Official Report, 31 July 1997; Vol. 299, c. 457.]

      369
      Does the hon. and learned Gentleman disclaim that authority, which is a Scottish authority?
      Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State will no doubt reply to the debate and answer for himself. I am advancing my view and that of my party. I do not accept the sovereignty of Westminster, and I am on the record—the right hon. Gentleman could have cited me—as saying on several occasions that I do not accept it. That is an English concept.
      I am prepared to concede that many people think that Westminster is sovereign, but we must deal with that reality—we cannot wish it away. It is obvious from comments such as those of the right hon. Gentleman that the notion of Westminster's sovereignty is so ingrained that it is a political reality, which we must face. I do not believe that, as he claims, it has any legal substance, and I think that its political substance will diminish.
      The right hon. Gentleman need not rely solely on the quote that I offered him earlier from Lord President Cooper in MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. If he goes through the court cases, he will find many older authorities, particularly in relation to cases involving the Church and the protection given to the Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian form of government under the treaty and Acts of Union, which gave rise to legal cases in the 19th century.
      In the case, Minister of Prestonkirk v. Earl of Wemyss in 1808, the Lord President stated:
      "The people of Scotland, at the period of the Union, were most careful to preserve unalterably all the rights of their presbyterian church as by law established".
      It is interesting that clause 35 almost restates the treaty of Union and the various Acts of Union which, as the Secretary of State well knows, entrench the rights of the Presbyterian form of Church government in Scotland.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: I do not want to get involved in a pedantic review of 18th or 19th-century law. The Act of Union entrenched certain rights in Scotland. That was its virtue. One of the consequences that has been discussed in the Committee is that if the Bill is enacted, the Scottish Parliament will be able to undo some of that. The point is that parliamentary sovereignty was accepted.
      Mr. Wallace: No, I do not believe that for one moment. The concept of parliamentary sovereignty was alien to the history of Scotland. Hon. Members must accept that what was established in 1707 and augmented in 1801 when Ireland came into the Union was a Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was not a Parliament of England, of Scotland or of Ireland. It was a Parliament of the United Kingdom. There is no earthly reason why the constitutional theories of a Parliament of England should take precedence over the constitutional theories of any other part of what was an equal Union.
      I do not accept that the English concept became a concept of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, the Church of Scotland Act 1921 makes it clear that this Parliament recognised that there are limitations on its sovereignty, and the Church of Scotland, under its declaratory articles, which were approved by Parliament, recognised that there were areas in which Westminster was no longer sovereign, and that there would be no question of Westminster intervening again.
      370
      The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) referred to the concept of popular sovereignty in the Claim of Right, which so many hon. Members signed in 1989, when we acknowledged
      "the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs."
      It has an historic resonance, from the declaration of Arbroath, the 1689 Claim of Right, through to today. It is a practical form of considering how sovereignty should operate.
      I think that it was Lord Howe who said that it is not like virginity—it is not something that one does or does not have; it is quite capable of being pooled. [Laughter.] Not pulled—pooled.
      The fact that rules and regulations emanate from Brussels causes much unhappiness, particularly to Conservative Members, but if the people want and accept that some of their sovereignty should be exercised by the European Union, the Westminster Parliament or an Edinburgh Parliament, it is a perfectly legitimate exercise of popular sovereignty. It is a useful concept in an age when there are different layers of government.
      If popular sovereignty was such that the people of Scotland wanted independence, we would have to accept that, but I do not believe that they want it. In general election after general election, when they have been given the opportunity to vote for candidates standing for independence, only 20 to 25 per cent. have ever done so. There is no popular demand for independence. As we saw on 11 September, the people of Scotland exercised their popular sovereignty by voting for the proposals that are substantially contained in the Bill, and that is what will be delivered to them.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing the concept of sovereignty with the concept of powers, when he mentions the passing of powers to the European Union. Is he saying that the Scottish Churches would not be subject to rulings that might be made by the European Court of Justice? If Parliament were to pass powers to that court, the court's rulings would be binding on everything in the United Kingdom and would affect matters concerning the Scottish Churches. The sovereignty of the Scottish Churches would have been passed, by a sovereign act of this Parliament, to the European Court of Justice. To that extent, this Parliament can legislate on any matter. It is not bound by its predecessor. That is the meaning of the sovereignty of Parliament.
      Mr. Wallace: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition. I was making the point that, under the Church of Scotland Act 1921, sovereignty over matters that were specifically laid out in the Act was passed to the Church of Scotland and to the courts of the Church of Scotland. Therefore, this Parliament did not have the sovereignty to pass to Brussels under the European Communities Act 1972. As the hon. Gentleman knows, one cannot pass what one does not have; there is a strong argument that what we are discussing does not affect the areas over which the Westminster Parliament did not have sovereignty.
      Mr. Grieve: I have heard of the acquis communautaire, but this is the acquis Wallace. Is it not a doctrine that,

      371
      once laws have gone, they can never be taken back? That is completely contrary to the principles on which this Parliament operates, and it will be completely contrary to the principles on which the Parliament in Edinburgh will operate.
      Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is highlighting the fundamental difference between us. I do not accept that that is the principle on which this Parliament operates. He may think that it is.
      Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member is a nationalist.
      Mr. Wallace: I am not. It is not a particularly nationalist proposition. As I clearly said, the people can have their sovereignty exercised by the Westminster Parliament over a range of subjects, including social security, defence, monetary policy and taxation. The people chose, as they showed in their votes on 11 September, to allow sovereignty to be exercised by the Westminster Parliament.
      Mr. Salmond: Lady Thatcher said on a number of occasions that, if the people of Scotland voted for independence, independence was what they should have, exercising their right to sovereignty. Does that and the Conservative party's logic make Lady Thatcher a supporter of independence?
      Mr. Wallace: No, it simply highlights the obsessive way in which the Conservative party is wedded to a concept that we do not accept. That does not make us nationalists; there is simply a gulf. The amendment has given us a nice opportunity for academic consideration, but ultimately it is wrong. If accepted, it would incorporate into law an entirely alien concept.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: What is the hon. and learned Gentleman's view of the important point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)— that the Bill appears to operate as a one-way ratchet? The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Scottish people did not vote for complete independence; do not the Government's proposals play into the hands of the nationalists? If there were a nationalist majority in the Scottish Parliament, it would inevitably lead to complete independence, whatever he wishes.
      Mr. Wallace: I do not believe that for one moment. On the contrary, the Bill satisfies the Scottish people's aspirations because it gives them what they want. Even without devolution, Scottish National party members standing as candidates for Westminster elections could get 50 per cent. or more of the vote, which could be regarded as the road to independence. The fact that that has never happened confirms my belief that it is not what the Scottish people want; nor will their appetite be whetted for it.
      As the Bill will satisfy the aspirations of the overwhelming majority of Scottish people, it is more likely to secure the integrity of the United Kingdom, which the right hon. Member for Devizes said was one of his objectives. That would be better done under a federalist system. The right hon. Member for Devizes
      372
      once espoused federalism and suggested that a federal framework of government be adopted. Those words appeared in a pamphlet published by Mr. Michael Ancram of 6 Ainslie place, Edinburgh 3. It is not dated, but membership of the Thistle group at that time was 10 shillings per annum. It is a well-written pamphlet analysing what is wrong with the Westminster system of government—problems that have been exacerbated in the past 30 years.
      Dr. Liam Fox: As one of the few post-decimalisation Members, I was tempted to ask what a shilling was.
      Am I correct to assume that the hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretation of clause 27(7) is the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—that the Bill would give this Parliament the power to make laws for Scotland on all issues, including reserved powers?
      Mr. Wallace: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me neatly on to the point that I was about to deal with anyway. Incidentally, a shilling was worth 5p, unless one was not quite the full shilling.
      Amendment No. 23, which was tabled by me, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and others, seeks to clarify precisely what clause 27(7) means. I interpret it in a similar way to the right hon. Member for Devizes—that it could allow the Westminster Parliament to make laws in respect of non-reserved matters. It would not necessarily be exercised in a way deliberately designed to cause confrontation, but could arise in the context of a private Member's Bill, perhaps one introduced in another place, with a provision that appeared to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom but which trespassed on a non-reserved power. That would be unfortunate and could lead to confusion, which is why we have made it clear that it should happen only in regard to reserved powers.
      The amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Devizes would consolidate the friction. If Westminster had the power to legislate on a devolved subject and the Scottish Parliament could not repeal or amend that legislation, it would lead to damaging confrontation and friction, which the right hon. Gentleman vows he wants to avoid. The Secretary of State may give us an assurance that that is not the intention of clause 27(7), but clarification is necessary, and amendment No. 23 is a useful way of achieving that.
      Although the Bill provides for references to the judicial committee of the Privy Council if it is thought that the Scottish Parliament has acted ultra vires, I am not so clear about what would happen if Westminster passed legislation that it could be argued was related to a non-reserved matter. Someone in Scotland could challenge legislation on the basis that it did not apply in Scotland. I do not know whether provision could be made for judicial determination if an action was, as it were, ultra vires in the opposite direction. I hope that that situation can be clarified, because, as it stands, it could lead to unnecessary conflict and confrontation.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Galloway: I am not lawyer, an historian or, for that matter, a member of the Church of Scotland, so I shall not pursue hon. Members down ecclesiastical, historical or legal avenues. I speak as a mere jobbing politician: a humble agitator.
      Mr. Fox: Humble?
      Mr. Galloway: Well, an agitator then.
      From my perspective, both the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) are correct. The legal position is undoubtedly that the Westminster Parliament is sovereign, but the political reality is that the people are sovereign. That seems to me so obvious that perhaps only a non-lawyer can see it. The point was no doubt conceded in the hon. and learned Member's reference to Lord Cooper's judgment. Much more contemporary and more important is the fact that it was conceded by the stance taken by Lady Thatcher and the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
      Notwithstanding the Westminster Parliament's legal sovereignty, if the popular will in any constituent national part of the United Kingdom were to leave the Union, it would have to be allowed to do so. That is what the Claim of Right meant, and it is why, with the exception of my dear hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), we all signed it, why none of us resile from it now, and why we are not contradicting ourselves in this debate.
      We were clearly addressing the political right of the Scottish people ultimately to choose whether to remain in the Union as it was, to leave it altogether, or to amend our participation in it. That is why we had a Scottish Constitutional Convention, and why I was proud to be a member of it: indeed, I was one of the first people to call for it. In an article in the now sadly lamented Radical Scotland magazine more than 15 years ago, I called for a convention of the Scottish people to find a political path towards the exercise of popular sovereignty.
      I am disappointed in the right hon. Member for Devizes. Perhaps unwisely, he mentioned my record. I may have some fun with his, as the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland did. There is a lack of credibility in someone who was absolutely seized and persuaded of the need to reform the United Kingdom's structures—he was a devolutionist, even a federalist—who then metamorphosed into an absolute defender of the status quo, and who now comes among us saying that he wants to make the legislation work. He approaches his work in a churlish, dog-in-the-manger way, which makes the launch of the legislation far less harmonious that it could have been. It damages the political position of his party, which would do better to turn the page on its previous opposition to devolved government. The Conservatives should pick up the ball and run with it, as other Conservative parties in other parts of the world have done very successfully.
      Catalonia has a Conservative Government. There is no contradiction between being a believer in the free-enterprise system—the market economy—and supporting devolved government. It is about time that Conservative Members' prehistoric attitudes changed.
      374
      The right hon. Member for Devizes told us that he was concerned about these matters because he wished to preserve the integrity of the United Kingdom. He said that he was a Unionist. But the Conservative party has been the main recruiting sergeant for the break-up of the United Kingdom, as we have spent 18 years—the best part of the past two decades—pointing out to its members. Every time they rode roughshod over the clear will of the Scottish people—every time they appeared oblivious to the fact that only a small minority of Scottish electors supported their programme—and rammed Thatcherite policies down our throats, they added to the column of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
      The right hon. Member for Devizes supported the poll tax. Perhaps he still does; I do not know whether that is a part of his record that he now wishes to rewrite. In any event, the introduction of the poll tax, which was visited on the Scottish people—who did not vote for it—a full year before it was introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom, was the single biggest act that risked ruining the unity of these islands. It drove more people into the column of the Scottish National party than any other political act in history. Those are the facts, and it is about time that Opposition Members showed some humility.
      The Bill is intended to preserve a measure of unity in these islands—a measure of unity which was gravely imperilled by nearly 20 years of Thatcherite government.
      Sir Robert Smith: Another key element damaged the credibility of the current constitutional arrangements. Some Conservative Members happily voted for the poll tax in Scotland, and then, when it was introduced and affected their constituents, campaigned vociferously to get it abolished and removed. The fact that they failed to scrutinise the legislation when it did not apply to their constituents, and recognised the damage that it was doing only when it did apply to them, demonstrates the need for the Scottish Parliament.
      The Chairman: Order. Wide though the grouping of the amendments may be, hon. Members should come back within their compass.
      Mr. Galloway: My point is that the carelessness of Opposition Members when their party was in government for all that time led to the imperilling of the stability of the Union. This is an honest attempt to stabilise the position, and to create a new settlement that can lead to a more stable and harmonious existence for the people of these islands.
      Mr. Ancram: May I ask the hon. Gentleman two short questions? First, he referred to my record on devolution before 1970. Will he remind the Committee of the Labour party's position on devolution in the years before 1970? Secondly, in the light of what he is saying, will he tell us whether he agrees with clause 27(7)?
      Mr. Galloway: Keir Hardie, the founder of the Labour party, was the first campaigner for Scottish government. For the vast majority of the time during which the party has existed—nearly a century—we have supported home rule in this country.
      By its defence of the Union—its nothing less, no change, no surrender attitude—the Conservative party has consistently imperilled, in the last century and in this,

      375
      the prospects of unity in these islands. If there had been a speedy and constructive passage of home rule legislation for Ireland when it was only home rule that the Irish wanted, we might not have to re-create a council of the isles as a means of trying to end the blood and thunder within these islands. We and the Irish people might have had a more harmonious century if we had recognised the need, which was expressed by elected politicians in Ireland at that time, for a new settlement for home rule rather than breaking up the island. A new settlement is what we are trying to achieve.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow—I mean that sincerely: there is occasionally a "but", as such a phrase is usually the precursor to a criticism, but there is not in this case—is right to say that there can be no perspex or glass ceilings. There can be no manacles, shackles or ties imposed by this place, whatever is said in the White Paper that the right hon. Member for Devizes is holding. If I am right—and I think that I have a measure of agreement in the Committee—in the end it is popular sovereignty which counts, and no attempt to place a cap on the Holyrood Parliament is worth a hill of beans.
      The United Kingdom can survive only if its people want it to survive: it can persist only if there is consent. There is nothing that we can do legally to force people to want to stay in the United Kingdom, but we can strike attitudes that will help to make it more likely that they will want to remain. That is why I appealed for an end to the dog-in-the-manger approach by Conservatives.
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman speaks about devolution bringing harmony to the people of these islands. Surely it will create uncertainty among some people, depending on where they live. The devolution Bills will mean that we will no longer be equal citizens.
      Mr. Galloway: The hon. Gentleman seems oblivious to the fact that the status quo had ceased to be an option. More and more people were deciding that they wanted to opt out of the Union. The political party of which the hon. Gentleman is a member supported no change, no surrender Unionism, and was completely annihilated in the May general election. The party came back for more in the September referendum when it again hoisted its banner of no change, no surrender Unionism. Again, Conservatives were routed from the field.
      There is some nobility in continually stepping up to the mark, being smacked on the nose and falling down, but there must come a point when even Conservative Members realise that the game is up, that there will be home rule for Scotland and that we might as well try to make it the best possible kind of home rule. We might as well launch the ship with a bottle of champagne and good will rather than be dragged screaming and kicking into the operation.
      Mr. Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend, with whom I am united in the unpopular cause of opposing military action against Iraq, for giving way. Does he agree that Westminster will effectively be stripped of sovereignty?
      Mr. Galloway: There is no doubt that, in legal terms, it will not be—not in the sense that, as Enoch Powell said,
      376
      power devolved is power retained. Effectively, it will be, because we are giving a whole tranche of Scottish life to the Scottish Parliament to administer and legislate for. That is what the Bill says that we will do. Moreover, the message sent by the referendum victory and by the Labour Government's general election victory in May was that we should do that. So why cannot we do it with good grace?
      Dr. Fox: With the greatest respect, that is not what the Bill says. Section 27(7) states:
      "This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland."
      Regardless of what the hon. Gentleman wants the Bill to say, that is not what it says.
      5 pm
      Mr. Galloway: We are again dealing with the dichotomy that I tried to identify in the first few moments of my speech between the legal position and the real-life position. Any hon. Member who wanted to legislate in the House on non-reserved Scottish matters after the Scottish Parliament was up, running and effectively dealing with Scottish life would be a wrecker, a saboteur and a recruiting sergeant for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. Anyone who tried to throw such a spanner in the works could not possibly have at heart the Union of our islands or the unity of the people of our islands. He or she would be guilty of political provocation.
      As I am not a lawyer, I am not all that concerned with the small print of the issue. I should like hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to launch this ship with good will and fairness.
      Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman started his speech by saying that he believed in the sovereignty of this Parliament. It seems that there is disagreement in the Committee over whether this Parliament is sovereign and will remain so. The purpose of amendment No. 2 is to bolster the Government's position by stating explicitly that hon. Members, in passing the Bill, do not believe that we are detracting from the sovereignty of the House. Just as the hon. Gentleman does not want this Parliament to provoke a crisis with the Scottish Parliament, it is equally incumbent on the Scottish Parliament not to provoke a crisis with the rest of the United Kingdom by asserting sovereignty over matters which it claims for itself but which this Parliament does not feel that it has devolved to it. Accepting our amendment would explicitly state that belief, so that everyone understands the ground rules at the outset.
      Mr. Galloway: Surely the amendment would do the precise opposite. We are dealing with the ability of this Parliament and even of Back Benchers, in private Members' Bills—to table legislation on non-reserved matters and to describe that legislation as sovereign. That would be a provocation to the Scottish Parliament.
      Why are we going to all the trouble of creating a Scottish Parliament and of devolving certain matters to it if we are leaving open the possibility of hon. Members mischievously wrecking or sabotaging the settlement by tabling legislation in the House on matters that have properly been devolved to the Scottish Parliament?

      377
      Either I have expressed myself poorly or the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has misheard me. I did not begin my speech by saying that I accept the House's sovereignty. I do not believe that the House is sovereign over even the English people, never mind the Scottish people. I believe in popular sovereignty. All sovereignty rests not with us and not with this building—with these bricks, mortar and timber—as admirable it is, and as much as I love it—I do love it, and I hope to stay here—[Laughter.] I am serious about that. This is a very precious place, and many great freedoms have been fought for and won here. I love this place very much, and I hope to stay here until they carry me out in a box. However, I do not think that it is sovereign. The people who sent us here are sovereign. They are the ones who ultimately make the decision.
      There is no contradiction. The House's sovereignty over England and, arguably, over the new Scottish Parliament has undoubtedly been written down in law. In real terms, however, if the people decide that they want to change the arrangements in our islands, they have the sovereign right to do so. Long ago, even the right hon. Member for Huntingdon accepted that. In real life, we should not be hung up on such a legalistic argument. Opposition Members should seize the opportunity, which is fading fast, to accept their defeat with good grace and take a constructive stance on these matters, rather than be seen by the Scots, whom they will soon be asking for votes, to be dragged kicking and screaming down every last inch of this tortuous path.
      Mr. Salmond: Following the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), I wonder whether a role is emerging for Scottish National party, Liberal Democrat and Labour Members to protect the Scottish Conservative party from the English Conservative party and the undoubted effects of its rhetoric on the already diminished prospects of colleagues north of the border.
      The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) moved the lead amendment in such a mild way that it sounds almost reasonable—until one looks at the language in it. Amendment No. 2 says:
      "Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliament, or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters and things in Scotland."
      It does not even refer to property in Scotland. It refers to all things in Scotland, bright and beautiful and otherwise. I am sure that a gentleman called Kipling would have been an enthusiastic backer of such an amendment.
      One could phrase a clause on parliamentary sovereignty differently. I remember that, when I was a small child, I used to believe that if I shut my eyes nobody could see me. I am starting to think that the Conservative party has assumed that mentality. It believes that, if it asserts something strongly and powerfully enough, the world will tilt on its axis and reality will change to suit its prejudices.
      The right hon. Member for Devizes said that he wanted the language of the amendment to contradict the slippery slope. Either the slope is slippery or it is not. Contradicting it will not alter its angle or slipperiness. There is more to politics and life than asserting things in a rather offensive way and believing that, the more one does so, the stronger that makes one's position. Often,
      378
      such behaviour makes one's position rather weaker. It is certainly making the position of the right hon. Gentleman's beleaguered Scottish colleagues very weak. They must sigh every time a Conservative Member gets to his or her feet to make a speech in such a manner, and tries to look upon Scotland as property, a thing, a possession of the unblemished sovereignty of Parliament.
      I want particularly to speak to amendment Nos. 79 and 23, which were tabled by the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats. The amendments could offer a middle way out of the difficulty. [Interruption.] I am always a reasonable man at heart, as my friends well know.
      I join the hon. Member for Kelvin in his argument about popular sovereignty. That is my anchor as I regard constitutional questions. I believe in the popular mandate and popular sovereignty of the Scottish people.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: They have never given it.
      Mr. Salmond: That remains to be determined. It will be decided by the people at subsequent elections. It is their choice. Believing in the popular sovereignty of the people does not mean that one believes in the inevitability of one's victory. It just means that one believes that people have the right to choose and decide. Believing it does not make one a nationalist; it just makes one a democrat.
      I should like to protect the Secretary of State from his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for a second. I looked up the reference that the hon. Member for Linlithgow quoted with such a flourish when he talked about the futility of glass ceilings. In response to a question that I asked about the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine their own constitutional future, the Secretary of State rightly said:
      "If I did try to build such barriers, they would be futile and without effect. At the end of the day, in practical politics, what matters is what people want. If the hon. Gentleman is able to carry the people of Scotland, no doubt he will be able to advance his cause."—[Official Report, 24 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 1049.]
      The Secretary of State was not signing up to the Scottish National party in that statement. In fact, he has never been a member of the SNP, unlike some in his ministerial team. I am referring to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson)—I would not want the accusation to be left drifting in the wind. The Secretary of State was making a democratic point that has been accepted by every responsible politician for many years, including the past two leaders of the Conservative party. The right of the people of Scotland to choose their constitutional future is a basic point of democracy. They can choose no change—which has been rejected—devolution, federalism or independence as a state in the European Union.
      Mr. Grieve: Is not the problem with the notion of popular sovereignty the fact that it means the rule of the person or group of people who are on top in a given place at a given time? Even Scotland is a legal concept, just as England is. The fact that devolution is going through is a recognition of the legal entity of Scotland and the majority vote in the devolution referendum. We want to add to the Bill a restatement of the legal position. Once we start on the road of popular sovereignty, there is no stopping.

      379
      Orkney and Shetland may one day assert their popular sovereignty to remove themselves from Scotland. That argument can carry on ad infinitum.
      Mr. Salmond: I do not claim that the right of national self-determination is an easy concept to define, but the United Nations was confident enough about it to put it in its founding charter. If the United Nations coped with the concept, the Committee—even the Conservatives—should manage to grapple with it.
      It is no secret that parties in the Committee and in Scotland have argued for national self-determination. A quotation from 1992 put the issue neatly:
      "The central issue at stake is that of sovereignty. The unwritten British constitution, founded on the notion of absolute sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament gives Scotland no constitutional right of democratic control of its own affairs, let alone provides the right of national self-determination or fundamental individual rights for its citizens. This concept of sovereignty has always been unacceptable to the Scottish constitutional tradition of limited government or popular sovereignty. Today, in the modern world, it is no longer acceptable in practice to us."
      That was the democracy declaration, signed—uniquely in recent Scottish politics—by the Scottish National party, by the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish) on behalf of the Labour party and by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. That definition has been publicly embraced by three of the political parties in Scotland in front of 25,000 people. There were quite a few witnesses. It was not done in a secret cabal. We embraced a concept that we believed represented the way forward. We did so despite our different constitutional aims, because we agreed that the people had the right to decide. If we keep that as our constitutional anchor, we shall not go too far wrong.
      The Conservatives' position is strange. They are arguing, in a flourish of rhetoric, that the Bill needs to be strengthened with more constitutional guarantees to maintain the essential integrity of the United Kingdom, but they also point, rightly, to clause 27(7), saying that the issue is already in the Bill. If it is already dealt with in the Bill, what is the point of the Conservative amendments, other than to give the right hon. Member for Devizes a chance to make a speech? They are probably right. Clause 27(7) unwisely gives the Westminster Parliament the right to legislate on all matters in Scotland, unaffected by the devolution legislation.
      There is some dubiety and dispute about that. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Devizes asked the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office whether a private Member's Bill on a devolved matter for Scotland would be binding on Scotland. The Minister said no. The Clerks in the House of Commons say yes, under the terms of clause 27(7). The Secretary of State should tell us whether the answer is yes or no—as we hope and as the Minister, like many of us, thought.
      The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) asked the same Minister whether the Scottish Parliament legislation could be cancelled by the Westminster Parliament. He replied:
      "Within the areas of devolved responsibility, laws passed by the Scottish Parliament are not open to cancellation."—[Official Report, 13 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 155.]
      380
      15.15 pm
      The Minister, whose impeccable devolution credentials are well known to all in the House, was apparently under the impression on Second Reading that the Bill did not provide for the Westminster rules okay override, which says that any matter can still be determined by the Westminster Parliament. I do not accuse him of misleading the House. It was reasonable for him to believe that. Before we looked at the Bill in detail, most of us believed that the power of the United Kingdom Parliament to make laws for Scotland on reserved matters was not affected by the Bill, but devolved matters would be the preserve of Edinburgh. Amendment No. 23 would make that change, offering the Secretary of State the clarification necessary to bring the Bill into line with what the Minister said two weeks ago.
      There is general agreement in the House about popular self-determination—the right of the Scottish people to decide. The Scottish people will determine the constitutional direction of Scotland at the ballot box. No sensible person would gainsay that process. The Conservatives are clumsily suggesting putting in manacles, shackles and safeguards in language carried with a flourish. That will cause them great difficulty in Scotland. However, we should not stick with the Bill as it stands. Clause 27(7) gives an opening for the wrecking behaviour that the hon. Member for Kelvin mentioned. We need clarification, so that we can agree that the provision refers to reserved powers.
      It is no secret that I believe in independence for Scotland. I have not kept that from the Scottish people. I also believe that it will happen through the ballot box when the Scottish people so determine. At the referendum, the people of Scotland exercised a sovereign decision to vote for the Bill. The Secretary of State and I said that, if the Bill passes, Westminster will not again be allowed to impose a poll tax on the Scottish people. Scottish parliamentarians will decide that form of local government taxation. The manifest injustice of the poll tax will never again be visited on the people of Scotland. Clause 27(7) opens the door to that. It is not just the "Westminster rules, okay" clause; it is the poll tax clause. It is not okay with the people of Scotland and it is not faithful to the arguments that the Secretary of State, the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland and I, along with many others, deployed in the referendum campaign.
      We asked the Scottish people to exercise their sovereignty on powers that would remain at Westminster and powers that could go to Scotland in the knowledge that, at any time in the future, that settlement could be changed. It could be changed back if the Scottish people did not want the Parliament and decided to go back into a unitary state. We could change to federalism or to independence on the vote of the Scottish people. Given what the people voted for on 11 September, it is not sensible for the Bill to open the door to legislation being passed unilaterally in this Parliament, on devolved matters that the Scottish people decided should go to the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Dalyell: Through the hon. Gentleman, may I ask my Front-Bench colleagues whether the reincarnation of

      381
      Lady Thatcher, using clause 27(7), could impose a poll tax? That is a factual question to which I do not know the answer.
      Mr. Salmond: I am happy to act as a messenger for the hon. Gentleman, and I relay that question to the Secretary of State.
      The clause does open the door, and I think it unnecessary. The settlement that the people voted for on 11 September would be satisfied by amendment No. 23, which would make it specific that the legislation that we expect to be carried by Westminster would be on reserved matters and not on matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That would bring the Bill into line with the rhetoric of the Minister of State two weeks ago.
      Mr. McAllion: I was delighted by the previous intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I had not realised that Lady Thatcher required reincarnation—I had not heard the good news. If it is true, I say, "Rejoice, rejoice."
      I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), but I do agree that the biggest problem facing the Tory party in Scotland is the Tory party in Westminster. As I listened to the speeches from Tory Members, it occurred to me that perhaps Bill Walker and Phil Gallie were not all that bad. They were transformed in the mind's eye into significant political figures; not because absence makes the heart grow fonder, but because of the pathetic performance of the Anglo-Tory establishment here in Westminster.
      To this day, the Tories have not got it into their heads that the situation has changed dramatically in Scotland following the referendum on 11 September. It is time that the Tory party changed to reflect the differences in Scotland. Unless it does so, it will not recover in any sense in Scotland, but will remain a party of England—a party dominated by England. In complete contradiction to the Tory party claim, it will be the party not of the Union, but of only one part of the Union, which has nothing to say to Scotland, Wales or, increasingly, Northern Ireland.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) said that perhaps only a non-lawyer could see that the legal claim to sovereignty does not matter because, in practical terms, what matters in the real world is popular sovereignty. He was being hard on lawyers in saying that. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a distinguished lawyer and, in a recent exchange with me, he said that the people were sovereign. So even lawyers understand that the people are sovereign, which makes it all the more bizarre that they require to take part in this debate.
      The reality is that the people are sovereign—there is nothing that this House, this Parliament or any hon. Member can do to change that. The people will decide whether the Union survives. The people will decide whether Scotland becomes separate and independent. No politician can stop the people making that decision.
      Dr. Fox: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McAllion: I will give way to—[Interruption.] I was going to say that I would give way to the more intelligent hon. Gentleman, but there is no choice. I shall give way to the Front-Bench Member.
      Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman probably made the wrong choice on this occasion. We have made it clear on
      382
      many occasions that, should Scotland wish to leave the Union, it would be able to do so. However, is it not reasonable that, while any part of the UK remains within the Union, this Parliament should remain the ultimate legislative power?
      Mr. McAllion: No, that is not reasonable. It is a very old-fashioned way of looking at the concept of political sovereignty and, as I develop my speech, I shall refer to the modern way of looking at sovereignty. I am very much a moderniser in my own party. I, for one, am against clinging to the past and to the ancien regime that goes back to Edward I, the "Hammer of the Scots". I want to move forward to the 21st century and not go back to 1707, as so many hon. Members who have taken part in the debate want.
      Mr. Grieve: The notion of popular sovereignty that the hon. Gentleman puts forward will take us not to the 21st century but back to the dark ages. If I disagreed with him on the principle of sovereignty, I could just walk across the Floor and bonk him on the head, but I shall resist the temptation. Either we have a legal structure that is accepted—which is why this devolution Bill is going through—and the will of the Scottish electorate, as expressed in the referendum, is accepted, or there is no legal structure at all and the hon. Gentleman is justifying his position on something with no legal structure.
      The Chairman: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman—not while I am in the Chair.
      Mr. McAllion: I am tempted to say to the hon. Gentleman, "Come on, then," but I shall resist that temptation. He talked about going back to the dark ages. If a time traveller from 1707 came here, he would immediately recognise all the essentials of this Chamber and this Parliament. Nothing much has changed. We have the same Speaker and Deputy Speaker in the Chair and the same red line—[Interruption.] Well, not the same person in the Chair, but the same post. We have Her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's official Opposition, the same manner of addressing one another as hon. Members and so on. The same powers are exercised not, as then, through the monarch, but through the Prime Minister. In essence, this constitution and this Parliament have never changed. We have never moved from the 18th century—never mind moving to the 21st century.
      Mr. Dalyell: What about the women?
      Mr. McAllion: That is a welcome change. However, 50 per cent. of the Scottish Parliament will be made up of women—something this Parliament could never achieve. I am being diverted from my remarks.
      In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin tried to persuade the Tories to come to terms with the reality of Scottish devolution. He said that there was no inherent contradiction between belief in a free-enterprise economy and a belief in home rule for one's own country. I am sure that there is no contradiction, but I hope that it does not become a requirement.
      Mr. Galloway: Would my hon. Friend—I mean that sincerely—allow me? The point I was making, which

      383
      does not seem to have penetrated to Opposition Members, is that the Government of Catalonia is a right-wing, Conservative capitalist Government. The Government of Bavaria is a right-wing, Conservative, capitalist, Catholic Government. None of those right-wing parties has any problem in administering, governing and legislating in one part of a bigger state. Why should it be so difficult for Conservative Members to swallow that? I honestly cannot understand that.
      Mr. McAllion: I agree. Modern European history shows that the parties most clearly identified with nationalism were traditionally the right-wing parties. Nationalism was a right-wing cause for so long. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it something of a mission in his life to win back nationalism for the left—well, the centre left. I should not want to be accused of attacking my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by calling him left wing. Everywhere else, parties of the right embrace nationalism and embrace their country. Only in Scotland does the party of the right refuse to embrace its own country, and instead continues to want to see its country governed from outwith its borders.
      Mr. Jenkin: We do not demur from the concept of sovereignty resting with the people but, as in any popular democracy, the sovereignty of the people is vested in institutions. In Germany or Spain, sovereignty is vested in the German or Spanish constitution. The people of the United States vest their sovereignty in the constitution of the United States and swear allegiance to the constitution. We swear allegiance to the Crown and to Parliament. Our constitution is the sovereign Parliament—we do not have a constitution codified in any single document. It is written in many Acts of Parliament and is stored in conventions and practices but, ultimately, the sovereignty of the British people is vested in this Parliament. That is what it is to be part of the United Kingdom. If—
      The Chairman: Order. I did not call the hon. Gentleman to make a speech. If he is making an intervention, he must keep it short.
      Mr. Jenkin: If any part of the United Kingdom wants to withdraw that sovereignty from this Parliament, it is in effect saying that it is on the way to ceasing to be part of United Kingdom.
      Mr. McAllion: I disagree fundamentally. The hon. Gentleman described the constitution as it was before, but there is no reason why it should be frozen in time, and sovereignty should always reside with the Crown in Parliament. There is no reason why the constitution should have only one Parliament or why sovereignty cannot be shared. Indeed, Westminster was stripped of its sovereignty a long time ago, when the Single European Act was pushed through by a Conservative Administration. The Crown in Parliament does not rule in all the areas now governed by the European Parliament, and this Parliament had better come to terms with that reality and start learning how to share sovereignty.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman represents the part of Dundee from which my own Scots family comes. He talks of the sovereignty of the people, his hopes for a future sovereign Scottish Parliament, and the Prime Minister's mission to create it. What did his constituents think when the Prime Minister spoke of the powers of the new Scottish Parliament being equivalent to those of a parish council?
      Mr. McAllion: The Prime Minister was completely misrepresented. My constituents had every opportunity to make up their minds, as that alleged reference was made long before the general election, and they came out in record numbers to vote Labour. The people of Dundee have already spoken. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman disguises his Dundee accent very well.
      Mr. Shepherd: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I also subscribe to the sovereignty of "We, the people". The essence of that doctrine is democracy. We, as equal citizens, are the elected representatives from among our fellow citizens, and we come together in an institutional arrangement. That is the essence that concerns many of us in this debate. The residue of the arrangements in the Bill may mean that we are no longer equal citizens. That is why some of us argue this case.
      Mr. McAllion: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, that the legislation is an answer to Scotland's problems within the United Kingdom, but not to England's. Of course, it has implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. I have long argued that the English people have neglected their place within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They have always assumed that this was an English Parliament, and that the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish came along to join it.
      That was never the case. This has always been a British Parliament. The equality for which the hon. Gentleman rightly argues can be found only when the English people wake up to the demand for English home rule. That will be the final piece in the jigsaw that will lead to stability in the constitutional arrangements in this island.
      I accept that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament will dynamically affect the rest of the United Kingdom and that further changes will have to follow, but I see that as a good step that will lead to a better form of government not only for Scotland but for everyone in the United Kingdom, because the English people will rightly say that they want further change, and they will have my support when they come to that conclusion, as I believe the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) did some time ago.
      The concept of Westminster sovereignty goes much wider and much deeper than merely retaining the United Kingdom as a single entity. It is only since I have taken part in this debate that it has been pointed out that sovereignty rests not with Parliament but with the Queen in Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said that the Queen's veto is only theoretical, and that there are no circumstances in which she would ever veto legislation that had been passed by both Houses of Parliament, but we do not know what the circumstances may be in the future.
      Incidentally, I hope that the House of Lords will not be there for much longer. I have never understood how democracy is strengthened by laws that are passed by a

      385
      democratically elected Parliament being subject to the assent of an institution that is unelected and hereditary. That does not strengthen democracy; it weakens it. We cannot go into the 21st century arguing for that form of sovereignty; it belongs to history and is no longer exercised anywhere else in the world. It is time that people in this island woke up to that reality.
      The powers exercised through Parliament are not always exercised by Parliament. Every hon. Member knows that, although the powers of royal patronage may not be used by the Queen, they are certainly used by the Prime Minister of the day in an extremely undemocratic way. That is not a criticism of the present Prime Minister.
      I was here when one Prime Minister used the payroll vote—the ability to appoint more than 100 paid positions relating to government—to gain control for the Government party of the day in a completely undemocratic way. I was here when the country went to war without the House being allowed to vote on it. The Prime Minister of the day sent the troops into action, and all that we could do was debate a motion on whether we should adjourn the House. I was also here when the Prime Minister of the day appointed thousands upon thousands of people to paid positions on quangos, which gave him enormous influence.
      That undemocratic use of patronage is all wrapped up in the idea of Westminster sovereignty—the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament. That is not the kind of sovereignty that we can ask anyone in the United Kingdom to accept in the future. We want a new kind of democracy that will bring us into line with democracies in the rest of the world, instead of being stuck in the 18th century, with power centralised not only geographically in London but in the office of the Prime Minister.
      The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who has made many great speeches, has long recognised that Parliament is continually undermined by the Executive, and that the constitutional theory that the Executive is held to account by the legislature is reversed in practice: the Executive has long controlled the legislature, and I cannot remember its being beaten roundly for getting policies wrong. The whipping system and powers of patronage are used to ensure that Governments can force through bad legislation. It is time for us to wake up to that reality.
      The impact of Europe will continue. Let us not kid ourselves. It did not finish with the Single European Act. Economic and monetary union will come along and there will be a single currency. Further powers will be stripped from Parliament, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and from the Prime Minister as First Lord of the Treasury. Changes will happen in any case, and my argument is that we should go with the flow and try to apply the new principle of subsidiarity.
      Sovereignty will be shared at the levels of Europe, of the UK, and of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The principle of subsidiarity should determine how that is done. When decisions can be taken close to the people, they should be. That is why we are introducing devolution for Scotland.
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my assertion that the devolution Bills that are
      386
      being pushed through are part of the plan to create a federal Europe of regions? Does he think that the United Kingdom should go that way?
      Mr. McAllion: I voted against joining the European Union a long time ago—I would describe myself now as pro-European but anti-Maastricht—so I am not part of any conspiracy to set up a huge federal state of the regions. I want devolution, or home rule, for its own sake. I was worrying about home rule for Scotland long before Europe ever crossed my mind.
      I think that home rule would be a better form of government for Scotland, and the same goes for England. That would stop people like me interfering in English affairs, which would be a very good thing. The legislation is not part of a conspiracy; it is a genuine attempt to find a better form of government that is equipped to meet the demands of the 21st century and the new global economy.
      I am probably more of a moderniser on this issue than any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I include some of the ultra-modernisers on the Front Bench, who would be appalled at how modernising I am: they would think that I needed to be pulled back and made more old Labour by arguing for the sovereignty of Westminster. I shall not do it, because I see that we have to change and adapt to the modern conditions of the modern world. I do not believe that we are doing it fast enough.
      Mr. Norman A. Godman: The intervention of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) prompts the thought that many Conservative Members of Parliament view the United Kingdom as a country when in fact it is a multinational state. The relationships within it are inevitably being changed by the Bill. That is welcome to me. Those changes will continue, particularly with the creation of a Northern Ireland assembly, in addition to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly.
      Mr. McAllion: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right. No one can stand up in the House and say that this is the end of constitutional change in this country. That cannot happen.
      In any case, I have never understood those who cling to stability and argue that the proposal for a Scottish Parliament is unstable and will lead to further change. So what? Why are people frightened of change? What is wrong with the people in this House? Are we so clinging to our power and privileges that we are determined that not one bit will slip through the doors to some other institution? Are we so undemocratic that we think that the democratic debate, involving 60 million people in these islands, can be resolved only by a handful of people who meet here every week? Of course it cannot. We must look to the future. We must welcome instability as something that is good and will turn Britain into a much more modern and successful economy.
      Finally, I shall deal with the amendment, to which I have not yet spoken. I share the attitude of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan to the appalling language in which amendment No. 2 is phrased. If the Tories were looking for a new name, as they are in Scotland, they could call themselves the British supremacists on the basis of the amendment. It says:
      "the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters and things in Scotland."

      387
      That is an appalling amendment to put to the people who live in Scotland. I cannot understand it. Where were the Tories on 11 September? The position in the amendment was basically the position of the Tory party in the no, no campaign for the referendum. The Tories were hammered. They were wiped out by the Scottish people. That position was rejected on 11 September. To come back to Parliament several months later and put the same position again seems suicidal on the part of the official Opposition.
      Mr. Galloway: It was a knock-out.
      Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend mentions that a knock-out blow was landed on the Tories. They are almost like a boxer who has been knocked out and three minutes later staggers to his feet saying, "You never laid a glove on me," and wants to carry on fighting. The Tories seem unaware that their position has absolutely failed in Scotland and that it is useless to put it forward any further.
      I am not happy with clause 27(7). I should be a liar if I said that I were. I recognise that it is a minimalist statement of Westminster sovereignty and that it is there to satisfy the dinosaurs in this place who want to cling to Westminster sovereignty, especially those on the official Opposition Benches. I recognise the subsection as a genuine attempt on the part of my right hon. and hon. Friends to try to keep together, at least within the Labour party, very different points of view on sovereignty. It is a noble attempt to do so, but it is not convincing. We all know that the powers referred to in subsection (7) can never be implemented in practice.
      If any Westminster Parliament sought to override laws passed by a Scottish Parliament, it would simply bring closer the day when Scotland decided to break away from the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not say that as an idle threat. I was a councillor before I became a Member of Parliament. We all know that elected members at whatever level of government go native and become great supporters of the institution to which they belong. Perhaps I am not a good example of that in this place, but most people go that way. Members elected to a Scottish Parliament will be determined to fight for the rights and privileges of a Scottish Parliament. If Westminster ever dared to override legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament for Scotland on issues devolved to it, that would literally be the end of the United Kingdom.
      As far as I can see, clause 27(7) is redundant and could never be put into practice. It is a fig leaf put in to cover the fiction that the Westminster Parliament retains sovereignty when the reality is that that sovereignty has long ago gone to Europe and is now going back to Scotland. People will have to learn to share it in the future.
      Mr. Godman: May I say to my hon. Friend, with perhaps absurd naivety, that I cannot imagine for a moment that this Parliament will seek to impose an Act of Parliament on the Scots in the teeth of the opposition of Members of the Scottish Parliament, and against the opposition of civil society in Scotland.
      Mr. McAllion: Absolutely. It is lunacy to suggest that clause 27(7) could be given effect. If anyone from any
      388
      party in this Chamber believes that this Parliament could override a Scottish Parliament on devolved legislation, he is not living in the real world, and he should come into the real world.
      My hon. Friends who have taken part in the debate rightly drew the distinction between the theoretical clinging on to Westminster sovereignty and the practical reality that sovereignty rests with the people and that the people will decide ultimately. That is an important fact which people have to understand.
      Any form of government can survive only with the consent of the people. That is the only guarantee that matters. We cannot insert into the Bill provisions that prevent the people from having their way. At the end of the day, the Scottish people, the English people and the Welsh people will have their way. I believe that the Labour party is much closer to what they are thinking than the dinosaurs on the Opposition Benches.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Tim Collins: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) made an interesting speech, and one which was amusing and witty in parts. He would not expect me to agree with most of it, and I do not. I was amused by his reference to what a time traveller from 1707 would make of Parliament today, saying that there had been no changes. Although I would never wish to create any difficulties between the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues or his Prime Minister, he may have temporarily forgotten that he is living in cool Britannia and month nine of year zero of the new Labour revolution. He may have been slightly off message.
      I was also somewhat amused by some of the other exchanges in the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) sought to give the Conservative party tips on how to pick up support and win votes. He also told us that we were living in prehistoric times. I am sure that he will forgive me if 1 point out that, given his stance on various issues over the years, he probably knows a little more about the time of the dinosaurs than some of us on the Tory Benches.
      Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) told us that he wished to advance a middle way on issues of Scottish devolution—an interesting description of the Scottish National party position. He described the wording of amendment No. 2 as "offensive". I am sure that he will have found offensive—indeed, he said so at the time—the words used by the Prime Minister before the general election, when he said that, under his proposals, "Sovereignty will remain with me as an English Member of Parliament."
      Mr. Salmond: Yes, I did. What is perhaps more interesting to the hon. Gentleman is that the Conservative party in Scotland attacked those words as arrogant.
      Mr. Collins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The point that I am trying to advance is that, if that wording is offensive, it is the message that the Prime Minister put before the people. It is the mandate that he sought throughout the United Kingdom. It is the basis on which he secured election to this Parliament and became the head of the Government of the United Kingdom. It is the basis, furthermore, of the propositions put before the Scottish people in the referendum in September.

      389
      Therefore, the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) merely seeks to encapsulate clearly in the Bill words equivalent to the position that the Prime Minister advanced, for which he sought the democratic endorsement of the Scottish people and the people of the United Kingdom.
      The Secretary of State will no doubt make his own remarks about the amendment in due course, but he intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes. From the tone of his intervention, I gathered that he intended to argue not that he disagreed with the implications of the amendment, but that he disliked its wording and thought that it was somewhat otiose, and possibly even repetitive of other provisions in the Bill.
      If that is his argument—he is nodding now—I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if the worst thing about the amendment is that it is repetitious, there are many repetitious provisions in statute in both England and Scotland; whereas the merit of the amendment is that it clearly establishes the exact basis of this act of devolution. The amendment makes it clear that the Bill is not intended to undermine the overriding sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
      The amendment is important also because it provides an element of stability. Interventions from the Government Benches have shown a willingness to use the Bill to provide, in the oft-used phrase, a slithery slope; a constant process for accelerating devolution—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Slippery".] It can be slippery and slithery, as I am sure the Secretary of State would concede.
      Conservative Members are advancing the proposition that, whatever the final settlement—the word "settlement" is often used; a settlement implies a degree of stability and predictability—if there is to be stability and predictability on the basis that was put before the Scottish people and the electorate of the United Kingdom, it should be reflected in clear and unambiguous language in the Bill in the terms of the amendment, making it clear that this Parliament remains sovereign in Scotland as in all other parts of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: The amendment is almost an exact repetition of section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which the Government are about to barter away in exchange for some nebulous and undefined amendment of articles 2 and 3 in the Irish constitution.
      In support of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, the Prime Minister confirmed to me two weeks ago that he intended to put into this legislation for Scotland something similar to section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, which is in accordance with the amendment. The Government are prepared to abandon sovereignty in Northern Ireland by removing section 75, but to strengthen it in Scotland by putting exactly the same proposition into the Bill.
      Mr. Collins: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. In the light of the Prime Minister's assurance, I assume that the Secretary of State will be explaining why he is now going to accept the
      390
      amendment. That seems to be the force of what the Prime Minister has told the hon. Gentleman. I am most grateful for that helpful intervention.
      Mr. Godman rose—
      Mr. Collins: This one may be a little less helpful.
      Mr. Godman: I disagree utterly with what has just been said: in no way can the excision of articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of Ireland be regarded as a nebulous measure.
      Mr. Collins: I suspect that we had better return to the provisions relating to the government of Scotland rather than the government of Ireland—or Northern Ireland, I should say, which is not part of the Republic of Ireland, and I hope never will be.
      Clause 27(7) has been subject to much debate. I am particularly concerned about its implications for what my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) described as the third anchor which he believed was of critical importance in maintaining Scotland's place in the United Kingdom, and that is the place of the monarchy.
      Some Labour Members talked earlier of the role of the Crown in Parliament. I hope that, if necessary, the Secretary of State will put me right, but some of the provisions here give rise to concern. Clause 27(2) makes it clear:
      "Proposed Acts of the Scottish Parliament shall be known as Bills; and a Bill shall become an Act … when it has … received Royal Assent."
      Subsection (3) makes it clear that a Bill receives Royal Assent under the provisions of the Scottish seal. That is fine.
      But schedule 5 (1) makes it clear what matters are generally reserved. It becomes clear that the constitution, including the Crown, are reserved matters. Paragraph 5 says:
      "Paragraph 1 does not reserve … the use of the Scottish Seal."
      It is clear that the Scottish Parliament will have control in advising Her Majesty on the use of the Scottish seal, and therefore, no doubt, Ministers in the first Scottish Administration will advise Her Majesty on the process of giving Royal Assent to Acts of the Scottish Parliament.
      If that is the case, Her Majesty will be obliged to follow the advice of her Ministers, as she is in relation to the United Kingdom, its dominions and Crown dependencies outside the territories of the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State shakes his head; I shall be happy to give way, or for him to correct me later.
      Clause 28(1) says:
      "An Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament."
      I do not understand why that provision refers to an Act of Parliament, which has therefore been passed by the Parliament and given Royal Assent, and does not say that a Bill before the Parliament cannot become an Act, and therefore cannot go to Her Majesty the Queen to seek Royal Assent, until it has been proved that Parliament has clear legislative competence to act in that way.
      To put it at its simplest, I am concerned that Her Majesty the Queen may receive contradictory advice from two separate Administrations within the United Kingdom.

      391
      On the one hand, the Scottish Parliament, particularly if it had a hefty SNP representation, might pass legislation which would be sent to the Queen to which, under the Bill, she would be obliged to give Royal Assent and it would become an Act of the Scottish Parliament. On the other hand, clause 28 says that an Act shall not have the effect of law if it is beyond the competence of the Parliament.
      Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman should table amendments at the relevant point in the Bill's Committee stage. This has nothing to do with the amendments that we are discussing. But, in any event, as he knows, if there is a question about vires, which is the only matter that could arise, there are challenge procedures which would take us to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That would be a rare event, but the procedure is available.
      Obviously, if that challenge is lodged timeously and is going to the Privy Council, there is no question of Royal Assent being given. If there is no such challenge, the Queen will take the advice offered to her, and give Royal Assent. The hon. Gentleman may be worried about that, but there has been much consultation, as he would imagine, with the proper authorities in this area, and they are not.
      Mr. Collins: The reason, I imagine, that 1 was not ruled out of order before is that I was trying to make the case for amendment No. 2 because it states that, throughout the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom Parliament has total and unequivocal sovereignty, and therefore it is the Queen in this Parliament who has the supreme legislative authority in Scotland. That is why I was trying to point out that the lack of such a clear statement in the Bill could give rise to considerable constitutional difficulties.
      Mr. John Hayes: I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the key word, which he rightly emphasises, is "supremacy". Every right-thinking writer on the subject of sovereignty must understand the issue of supremacy—the supreme ability to exercise legitimate power. The amendment deals with supremacy, and that is why the Government are so frightened of it and are opposing it.
      Mr. Collins: I entirely agree—my hon. Friend makes the point well.
      Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman be a messenger to the Government requesting their best advice on when we should raise the question of the conflicting sources of advice? The Scottish First Minister is clearly to advise the Queen, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can advise the Queen, and their advice may not be the same. Will the Secretary of State, with all his support, advise us when we can table probing amendments to explore that real problem?
      Mr. Collins: It is a genuine pleasure to take part in debates on this vital constitutional question in the hon. Gentleman's presence. From outside these walls, I followed his contributions on these matters for many years.
      392
      I agree that one of the many difficulties with the proposals is that there is an assumption that there will always be amity, co-operation and an identity of view between the different institutions. That may sometimes occur, but, it is not inevitable. Difficulties may arise, not least because of the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes, as a result of the Head of State of the United Kingdom attracting different advice from Ministers in different parts of the United Kingdom, and genuinely being unsure which she should follow. I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the potential danger.
      That is why I return to the central argument in favour of the amendment, which is that it mirrors provisions that are already on the statute book in the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Those provisions have not been amended by successive Conservative and Labour Governments since that time, but have been regarded as a clear and highly acceptable statement of the position regarding Northern Ireland. They offer a model for the people of Scotland which would give them exactly what the Prime Minister told them they would receive if they voted yes in the September 1997 referendum, which was no threat to their continued participation in the United Kingdom and the governance of that United Kingdom by the United Kingdom Parliament.
      Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend develops an extremely well-observed argument for the importance of the amendment in respect of stability. Does he agree that one of the central elements is the stability of the Queen in Parliament as the sovereign power? The hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) drew parallels with other European states, and the latter mentioned Catalonia, but he forgot that one reason why, on the death of Franco, the Spanish people chose to bring back their royal family was to get the stability and the guarantee of democracy that a monarchy could provide. The Spanish returned to the democratic stability of the monarch in Parliament—or, in the case of the Spanish, in the Cortes.
      6 pm
      Mr. Collins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend—once again, he has provided support for my argument. The amendment clearly would improve the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow set out a powerful case why it may not be possible for any form of legislation along the lines of the Bill to be compatible with the continuation of the United Kingdom. That case has been argued by many senior and distinguished people, and it is one for which I have some sympathy, but we must continue to try to improve the legislation. The amendment would indisputably improve the legislation; that is why I support it.
      Mr. Godman: I shall be brief, mainly because I am tempted to say that the debate on the amendment is a sheer waste of time. Let us look at its wording:
      "the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished".
      What many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches choose to ignore is that we live in a multinational state that is undergoing profound constitutional change. The relationships between the

      393
      nations and the Province of Northern Ireland are undergoing change. We have a Scottish Parliament on the parliamentary stocks and a Welsh assembly about to be created. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) is engaged in negotiations that may or could lead—
      Mr. Robert McCartney indicated dissent.
      Mr. Godman: I see the hon. Gentleman denying all responsibility, but I was about to say that those negotiations may or could lead to the creation of a similar body in Northern Ireland. The fact of the changes in the relationships between these nations and Northern Ireland must inevitably place some constraints on the supreme authority of Parliament.
      A modus vivendi will be established between Edinburgh and London, and there will be few references to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is in the interests of the different Parliaments and assemblies to arrive at amicable and mutually acceptable arrangements. In the circumstances of profound constitutional change, one cannot hope to maintain the supreme authority of Parliament and assert that it should "remain unaffected and undiminished". That is an absurd objective vis-a-vis the changes we are experiencing.
      Mr. Gorrie: I should like to restate our position on the question of sovereignty, which obviously hangs up several hon. Members.
      As we see it, the people—whether the Scottish people, the English people, or any other people—have sovereignty; they may then choose to give bits of it, in trust, to various organisations. In the case of the United Kingdom, we have given some sovereignty in trust to the institutions of Europe, which now run various matters on our behalf.
      At present, the Westminster Parliament enjoys the sovereignty entrusted to it by the Scottish people, but the Scottish people wish to change that system, and they are taking some of areas of responsibility back to a Scottish Parliament. Therefore, responsibility for and sovereignty over Scottish affairs will have been delegated by the Scottish people to three separate organisations, which do not overlap—they are separate.
      Mr. Hayes: If the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, as he surely will, that the definition of sovereignty implies supremacy, how is that supremacy divisible in the way he describes?
      Mr. Gorrie: I do not subscribe to that concept—I am not a supremacy freak, although clearly the House contains a large number. I am interested in the popular sovereignty, which is given in trust to various different bodies. The Scottish Parliament will have powers over education, health and so on; this Parliament will have powers over benefits and similar matters; it will not be possible for the Scottish Parliament to interfere with benefits. The division is quite clear.
      The matter is well set out in the declaration of Arbroath, in which the Scottish people said that they fully supported Robert the Bruce—he was a great man, who had driven out Edward II and freed the country—but, if Robert the Bruce went wrong and sold out to the English
      394
      Government, they would remove him and set up their own Government. The power was handed in trust to the king, and it could be taken back. That is a classical statement. [Interruption.] Does the Secretary of State wish to intervene?
      Mr. Dewar: I was sure that the community of the realm and Robert the Bruce would appear, and I am delighted that they have. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to read Professor Barrow on the subject. He points out that almost everyone who signed the declaration of Arbroath had either lost his lands or been executed within a few years, and that they were a nasty collection of disloyal robber barons.
      Mr. Gorrie: I have recently been reading Professor Barrow on precisely this subject. The fact is that most of the best political statements have been made by complete villains—[Laughter.] It is quite true. Wilkes and Paine were in many ways men of low moral character, but they made important political statements. The declaration of Arbroath was bang on the nail, and the fact that some crooked barons signed it is neither here nor there.
      Mr. Salmond: In support of the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that Magna Carta, which is often quoted in the House, was hardly the work of socially minded and peaceful people. In defence of my old tutor, Geoffrey Barrow, I should say that his entire argument about the term "community of the realm" was that, at that period in Scotland's history, the concept went beyond the king, beyond the nobles and beyond the barons. It encompassed something far larger than that, which was that in which it was important.
      Mr. Gorrie: My next point is that we feel that the answer to some of the concerns, which are obviously sincerely felt by some hon. Members, about what happens in respect of the management of England, is that the English need to exert their popular sovereignty and decide how the affairs of England should be run. That should be the next stage after this.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) cast doubt on the idea that the Scottish Parliament would refrain from interfering in areas that were not its province, and suggested that candidates would promise things that they could not deliver.
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow has great experience here. I have had quite long experience in the much more humble role of councillor, where it is clear what one can and cannot do. If an election candidate goes about promising to deliver all sorts of things, which his opponents can say that he has no power to deliver, that candidate will be gutted; he will not stand a chance. If Scottish politicians in the Scottish Parliament start promising things outwith that Parliament's powers of delivery, they will not survive. The fear, therefore, is not relevant or legitimate.
      The question whether the Scottish Parliament may invade the prerogatives of Westminster is well covered in several parts of the Bill that set out all sorts of locks and balances to prevent the Scottish Parliament from doing precisely that. There are all sorts of rules relating to judicial powers, Privy Councils and Officers. The Bill clearly sets out mechanisms to prevent the Scottish Parliament from taking action that it should not.

      395
      Amendment No. 23, supported by the Liberal Democrats and the nationalists, seeks to clarify the vexed clause 27. It clearly states that the Westminster Parliament can make rules affecting Scotland in non-devolved, reserved, matters. It seems sensible to clarify that. I urge the Secretary of State to look again at clause 27(7), and make it absolutely clear. During today's debate, it has become apparent that the subject is not clear in some people's minds.
      Mr. Grieve: I have made a number of interventions, so I shall try to be brief, but there are a couple of points that can usefully be made.
      There seems to be a misunderstanding about the position of Conservative Members. We accept that there has been a referendum. As I have said before to the Secretary of State, that is why we wish to co-operate in trying to create a sensible piece of legislation that can be passed by the House and that will allow the new Union that will result from the changes to work, which is essential. It may not work—the worst fears of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) may be correct—but at least it is worth a try.
      The foundation for the legislation must be the foundation of legal principle, which is the only way to have sensible devolution and a sensible Parliament in Scotland. It has been suggested that the great theme of popular sovereignty belongs to Scotland alone, not here. I can assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) that there have been plenty of occasions in English history when people have made assertions about popular sovereignty—usually to do something unpleasant.
      I seem to remember that a Bishop of London once preached before the House of Lords and the House of Commons on the deposition of King Edward II, on the theme of "vox populi, vox dei", declaring the king deposed because the voice of the people was the voice of God. I do not think that I shall go that far. Popular sovereignty is a meaningless phrase. Everyone may assert sovereignty; ultimately it is a willingness to accept that there are structures, such as entities called countries, which are the foundations on which legal government can be conducted.
      Let us consider the reality of what the Secretary of State is trying to achieve with the Bill. It is clear that, if the Bill is to work, the Westminster Parliament's involvement in spheres that have been devolved to Edinburgh should, as far as is humanly possible, be avoided, but there may be instances where it will happen.
      We need look no further than clause 54 to see that that is precisely what may happen: the Secretary of State might direct the Scottish Parliament to introduce legislation on a devolved matter to make Scotland conform with our international obligations. The idea that clause 27 might never be invoked and that the part of the Bill dealing with parliamentary supremacy at Westminster is irrelevant or merely a piece of decoration, is—I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)—simply not realistic. If one reads the whole Bill, one realises that there are occasions when that might happen.
      Mr. McAllion: I recognise that there might be occasions when this Parliament thinks that it can order the
      396
      Scottish Parliament to carry out actions, particularly on devolved matters. But, in reality, if it ever tried to do that, it would break asunder the United Kingdom. It is not a practical, but a theoretical, power, which could never be used without threatening the Union.
      Mr. Grieve: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is worrying. I realise that a number of hon. Members who have spoken have taken the same attitude as the hon. Member for Dundee, East, but his view should be particularly worrying to the Secretary of State because he is nominally a supporter of the Government. If that is the hon. Gentleman's attitude, he is in error. If one considers the legislation, it becomes apparent that there may be occasions when that may happen. I hope that it will not, but it may. The purpose of the amendment—
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Galloway: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Scottish Parliament would require this place to bring it into line with international obligations? Why does he not think that a grown-up Parliament would be more than ready to undertake its international obligations without having to be led by the hand by the rather dubious prospect of a parliamentary majority here?
      Mr. Grieve: I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman is right. I fully agree with him in that I should have thought that in most cases—I cannot predict the future—that is precisely what would happen.
      We are having to put together a piece of legislation that will have the force of law to deal with contingencies. If the Secretary of State did not think that this contingency had to be addressed, he would not have included clause 54. The fact that it is there means that we have to consider it. It has been clearly been considered in clause 27(7). It is significant that a number of hon. Members, including Liberal Democrat Members, do not want it to appear in the Bill. It would drive a cart and horses through the principle of the residual power of the Foreign Secretary to give such a direction or for the House to do something if a direction is not observed. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has tabled his amendment; it is a clear restatement of the position.
      Mr. Andrew Welsh: In dealing with the contingency, the hon. Gentleman is seeking a stifling monopoly of political power. Amendment No. 2 refers to
      "supreme authority … over all persons, matters and things in Scotland."
      The UK Parliament would have absolute control of our people, including what they do. The last person who advocated that was King Edward I, which means that the Conservatives are 700 years out of date. The rest of us want to get on and run the 21st century.
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman may dislike it, but that is the reality of the way in which the Bill has been presented to us. All that my right hon. Friend's amendment does is to restate in plain language the truth about the legislation.
      As it is unlikely that the amendment will be accepted, it is effectively a probing amendment, but its use as a probing amendment has been extremely revealing and, I have to say to the Secretary of State, rather depressing.

      397
      [Interruption.] It is not a game. We shall have to live with the legislation in the House and, unless it works and people are prepared to accept the framework, it will, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East suggests, fall apart.
      Mr. Dewar: I entirely accept that it is legitimate to table probing amendments; I have done so many thousands of times in the past 20 years, and I am not ashamed of it. But what the hon. Gentleman is saying is not compatible with the statement of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) that, if I do not accept the amendment, my words will turn to dust in my throat. I was wondering which side the hon. Gentleman was on.
      Mr. Grieve: I should have thought that it was perfectly compatible. Given the majority that the Labour party commands in this House, the Secretary of State can accept or reject an amendment and the Government are likely to carry the day in the Division Lobby. That does not alter the need for debating the issue, which, I submit, is an important one. I hope very much that the Bill, as drafted by the Secretary of State, works; but I observe that, judging by the various views that have been expressed in this debate, many hon. Members' opinions of what devolved government should be about are wholly at variance with what the legislation offers.
      Mr. Hayes: There seems to be an essential difference between the contributions that we have heard from the two sides of the Committee: Conservative Members place a special and particular value on parliamentary democracy and on the important ideas, traditions and history that are its foundations, an attitude that stood in contrast in the debate to the rather flippant and casual disregard—to be generous, perhaps justified by ignorance rather than caused by malice—that Labour Members have for our sacred parliamentary democracy and its traditions.
      That disregard was no better illustrated than by the hon. Member for Dundee, West—
      Mr. McAllion: Dundee, East.
      Mr. Hayes: I am sorry; Dundee, East. I am not intimately familiar with Dundee, but I of course apologise. I meant the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). [Interruption.] Well, at least I always eat the marmalade.
      The hon. Member for Dundee, East said that he disagreed with what I believe he described as the theoretical nature of democratic accountability provided by Parliament, but later recommended the theoretical nature of the principle of consent. Consent is a refined and sophisticated political notion. It is no more or less tangible than democratic accountability. Worse still, the hon. Gentleman then spoke about his support for the notion of subsidiarity. Writers, thinkers and political theorists greater than him or me have found it difficult to define the nature of subsidiarity, but subsidiarity is definitely a less tangible political notion than that of the democratic accountability provided by Parliament.
      I suggest to the hon. Member for Dundee, East that, in a more cogent explanation of sovereignty, he would have to alight on the issue of supremacy, which I raised in an earlier intervention. I suggest that because, although legal sovereignty may be provided by international legal
      398
      recognition of the independence of a state, political sovereignty—as has been recognised by Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dryden, Shelley and writers throughout the ages—inevitably has much to do with the principle of supremacy: in this case that means the supremacy of this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge that vital fact.
      The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) lapsed further. His grasp of the matter was even more limited. He spoke about sovereignty as though it could be dished out—as though it could be collected and divided up. He spoke as though sovereignty, instead of resting in an institution, instead of forming part of an evolutionary development, instead of being part of a coherent tradition, was something that was divvied up among people—extraordinary.
      Mr. Wallace: On reflection, my view is accurate. Is not what happened in 1707 that sovereignty was transferred from the Scottish Parliament to this Parliament, and that the people's sovereignty, which had been entrusted in the Parliament of Scotland, was transferred to the Parliament at Westminster? So sovereignty really can be transferred and divvied up. It is not something that just exists in one place for ever.
      Mr. Hayes: I suggest that legitimate political sovereignty is the right to govern—and the ability to govern—free from external influence. It implies a degree of supremacy. Of course it can exist in more than one place, and of course this Parliament could take a conscious decision, in the way that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, to give up its sovereignty, but it could not simultaneously retain its political integrity as the supreme body ruling over the United Kingdom.
      Of course no set of political conditions is fixed in stone, but if this Parliament decided to give up its sovereignty, it would lose supremacy—its supreme right to govern these islands. The hon. and learned Gentleman may wish that to happen, but his friends—
      Mr. Galloway: Is not that precisely what happened when we joined the European Community; when we passed the Single European Act; when we passed the Maastricht treaty into law? Would it not be a further step along that road if we were to enter economic and monetary union? Surely the hon. Gentleman's arguments are nonsense.
      Mr. Hayes: I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to seduce me into giving—
      Mr. Galloway: No chance.
      Mr. Hayes: Well, he might be enthusiastic about the prospect, but I shall not allow him to seduce me into giving a discourse on the nature of sovereignty in relation to Europe, not only because it would take up more time than I have, but because you, Mr. Lord, would call me to order. However, I will say that of course that is a legitimate consideration in relation to Europe, and many Conservative Members fully understand the risk to sovereignty that is posed by those dark forces. That is precisely why the Conservative party stands for the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, free from that type of external interference.

      399
      Given that, I believe, we all accept that sovereignty is ultimately a matter of supremacy—that is what the amendments say, and the point has been raised previously by many Opposition Members—the Government must face up to the issue of how to present that to the Scottish people.
      Of course there is nothing implicitly wrong with dividing political power. Political power can be divided under a unitary constitution. The supremacy of this Parliament is not necessarily affected by the delegation of its political powers; powers are divided between local and central Government. For many years, the exercise of political powers has been divided in this way among many institutions as part of our democratic political system, yet Parliament remains supreme.
      However, once one divides sovereignty in the way that has been suggested from the Liberal Democrat Benches and from the Labour Benches, one must face up to the threat that that poses to the integrity of this House of Commons, and the people of the United Kingdom through this House of Commons.
      John Stuart Mill said—[Interruption.] Well, we have had Robert the Bruce; 1 thought that we would have John Stuart Mill. No good debate is complete without both. John Stuart Mill said in 1865 that the optimum form of government is one
      "in which the sovereignty, or the supreme controlling power in the last resort, is vested in the entire aggregate of the community"
      and the aggregation of the community of the United Kingdom is this place. The people of the United Kingdom speak through their elected Parliament, and one casts that aside, surely, at the peril of the people. It should not be done callously and lightly. It should not be done without due consideration of the long-term effect.
      The importance of the amendments before us is not about the division of political power. One could vote for the amendments and still be in favour of a form of devolution. One could vote for the amendments and still be in favour of a different settlement in terms of the divisions of political authority.
      Sir Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hayes: I am just reaching a conclusion, so I will not. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) spoke volumes from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench earlier.
      One cannot support the Government in the Division, however, if one believes in the supremacy of the people of the United Kingdom, expressed through this Parliament. If the Conservative party is the only party that believes in that, it is a sorry day for this kingdom and for this Parliament, but if that is the case, we shall proudly defend those appropriate, ancient and precious democratic traditions.
      Mr. Home Robertson: The good people of South Holland and The Deepings might be a little puzzled by the notion that this Parliament is sovereign, rather than the people. I never thought that I would take part in a chicken-and-egg debate in the House. Which came first,
      400
      the people or the Parliament? Clearly, the people; the Parliament is the creature of the people, and that is as it should be.
      The amendment is mischievous. It seeks to retain in this Parliament something that neither the Government nor the people intend to be retained. Clause 27(7) provides for this House to legislate on the reserved subjects. That is entirely proper and in accordance with the decision taken by the people in the referendum.
      Mr. Ancram: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Home Robertson: No, I have undertaken to be brief, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must wind up shortly.
      Having listened to Opposition Members, I am concerned that there may be attempts by another Government in this place to encroach on the devolved powers. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity to say more about the case for finding ways of entrenching the decision taken by the people of Scotland at the referendum of 11 September.
      6.30 pm
      We have had a long debate about the settled will of the people of Scotland, which reached a clear conclusion in the referendum: 74.29 per cent. of our people, in a high turnout on a rainy day, voted for the Scottish Parliament to be established in accordance with the White Paper put to the people by my right hon. Friend, with a clear list of what was to be devolved and what was not to be devolved.
      My anxiety is that, at some time in the future, some current Opposition Members might seek to interfere with that clear decision of the Scottish people. That is one of the reasons why I tabled amendment No. 91, which was not selected. It would amend the long title of the Bill to refer to the fact that the Bill is being put through Parliament with the specific consent of the people of Scotland in the referendum.
      I recognise that entrenchment in the sense of one Parliament seeking to bind its successor is not feasible, but if we are to use referendums in our constitutional arrangements, they should not be regarded simply as one-off opinion polls. If we ask the people to make fundamental decisions about the constitution of this country, we should ensure that that decision is understood as a popular decision. It should not be tampered with without the consent of those self-same people. I put it to my right hon. Friend that there is a case for referring in the Bill to the fact that it is enacted on the strength of a popular decision in a referendum. That should apply also to any future legislation that is enacted following a referendum.
      Mr. Dewar: I begin by congratulating everyone on a varied and interesting debate. That is a form of words, as the House will recognise: a verbal screen—not scream—for some highly idiosyncratic points.
      I was delighted that MacCorrnick v. Lord Advocate cropped up again. We can always rely on the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). It is an old friend revisited. Lord Cooper would never have imagined, I hope, the deification of his views on the matter, which have become a mark of the Liberal Democrat party.

      401
      I also thought that we would revisit the Wars of the Roses, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) did not disappoint me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wars of independence."] I am sorry. Wars of independence.
      Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Where was the right hon. Gentleman educated?
      Mr. Dewar: Not in Perth, Australia; that is certainly true, and that is why the hon. Lady is so well based in Scottish history. The wars of independence were splendid, stirring times, but as a quarry for political theory for the 21st century, I find them a little less than persuasive.
      The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to another much-loved favourite, the Church of Scotland Act 1921. I was thinking of rehearsing some of the parallels from the Welsh disestablishment Act, as Mr. Gladstone was particularly fond of it and thought that it was one of the central issues of constitutional reform, but I decided against that, just as I declined to take up the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to enter into the Czech and Slovak question, beguiling though it was.
      I began to pale, if not swoon away, when the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) began to speak about Shelley and Dryden.
      The one piece of information that I got from the debate was details of the proposed funeral arrangements for my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway). I hope that I am there to see the box being carried out. [Interruption.] I say that because I believe that I will live for ever.
      It has been an important debate, which raised some fundamental issues. I do not shy away from the concept of power to the people, in the people and with the people. It is one of the oldest, and probably one of the most legitimate, political slogans of all time. However, we must have some sense of perspective.
      I do not panic before the slogan "Power to the people", unlike the hon. Member for Solihull, who said that, if we started following popular democracy, there would be no end to it. I understand why a Conservative politician should take that view. Popular democracy of any kind is not likely to commend itself, but we must be more dispassionate about such matters. I remember the hon. Gentleman's father—
      Mr. Grieve: My father was the Member of Parliament for Solihull.
      Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is the hon. Member for somewhere that I know not of. That is my fault.
      On the substance of the matter, I am interested in trying to build a practical system that will work to the advantage of this House, the new Scottish Parliament which we hope to create, and the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. I have been sparring for close on 40 years on definitions of sovereignty. It is perhaps time to call a halt, and to examine practical systems of government and how we can make them real.
      There is an important distinction, which has become a little blurred. I agree entirely about popular sovereignty, in the sense that if, for example, we want to move away
      402
      from devolution settlements towards an independent settlement for Scotland, and if we want to move back into a more fully incorporating Union, that is a matter for the people.
      The people can change the constitution. It may not be widely understood that, while one is in a constitutional set-up, one is in a sense changing it, but one cannot walk out on it, so to speak. One can move to total independence, but while one remains within the United Kingdom, and more important, while one remains represented in the United Kingdom Parliament, which is one of the marks of this settlement, one must live with the realities of that system and the Parliament. I commend that point to some of my hon. Friends.
      I recognise that the sovereignty of Parliament is not necessarily a sympathetic concept, but even those who believe in popular sovereignty in the most simplistic sense and reject the distinction that I have tried to draw to the attention of the Committee, and hon. Members on both sides of the argument who have prayed in aid the White Paper, should remember what it said.
      Paragraph 4.2 stated:
      "Under the Government's proposals, the UK Parliament will devolve wide ranging legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament. Scotland will of course remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. The Queen will continue to be Head of State of the United Kingdom. The UK Parliament is and will remain sovereign in all matters: but as part of the Government's resolve to modernise the British constitution Westminster will be choosing to exercise that sovereignty by devolving legislative responsibilities to a Scottish Parliament".
      That is what Scotland voted for. It is a succinct statement of the kernel of the case for devolution within the United Kingdom. If we believe in popular sovereignty, we directly endorsed that concept in that passage only a few weeks ago.
      I put it to the Committee in all seriousness that what we have in the Bill, whether individuals like it or not, is the legislative enactment of paragraph 4.2 of the White Paper. That is something which we must hold on to as a foundation for our continuing arguments and discussions during the passage of the Bill.
      Mr. Salmond: Was the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, right to tell the House:
      "Within the areas of devolved responsibility, laws passed by the Scottish Parliament are not open to cancellation."?—[Official Report, 13 January 1998; Vol. 304, c.155.]
      Mr. Dewar: On occasion, we all talk in shorthand, and that was a practical description of what I think we all want to see.
      It is clear that what we have is an important division of responsibility, one that is logical, strong and internally sound. It says that we are to have a level playing field for economic matters, for macro-economics, fiscal matters, defence and foreign affairs. These will all remain on a United Kingdom basis, but there are areas in which the Parliament—I hope that it is this Parliament—will be persuaded that it should pass authority to a Scottish body that is directly elected, reflecting Scottish opinion.
      The sovereignty of Parliament, which is explicitly recognised in the White Paper, will continue in that there is a possibility, in theory, of the United Kingdom Parliament legislating across those areas, but it is not one

      403
      which we anticipate or expect. One of my difficulties with some of the amendments is that they seem to be trying to raise that possibility as a practical part of the daily passage of politics and business in this country. That is how they will be interpreted. I object to them, in the same way that I would object to other amendments that have been tabled that seem to represent a sleight of hand, trying to suggest to people in Scotland that something cannot happen when in fact it can, and that the power remains, even though, practically, it will not.
      Mr. Salmond rose—
      Mr. Dewar: Let me just finish this point, as it is important. I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene, as I am never blate about doing that.
      The hon. Member who does not represent Solihull, which perhaps does not help the Committee very much, but whose father did; that is a clue—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Beaconsfield."[—so that is why he survived. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made a persuasive argument and an important point. He drew attention to clause 54, which is a specific and tightly drawn safety net in case a Scottish Parliament—I hope that the situation will never arise—mistakenly insisted on policies that ran counter to international obligations and put the United Kingdom Government at risk.
      We have had to deal with that specific exception. We do not expect the general power, the concept of sovereignty, to be exercised. Only in specific circumstances, which we have tried to define in the Bill—and very unusual they would be—are we trying to build in such an override power.
      Mr. Hayes rose—
      Mr. Salmond rose—
      Mr. Dewar: I give way first to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings.
      Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the spirit in which he is addressing the debate. The clause to which he referred, which deals with the resolution of a conflict of authority, makes it clear that the supreme authority lies with this Parliament.
      Amendment No. 2 talks about supreme authority. The White Paper talks about ultimate authority or ultimate sovereignty. How does the right hon. Gentleman define the difference between the two? If there is no difference, why does he have a problem with the amendment?
      Mr. Dewar: I think that some of the difficulties may arise in the spirit in which the amendment has been tabled, because it is a double-edged weapon. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is no difference between the text and what he is trying to put in, why does he say that this is such an important lead amendment? It is because there is a hidden agenda behind it, and I am not prepared to go down that road.
      404
      6.45 pm
      We on the Government Benches do not drift along on a rosy haze of expecting happy harmony on all occasions and on all fronts. When the hon. Gentleman is a great man and sits behind the Dispatch Box—in 2500, or whenever it may be—there may well be friction, but the whole point is that we have built in sensible provision, of which clause 54 is an example. We have built in the fast-track procedure for disputes over vires, leading only rarely, we hope, to the judicial committee of the Privy Council. We are constantly trying to put in these safeguards, hoping that their presence will seldom be a practical matter, and that we will always be able, as we do in the United Kingdom, to work together for common aims and objectives and with widely shared common interests.
      Mr. Salmond: Is the Secretary of State now saying quite the opposite to what the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, told us two weeks ago: that a future Westminster Parliament could, if it so wished, introduce a poll tax in Scotland?
      Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is not a silly man, although he may be mistaken and misguided. He campaigned to endorse the sovereignty of Parliament when he campaigned for the White Paper. That is, perhaps, an unfair point, but he understands what I am saying. He took it warts and all. 1 accept that he would have written a different White Paper. I accept that he will argue for further change, as he is entitled to do, but it is no good his coming forward and saying to me, "I want to change the White Paper now by means of one amendment in Committee."
      The White Paper embodies popular democracy. It was endorsed. The hon. Member is right to point out that parliamentary sovereignty still exists, but we have built the whole system on the basis—the Conservative party now accepts this—that, in areas such as health, education and housing, and on a multiplicity of other domestic matters, we have the right to make the law in a body that reflects Scottish opinion. That is seen by us, at least, as a way to improve significantly the situation of Scotland.
      Mr. Dalyell: Look: silly, misguided, mistaken we may be, but could we have a direct answer to the question: under the present proposals, could Westminster introduce a poll tax into Scotland?
      Mr. Dewar: That would assume that Westminster was tearing up the entire settlement. That seems to me a totally otiose statement. To do so would run contrary to the whole basis on which this has been put together. I know that my hon. Friend thinks that it is a trick question. He knows the answer, and he must have read the Bill. He is a man of considerable experience, enormous tenacity and considerable ability, but he is asking a question that is not essential to this particular debate.
      Mr. Wallace: Let us get away from the things that would tear up the settlement, such as Westminster introducing a poll tax. Can the Secretary of State envisage a circumstance in which a clause in a private Member's Bill, because of the way in which it was drafted, would impact on Scotland on what everyone assumed was a devolved matter? What assurance can he give us that such

      405
      confusion, which could affect citizens in their everyday lives, will not happen? Inadvertently or otherwise, a law might be passed in this House that could affect Scotland in what is accepted to be a devolved matter.
      Mr. Dewar: That will obviously be watched carefully by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There are certain problems with limitations in private Members' Bills—for example, expenditure. If something impinged on the powers that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, or at least are not reserved to the Westminster Parliament, to be precise, that is something which I would expect the House to avoid.
      There will be a little flexibility. Later, we shall debate powers that blur the distinction to the advantage of the Scottish Parliament, allowing it to legislate on devolved matters, but having a clear impact on reserved matters. To the purist, that may seem to be an impossibility and a contradiction, but we are making allowance for it in the interests of the good government of the country.
      There are impracticalities in this group of amendments, which we have to guard against. The sovereignty of Parliament has been used properly in the past to argue that no Parliament can bind its successors. That is seen in some way as an odd situation, but in practical terms it is inevitable.
      It we have a devolved Parliament in Edinburgh it will not be able to bind its successors. If we have an independent Parliament in Edinburgh, which regards the rest of the United Kingdom as just another friendly country, that Parliament will not be able to bind its successors, for the simple reason that the law would be ossified and caught in a time warp, which would be ludicrous. We must all live with the idea of the sovereignty of a legislative body and its inability to bind its successors. If one accepts that concept, one must live with it as Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, as those who represent other parts of the United Kingdom in this Parliament live with it.
      I know that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) wishes to say a word or two on behalf of the Conservative party, so I shall conclude by saying that this provision is the right balance. In answer to the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, it is not a matter of undermining Westminster's sovereignty. A great deal of influence will be left with the Westminster Parliament, but its real influence will be that we shall remain Members of it and will still look to it for extremely powerful areas of policy. I hope that many of my hon. Friends will be here for a long time to guard Scotland's interests, whether on taxation, industrial matters, macro-economics, foreign affairs or defence.
      It is a case not of stripping Westminster's sovereignty but of Westminster using its judgment to pass legislation sensibly. We have made an honest attempt to translate the White Paper into statute, which is what we voted for. It would be extremely wise of the Committee to accept that argument and leave matters at peace.
      The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has frequently said that to make the system work it is necessary to have a Scottish Parliament. Although he may be a reluctant convert, I know that it is a genuine conversion. If he lives up to those aspirations, he will understand why we prefer the present draft, which is a
      406
      balance between the flak that is flying from both sides of the argument and what is right for Scotland and the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Salmond: I rise to make two points. First, as the Secretary of State knows, I campaigned for the White Paper during the referendum campaign because of the right of the people of Scotland as a sovereign body to opt for independence whenever they chose. The Secretary of State has admitted that openly and freely, and has held that view for many years. I welcome the fact that that right has not been seriously disputed in this debate. However, there was a clear understanding during the campaign—I remember the occasions on which it was outlined—
      Mr. Dalyell indicated assent.
      Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is nodding. It was clearly stated that matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament would be left to the people of Scotland, including matters such as the poll tax.
      Mr. Dewar indicated dissent.
      Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but that is what the House was told two weeks ago by the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office. He said that private legislation could not overturn Acts of the Scottish Parliament and that devolved matters could not be cancelled by the Westminster Parliament.
      The Secretary of State can quote from the White Paper and we can all quote the Prime Minister recognising the sovereignty of the Scottish people. Indeed, we can quote them until we are blue in the face, but two weeks ago people had the clear understanding that some matters would be devolved and other matters reserved, because that was articulated by the Minister of State.
      Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is making a mountain out of a molehill, which is skilful. Ultimately, the White Paper is absolutely clear. That is what we fought the referendum campaign on together, and neither of us misunderstood that position.
      Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State skirted round the answer to the question asked by me and by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. The answer to the question whether the Westminster Parliament could impose a poll tax on the Scottish people, regardless of the fact that it would be a devolved matter, is yes. That answer would not be widely acceptable in Scotland.
      Mr. Dalyell: The difficulty is that the whole referendum was sold on the basis that the Parliament would protect the Scottish people from the ravages of Margaret Thatcher's poll tax. That was the public's understanding.
      Mr. Salmond: For the second time this evening—probably for the second time in my life—I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
      I wish to make one more point before I allow the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to sum up on behalf of the Conservative party—a courtesy which Conservative

      407
      Members have not always extended to me under similar circumstances—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members want to continue the debate, I am prepared to continue speaking until 7 pm.
      I have been doing some research and have found that, on 22 November 1977, the then Scotland Bill contained a clause on the supreme authority of the Westminster Parliament. The clause was deleted in Committee and the Government of the day did not try to reintroduce it. Among those who voted to delete the clause were Lady Thatcher, Lord Tebbit and other Conservative Members, who argued that the clause was meaningless and declaratory. They said that the form of words had no meaning because it was political reality which dictated events. When he sums up, I hope that the hon. Member for Woodspring will explain why the Conservative party wants to go further tonight than even Lady Thatcher was prepared to go in 1977.
      Dr. Fox: It is a pity that we are running so short of time, because many points have been made which I should have liked to take up, especially the last point raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I shall deal with that later in the Committee stage.
      I am also sorry that we did not have more time to hear from the Secretary of State, because he laid out the Government's Unionist credentials and I very much welcomed that. He gave a clear interpretation of what will remain sovereign and how the White Paper translates into the Bill.
      We have had an interesting debate on sovereignty, not least because we have had so many different definitions of what sovereignty means. We wanted to make our intentions clear at the outset. Amendment No. 2 is not a probing amendment and we shall push it to a Division. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) talked about making the Bill work by making it clear at the outset, and about making the new Union survive and work well. We shall work with the Government so long as we feel that they are working in the correct direction.
      I am not a lawyer—a fact for which I thank God every morning—but a member of a profession that helps lawyers earn their money: a doctor. I do not claim to be an academic, nor do I wish to entertain an academic debate, but the point has been made and I should clarify it now: political sovereignty ultimately rests with the people, but it is vested in and exercised by Parliament on their behalf with their consent. If the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish people want to leave the Union, they clearly have the right to do so. However, in the referendum, people voted for devolution within the Union, as they vote to remain within the Union in successive general elections by voting for Unionist parties, as the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, whatever the blueprint of those parties for internal governmental construction.
      A great deal of the debate has been about the technical definitions of sovereignty and its practical effect. In answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in theory sovereignty is not diminished if it is delegated. Devolution delegates powers where federalism divides powers. I agree with the vast majority of what he said.
      408
      The Committee's failure to agree what sovereignty means shows the inherent instability of what we may create if we do not iron out those problems at the outset of the Committee stage.
      The amendment seeks to reinforce our belief that this Parliament should remain absolutely sovereign as long as the Union remains. We want to put it at the start of the Bill, and to clarify the legislative limitations of the Scottish Parliament in amendment No. 198, to show not only that Westminster is legislatively sovereign but that the Scottish Parliament cannot amend or repeal Westminster legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) made that clear.
      I was astonished by the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who is no longer in his seat. He said that the amendment was taken largely from the Government of Ireland Act 1920, section 75 of which implied that there were no matters for which the Northern Ireland Parliament and Government were solely responsible. Admittedly, the powers were not used until 1960, but it was accepted that those powers were valid as long as Northern Ireland was part of the Union. We are being challenged to accept that proposition for Scotland. That wonderful intervention by the hon. and learned Member for North Down, who said that the Prime Minister promised him that such a proposition would be in the Scotland Bill, was extremely interesting.
      I do not have time to deal with all the points that were raised. The hon. Member for Linlithgow warned that giving a Scottish Parliament commitments without legislative responsibility or power would be dangerous. Commitments given by those who do not want the Parliament to work would be the most dangerous.
      The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland said that candidates should be given notice of what powers the Parliament will have, and he hoped that we would be grown up and use them sensibly. The intervention by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan showed exactly what attitude the Scottish nationalists will take into a Scottish Parliament: they want to destroy it, and that is extremely dangerous.
      Clause 27 is about the ability to make laws for Scotland. The Secretary of State made it clear that it is not just about reserved powers. If Scotland remains part of the Union, the Westminster Parliament must be the sovereign decision-making body on all issues. That is reasonable: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that it is offensive.
      We need clarification at the outset. We must accentuate that provision by putting it at the beginning of the Bill. We support the basic ethos of clause 27, but, until it is clarified, the Government's Unionist credentials will not be as apparent as they must be if they are to satisfy us, and if they are to put clear water between them and the nationalists, who have campaigned as the Trojan horse.
      It being Seven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution this day, put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 127, Noes 341.

      Division No. 142]

      [7 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Amess, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Letwin, Oliver

      Arbuthnot, James

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lidington, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Bercow, John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Loughton, Tim

      Body, Sir Richard

      Luff, Peter

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      McCartney, Robert (N Down)

      Brady, Graham

      MacKay, Andrew

      Brazier, Julian

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Madel, Sir David

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Burns, Simon

      Mates, Michael

      Cash, William

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Chope, Christopher

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Norman, Archie

      Ottaway, Richard

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Page, Richard

      Collins, Tim

      Paice, James

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Paterson, Owen

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Prior, David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Randall, John

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Day, Stephen

      Robathan, Andrew

      Duncan Alan

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Evans, Nigel

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Fallon, Michael

      Ruffley, David

      Flight, Howard

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Shepherd, Richard

      Fraser, Christopher

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gale, Roger

      Soames, Nicholas

      Garnier, Edward

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gibb, Nick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Spring, Richard

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Steen, Anthony

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gray, James

      Syms, Robert

      Greenway, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Grieve, Dominic

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hammond, Philip

      Trend, Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Hayes, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Heald, Oliver

      Walter, Robert

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Wardle, Charles

      Horam, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Whittingdale, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Willetts, David

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Jenkin, Bemard

      Yeo, Tim

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Key, Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Mr. James Cran and

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Mr. Nigel Waterson.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Oliver Heald: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 1, leave out lines 11 to 14.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 48, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'and regions'.
      Amendment No. 49, in page 1, line 18, leave out
      'and the number of regional members'.
      Amendment No. 63, in schedule 1, page 53, leave out lines 10 to 14.
      Amendment No. 241, in schedule 1, page 53, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
      Amendment No. 64, in schedule 1, page 53, leave out lines 23 to 27.
      Amendment No. 65, in schedule 1, page 53, leave out lines 31 to 35.
      Amendment No. 66, in schedule 1, page 54, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 on page 55.
      Amendment No. 233, in schedule 1, page 55, leave out lines 1 to 22 and insert—
      '4. The number of seats for a region shall be that number that is produced when the number of electors in each region is divided by the sum produced by dividing the total electorate in Scotland by 128.
      5. The number of regional seats for a region shall be the number of seats allocated to each region by rule 4 above less the number of constituency seats in that region.'.
      Amendment No. 50, in clause 4, page 3, line 6, leave out 'or regional members'.
      Amendment No. 51, in clause 4, page 3, leave out lines 9 to 37.
      No. 120, in clause 4, page 3, line 10, leave out 'or individual candidates'.
      Amendment No. 237, in clause 4, page 3, line 25, at end insert—
      '(e) who does not pay income tax at the rate applicable in Scotland at the time of the general election.'.
      Amendment No. 121, in clause 4, page 3, leave out lines 26 to 34.
      Amendment No. 238, in clause 4, page 3, line 34, at end add—
      '(e) who does not pay income tax at the rate applicable in Scotland at the time of the general election.'.
      Amendment No. 105, in clause 5, page 3, line 43, after '(a)', insert
      'a candidate who is a member of'.
      Amendment No. 123, in clause 5, page 4, leave out line 1.
      Amendment No. 41, in clause 5, page 4, line 4, at end add—
      '(4) The names of the candidates on each regional list shall appear on the ballot paper.
      (5) Electors may select an order of preference for the candidates on the regional lists by placing an appropriate number opposite the name of each candidate, with number 1 indicating the first choice and number 2 indicating the second choice, and so on.'.
      Clause 5 stand part.
      Clause 6 stand part.
      Amendment No. 124, in clause 7, page 4, line 22, leave out 'or individual candidate'.
      Amendment No. 125, in clause 7, page 4, line 24, leave out 'or individual candidate'.
      Amendment No. 126, in clause 7, page 4, leave out lines 26 and 27.
      Amendment No. 129, in clause 7, page 4, line 29, leave out
      'the order in which they appear in the list'
      and insert
      'a manner to be agreed between the parties'.
      Amendment No. 106, in clause 7, page 4, line 29, leave out from 'order' to 'except' in line 30 and insert
      'of the number of votes cast for the candidates, with the candidate with the highest being elected first and so on'.
      Clause 7 stand part.
      Amendment No. 128, in clause 9, page 5, line 16, leave out from 'If' to second 'the'.
      Amendment No. 107, in clause 9, page 5, line 28, leave out from 'them' to end of line 29 and insert
      'received the greater number of votes.'.
      Clause 9 stand part.
      Amendment No. 56, in clause 10, page 6, line 2, leave out from 'member' to end of line 3.
      Amendment No. 57, in clause 11, page 6, leave out lines 39 to 41.
      Amendment No. 58, in clause 16, page 8, line 2, leave out 'or region'.
      Amendment No. 59, in clause 16, page 8, line 4, leave out 'or region'.
      Amendment No. 60, in clause 16, page 8, line 7, leave out 'or region'.
      Amendment No. 61, in clause 16, page 8, line 13, leave out 'or region'.
      Amendment No. 62, in clause 17, page 8, line 38, leave out 'or region'.
      Mr. Heald: The amendments raise important issues relating to representation. Amendment Nos. 47, 48 and 49 would remove all reference in clause 1 to the additional Member system. Amendment No. 63 would
      414
      delete all reference in schedule 1 to the eight regions, and to the delineation as the eight Euro-constituencies. Amendment Nos. 64, 65 and 66 would remove all reference to the Boundary Commission for Scotland recommending altering the regions, and all reference to the number of regional Members. It would remove any question of the commission producing a report, and all the paraphernalia of inspections, inquiries, reports and giving notice. Amendment Nos. 50 and 51 and 56 to 62 would remove all other references in the Bill to regions and that form of representation.
      I suppose that the first question that I must answer is—
      Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Why.
      Mr. Heald: The Scottish nationalists got there pretty quickly. [Interruption.] I apologise; it was a Liberal Democrat.
      The provisions that we hope to amend will create a novel and, I would argue, dangerous situation in regard to representation. First, they create two classes of Member of the Scottish Parliament—those with constituencies, and those without. Secondly, regional Members will be less individually accountable, because they will not have constituents to answer to. Thirdly, there will be differences in the work loads of Members. Fourthly, the public will inevitably be confused about whom they should approach on any particular issue. Finally, it will be difficult for regional Members covering a huge area to have any effective communication with their constituents.
      Those arguments have long been held by me, but they are also held by others—notably the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who now argues for the same propositions in the Government of Wales Bill. He has said:
      "The AMS system favoured by most PR advocates in the Labour Party would mean two classes of MP, some constituency-based, the others constituency free-loaders chosen from lists and without any constituency responsibilities."
      However, we are concerned not just with the difficulty of having regional and constituency Members. The Bill goes further. Amendment Nos. 120 and 121 to clause 4, amendment No. 123 to clause 5 and amendment Nos. 124 to 128 are designed to remove the possibility of individuals standing in their own right as regional Members. The problems of having two classes of MSP will be made that much worse if there are three categories-constituency Members, party list Members and individually directly elected regional Members.
      What will those Members for the regions be like? First, they will be able to claim personal mandates throughout a region. Secondly, they will be able to meddle in the affairs of any constituency within the region. Thirdly, they will be able to present themselves as a superior form of MSP, almost as senators, because they will cover a larger area and have individual mandates. We shall end up with a system under which MSPs are not equal—and they should be. They should have similar duties and similar representative mandates.
      Sir Robert Smith: Where in his list does the hon. Gentleman have an amendment to introduce another form of proportional voting? It would help the Committee if he could tell us about that.
      Mr. Heald: It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman to hear that that is the last amendment that we

      415
      would want to introduce, because we do not think that PR provides fair voting. It provides fixed votes, and later in my speech I shall deal with that.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman not wish the Conservative party to have any representation in the new Scottish Parliament—a wish, I certainly think, that we might well share? Does he not realise that the people of Scotland voted for this package in a referendum and that they clearly understood that this form of PR was on offer? They clearly voted for it.
      Mr. Heald: Those who voted in the referendum knew that the Bill would be scrutinised. We have a duty to do that; otherwise, we would not be dealing with the matter in the way that was expected when the referendum took place. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The duty of the Conservative party in Scotland is to fight its case hard and to win seats directly. We admit that we took a terrible drubbing in the general election, but we think that we can come back in Scotland by winning seats in our own right in constituencies. That is the basis of our plea.
      Mr. Dalyell: Pursuant to the intervention by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith), may I say that very little was clearly understood by the people of Scotland in that referendum? The great misunderstanding that has now come to light is that, if anything was clear, it was that the Bill would protect them from the poll tax.
      Mr. Heald: As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The proposals were sold on the basis that they would protect people from the poll tax. However, we must accept the referendum result. We want to improve the Bill so that the Scottish Parliament will not be a forum for dissension, which the Scottish nationalists could use to drive such a wedge between people in the Union that Scotland might leave it and we could end up with a separatist solution. That would be totally against the interests of Scotland and England and of the other countries in the Union.
      An agreement, a marriage, has worked well for many years. The Scottish people have decided to move in the direction of devolution, but that does not mean that there cannot be a Union and that we cannot make it work. We must ensure that the Scottish Parliament is not used by the Scottish nationalists to further their aims. They pretend to be friends of the Parliament, but they see it as a platform from which they will try to destroy the Union. That must be resisted.
      Mr. McAllion: I hope that the hon. Gentleman plans to use the Scottish Parliament to pursue the aims of the Conservative party. With that in mind, whom did he consult in the Scottish Conservative party before he tabled amendments that would remove the proportional element of the electoral system?
      Mr. Heald: We undertook wide consultations.
      Hon. Members: Name them.
      Mr. Wallace: I shall save the hon. Gentleman some embarrassment. He has said, as his hon. Friends regularly
      416
      say, that he accepts the outcome of the referendum and the wish of the Scottish people. Does he accept that in many parts of Scotland, and especially in rural areas such as the borders, Dumfries and Galloway, the highlands and islands and Grampian, one of the key features in getting a yes vote was the proportional system of elections? That is because that system ensures that the Parliament will not be dominated by one party from one part of Scotland. Why does he wish to pluck that proportional system from the Bill?
      Mr. Heald: When I was campaigning in Roxburgh and Berwickshire, nobody mentioned that to me.
      Amendment Nos. 237 and 238, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), are designed to ensure that a candidate for the Parliament is an income tax payer at the Scottish rate. I have much sympathy for that argument. It has been said for years that there should be no taxation without representation, and it is appropriate to say that one should not get the chance to be a representative unless one pays the tax. The hon. Gentleman may be concerned that some of his hon. Friends who may be in contention for seats in the Parliament might not meet the requirement at the moment. It is part of the Conservative theme that the requirements for becoming a Scottish Member of Parliament should be the same for everybody and that every Member should have the same standing. That is why we welcome those two amendments.
      Clauses 5, 6 and 7 provide for the poll for regional Members and for calculating the regional figures and the allocation of seats. Clause 6(2) provides that the divisor shall be one plus the number of constituency Members elected in the region. I am about to ask the Secretary of State a question, so perhaps he would care to listen. Clause 6(2) is designed to achieve proportionality by reflecting the fact that constituency Members have been elected for one party despite substantial votes for others.
      We share the concern that one party might seek to maximise its position by setting up as or using the identity of another. I shall give an example. At one time, the Liberal Democrats formed not one party but two. When I stood against the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), he was described as the Liberal SDP Focus Team Alliance candidate. At that time there were two parties—the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party. If all the constituency seats in the Scottish arrangements were contested by Liberals and none was contested by the SDP, and if all the regional seats were contested by the SDP and none by the Liberals, it would be possible to avoid the mechanism of proportionality in the Bill. I am coming to what is perhaps the more dangerous prospect, because I do not think that the Liberal Democrats will do well.
      If Labour fielded constituency candidates and allowed the Co-operative party to field regional candidates, there could be a similar effect. Can the Minister assure the Committee that that is not the plan? [Interruption.] It would have some advantages for Labour party supporters, but it would defeat the whole principle of proportionality that is contained in the Bill.
      Amendments Nos. 105 to 107, which were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, amendment No. 41 and our amendment No. 129 relate to the issue of the open list. They raise the question whether it is right to have a closed

      417
      list that is chosen by the political parties, because huge political patronage could be conferred by placing a candidate as No. 1 on his party's list. The amendments suggest that voters should have the right to decide, and that there should be an open list.
      The Conservative party does not support proportional representation. However, we take the view that, if the additional Member system is to be pursued in the Bill and is to become law, it would be right for the Government to consider the open list as their preference. It would at least ensure that Members of the Scottish Parliament had a mandate as individuals.
      Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the open list, more than any other issue in the debate, poses a danger to the Conservative party? Unless the Conservative party is entirely united and solely either Europhile or Europhobe, there will effectively be two Conservative parties—one Europhile, one Europhobe—competing in Scotland. An open list would simply invite individuals on the list to campaign not against the other parties, but against each other. Not only would that divide parties, but it would most likely confuse the entire electorate.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Heald: Although I was kind about the hon. Gentleman's amendments, he is living in the past. The terms that he used—Europhile and Europhobe—went out at least six months ago. [Interruption.] The party is now united behind the policy of the Leader of the Opposition.
      The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) makes an interesting and important point in amendment No. 41. He states that there should be an open list, and that there should be a list of all candidates at the regional level. One of the difficulties with his amendment is that, if one had 10 parties fielding up to 12 candidates each, which is possible, it might be difficult to produce a satisfactory ballot paper. Simply producing for electors a list of 120 or more individuals might be difficult. He should perhaps consider whether, rather than having a ballot paper with a list, the solution might be the one suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) from his experience in Northern Ireland: a list in the polling booth from which voters make their own list.
      As I said, proportional representation is not about fair votes but about fixed votes. It is about leading a Government to a situation in which everything must be agreed in a deal. It means that one can have a situation, as in Germany, in which one party—the smaller party—is always in power. The Liberal Democrats' sister party in Germany is always in power, although it receives the support of less than 7 per cent. of voters.
      One can have a situation with proportional representation in which the Government change at the whim of the smaller party in a coalition; in which every by-election runs the risk of the Government changing; and in which anyone who crosses the Floor can change the Government's complexion. Later groups of amendments will deal with that point.
      Sir Robert Smith: I cannot believe that I am hearing from a Conservative Member how proportional representation will go down in the north-east of Scotland.
      418
      Perhaps the hon. Gentleman got as far as the borders, but if he had come to the north-east of Scotland, he would have realised that a crucial aspect of the Bill—making the current situation different from that in 1978—is that at its heart is a fair proportional voting system that will protect the regions and avoid domination. It is amazing that he should attempt to strike into my constituents in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine the fear that the majority in Scotland will be eternally dominated by the minority. Does he realise that, although the Labour party has never had a majority of the vote in Scotland, it now holds 56 of 76 seats? Labour would ride roughshod over any other political opinion in Scotland.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Some of the interventions today have been far too long.
      Mr. Heald: It is important, above all, that the regions should have a fair voice in the Scottish Parliament—amendment No. 205 directly answers that point. Proportional representation is not the answer. If the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine could explain to me how proportional representation will help his constituents, I should be very grateful.
      Sir Robert Smith rose—
      Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman can do that in his own speech.
      Proportional representation does not lead to a transparent system in which one party can stand in an election, make its case to the people, win the election and then pursue its programme. One ends up with anything but fair government, and everything is decided in smoke-filled rooms. That cannot be right, and it cannot be the best form of democracy. Moreover, where proportional representation has been tried, it has failed.
      Mr. John Swinney: The hon. Gentleman is afraid that, with coalition politics and proportional representation, decisions will be made in smoke-filled rooms. What about the issues that were settled in smoke-filled rooms in the past 20 years, when the Conservatives were in power with the support of 30 per cent. of the electorate, after a one-day vote held every five years?
      Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously argue that, in the past few years, the Conservative party did not make its case clear to the people in its election manifestos; it certainly did. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] It is all very well for him, a Scottish nationalist, to make the point that he does. However, the effect of having a Parliament with proportional representation, in which the major parties can be held over a barrel by the smaller ones, will be to ensure that the Scottish National party will use it to drive a wedge between Scotland and England and between the other countries in the Union. The effect will be bad for the Union and bad for Scotland.
      Opposition Members remain convinced that first past the post, with constituency-based representation, provides the fairest form of government. It is the fairest form

      419
      of government for the UK and it is the fairest form of government for Scotland. I ask the Committee to support this group of amendments.
      Mr. Davidson: I shall speak first to amendment Nos 241 and 233. If we are to have a system that has two types of Members, and if there is to be an element of proportionality, we shall have to try to ensure that the system is as fair as possible. Basing the system on European constituencies is not fair, because those constituencies contain considerably different numbers of electors.
      Library figures show that—although they are the most extreme cases—the European constituency in central Scotland has 552,230 electors, whereas the Highlands and Islands constituency has 327,310 electors. Each of those will receive seven top-up seats, effectively assigning 78,000 voters to each Member of central Scotland's top-up list and 46,000 voters to each Member of the Highlands and Islands top-up list. Such a discrepancy is not fair.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he has picked the two extreme examples, and that every seat other than the Highlands and Islands has over 500,000 electors? It seems reasonable that the one seat in Scotland that covers such a vast area should be given proportionately slightly more, because of the huge distances that must be covered. Giving that slight extra edge to the Highlands and Islands does not really disfranchise constituents anywhere else in Scotland.
      Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman has picked up some of the points that I had planned on dealing with later. Although he is right to say that I picked the extremes, the difference is not marginal. A representative in the central Scotland European constituency will represent 70 per cent. more electors than a representative from the highlands and islands. Such a large difference is beyond the bounds of what is fair and reasonable.
      In amendment No. 233, I propose a different and much fairer system that would entail changes for some of the other constituencies. The central Scotland seat would receive one extra Member, which would give it 10 constituency Members plus eight regional Members. Glasgow—my own area—would keep the same number, which shows that I am not proposing my amendments for parochial reasons. Highlands and Islands would lose three Members, Lothians would gain one, Scotland North East would gain one, and Scotland South and Strathclyde West would remain the same.
      Before any hon. Member leaps in to suggest that I am arguing from a party political point of view, I should say that that is not so. Judging by figures from the recent general election—I accept that it is difficult to make the assumption that everyone would vote in exactly the same way, but there is no other basis on which we can move forward—the Liberal Democrats would gain a seat in Scotland Mid and Fife, the Labour party would gain the seat in Lothians and the SNP would gain the seat in Scotland North East. Losers in Highlands and Islands would be Labour, the Conservatives and the SNP. The net result would be the transfer of a seat from the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats.
      420
      That would be a fairer way of electing people. If we want to command the support of people in Scotland, and if all Scots are to feel that they are equally represented in the Scottish Parliament, there must be less discrepancy in constituency sizes.
      Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore support the desire to increase the number of electors in his constituency, which is a city constituency, so that, rather than having 20 per cent. fewer electors than my constituency, which is a large rural constituency, there might be some equality?
      Mr. Davidson: Constituency sizes must have certain parameters. There has to be a degree of variation. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs. I shall come to the question of Orkney and Shetland. Although there are some extremes, there must be a desire for constituency variations within certain parameters. A difference of 70 per cent. from top to bottom is too much.
      The system could be improved to ensure that it is fairer to those involved. On the basis of results at the recent general election, and given the system proposed, the party receiving the largest number of votes in four of the eight Euro-constituencies would not gain a single seat under the top-up mechanism. That effectively means that everybody in that circumstance who votes in the second ballot is wasting their vote because they will not elect another representative.
      Let us consider the Euro-constituency of Strathclyde West, where Labour got more than 50 per cent. of the vote. Under the top-up mechanism, the Labour party would not be given another seat. Therefore, more than 50 per cent. of the electorate there would be casting a wasted vote. That cannot be correct under any system.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the system is proposed because the party—in this case, the Labour party—is amply compensated by far more than its fair share of seats in first-past-the-post elections? Therefore, voters who voted Labour have Labour Members of Parliament in abundance.
      Mr. Davidson: What you are failing to recognise is that many people will vote for the individual whom they believe will best serve their area. [Interruption.] I accept the tribute to myself. You will remember that I knocked out Jim Sillars in the 1992 general election—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I well remember who the hon. Member knocked out, but he should not draw me into the argument.
      Mr. Davidson: As I remember, I was supported in knocking out Jim Sillars by many members of the Scottish National party.
      People will vote for an individual representative, and then there will be a separate ballot for regional lists. When more than 50 per cent. of votes cast produce nothing at all, it can only encourage the sort of games described by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), where more than one party runs under the same general banner.
      I remember the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), saying on television that

      421
      proportional representation would mean that parties had to learn new tricks. That suggests the sort of approach described by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, where the Labour party stands and then the Co-operative party stands for the top-up section. That is what we were invited to consider. Such a new trick arises only because votes in the second ballot would be cancelled by the first ballot.
      Mr. Wallace: I did not have that kind of new trick in mind. I had in mind a place like Glasgow, where, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Labour party won every seat under the first-past-the-post system. It would be a completely wasted vote to vote Labour on the regional list, so we shall invite people to vote Liberal Democrat. In fact, I am sure that all our candidates will put his quote on their election addresses, which will say, "It is a wasted vote to vote Labour in the second ballot in Glasgow in the next Scottish parliamentary elections."
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Davidson: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, because that was not what I said. In fact, on figures for the recent election, we would win another seat in Glasgow. I was referring to the Strathclyde West seat.
      Mr. Wallace indicated dissent.
      Mr. Davidson: I was referring to a different constituency altogether. In four of the eight Euro-seats, the parties that gain the most votes will get no other seats in the top-up mechanism, and more than 500,000 votes from a total of 2.5 million cast would be wasted. Labour would lose out in three of those seats. In Highlands and Islands, the Liberal Democrats would lose out, and people would say that there was no point voting Liberal Democrat in the list section.
      Particularly in Highlands and Islands, votes are very much cast on the personalities of the candidates. Indeed, in the borders, where I originate, the seat in Galashiels and the surrounding area was held by the Liberal Democrats largely on the basis of personalities—the Tories who were put up were so appalling. [Laughter.] The decision was nothing to do with the merits of the good Member who was elected. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should not distract me.
      Where people vote for individuals, they have a right to have their vote in the top-up section seriously considered. That would not happen in Highlands and Islands, and the result would not necessarily be an accurate reflection of what people wanted. My amendments would mean that fewer votes would be wasted; there would be less opportunity for chicanery.
      Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is contradicting himself. In one part of his argument, he is talking about people voting for individual candidates in the firstpast-the-post list, but the rest of his argument depends on people transferring their votes to exactly the same party in the regional list system. His argument does not follow. Surely people who voted for the hon. Gentleman as an individual may vote for another party in the list system. His analysis falls.
      Mr. Davidson: One would be aware who is likely to win under the first-past-the-post system. Calculations will
      422
      have been done; polls will have predicted the carry over. More than 500,000 people out of a total of just over 2.5 million will realise before they cast their vote in the second ballot that they are effectively disfranchised. That is an unnecessarily large proportion.
      Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 refer to what I call the Sean Connery clause. It seems necessary to stipulate that anybody who wishes to stand as a candidate should be a taxpayer in some shape or form in this country before standing for election. Similarly, those who want to involve themselves in the affairs of this country should already have some involvement in it. If any hon. Member tabled constructive amendments to ensure that those who are unemployed are also included, I should be quite happy.
      Mr. Swinney rose—
      Mr. Davidson: I look forward to hearing whether the hon. Gentleman and the SNP believe that tax dodgers—people who have stated that they have gone abroad to avoid paying tax in this country—should be able to participate in our elections as candidates.
      Mr. Swinney rose—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman for an intervention, I should like to make a comment about interventions. The Committee has agreed to a tight timetable, taking in many amendments, clauses and schedules. Interventions and long speeches will deny hon. Members an opportunity to debate fully the other matters before us this evening. I am in the hands of the Committee.
      Mr. Swinney: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I shall be brief.
      The hon. Gentleman added almost as an afterthought the complication of many low-paid individuals who do not pay taxes being excluded from standing for the Scottish Parliament as a result of his amendment. Has he calculated the number of people who might be affected? The figure may be more than 1.5 million.
      Mr. Davidson: Like others, I table probing amendments to clarify the situation. I look forward to hearing whether the Scottish National party believes that people who live abroad to avoid paying taxes in this country should be able to participate fully in democratic elections as candidates, as funders or by doing voice-overs for television broadcasts. It is not appropriate that people who are not willing to pay taxes here should be allowed to participate fully.
      Mr. Swinney: The hon. Gentleman asks a serious question. He might like to ask the Chancellor the same question. I remember watching beautiful shots of the Chancellor getting off the "Maid of the Forth" boat at South Queensferry during the referendum campaign with the gentleman at whom the hon. Gentleman is having a go.
      Mr. Davidson: Was that a yes or a no? I am unclear whether the hon. Gentleman was saying that tax dodgers should be able to participate in the election or that they should not. His silence speaks for itself.

      423
      The proportional representation system being proposed is flawed. I have brought a book from the Library that could guide party leaders on how to select candidates for the top-up section. It is called, "Clone: The Road to Dolly and The Path Ahead". There is a grave danger of the top-up system being used to introduce people who are so on message as to be unbelievable. The Liberal Democrats probably have the greatest difficulty. I understand that Daddy Steel, Mummy Steel and Baby Steel are all coming forward for the elections, as well as the Bell twins. The Liberal Democrats may not have enough members to put up one in every seat. I had thought that only the Conservatives would experience that problem in Scotland.
      We should recognise the major disadvantages of domination by central party leaderships over the selection system. If the pitfalls are avoided, the system could be positive for Scotland, but I hae ma doots.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I am happy to adhere to your strictures about short contributions, Mr. Martin, because there is a lot of important stuff for the Committee to move on to. We should spend some time on the system of election, which is an important element in the package. The Liberal Democrats subscribed to the constitutional convention's agreement and do not want to breach it, but it is worth considering whether the system can be improved. This may be the only time when we manage sensible, coherent consideration of the issue. We have a duty to examine a system that we hope will stand the test of time and last for many years.
      I have not spent as much time on the fine print of the Bill as some hon. Members have. The Bill sets out the initial system of election. What power does the House—or the Scottish Parliament—have should the system require amendment? If changes are deemed necessary by the new Scottish Executive or by political parties north of the border, how can the system that we are enshrining in the Bill be amended? I understand that that is a reserved power and that amendments can be made only in this Parliament. If that is true, we should recognise that.
      Even with all the wisdom that we can bring to bear on the issue, we might still get it wrong. We might have to consider the process of election again in the not-too-distant future. That is also relevant to the parallel Bill for Wales, the new system for the European elections and the London elections.
      Mr. Wallace: There is a commission as well.
      Mr. Kirkwood: There is also a commission on proportional representation. A good deal of consideration is being given to all those important subjects. Who knows whether we shall get it right first time? It is important to keep our minds open and to revisit the issue. It is worth doing what is necessary to achieve a system that people understand and that is simple and coherent across all the different elections. We may have to return to it in the not-too-distant future.
      Mr. Ancram: I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman. The Conservatives are also concerned that we may be rushing in to a crystallised system of voting before we have worked out all the ramifications. I said in a
      424
      debate on the Government of Wales Bill that, while we did not like the additional member system, particularly the top-up list, the open list was more attractive than the closed list. We got nowhere with that suggestion. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has seen amendment No. 129, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) spoke. We suggest that the way in which the candidates from the list are elected should be agreed between the parties. That would give a little more time—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should be brief.
      Mr. Ancram: I shall do my best to be brief. Making this point now may save a little time later on. Would that amendment attract the hon. Gentleman? It would have the merit of giving us more time to get the system right.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I am happy to respond to the spirit of that intervention. We have to hasten slowly and ensure that we get it right. The Minister should acknowledge that.
      The system is imperfect. In the fulness of time and left to our own devices, we should like a full-blown system of proportional representation with single transferable votes and multi-member constituencies. We could spend a lifetime arguing about the different systems—all with acronyms containing the letter V. That is above my pay grade. However, I know that a pure system of proportional representation has major advantages, one of which is that it forces political parties to agree between elections.
      The electorate are disfranchised and disenchanted by our confrontational system of party politics, which is entrenched by first-past-the-post systems. Any system has advantages and disadvantages. We have to be careful even with proportional systems, but it is essential that we should move towards a more consensus-based decision-making and policy-generating system. The system in the Bill is not perfect, but it makes major moves in the right direction. It does not go far enough for us, but it—
      Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      8 pm
      Mr. Kirkwood: I must discourage interventions, as I want to be brief.
      I have one question for the Government. What do they have against open, as opposed to closed, lists? Contributions from the Scottish National party and the Labour party—certainly the early indications from the official Opposition—suggest that elements from all parties can see the relative merits in the scheme. If we are to have the system proposed by the Bill, the majority of people I have heard outside the House—and the majority of Members who have addressed the Committee tonight—seem to think that an open list is preferable to a closed one, for the perfectly obvious reason that it gives more voter choice and takes control away from the party bureaucracies. It is a quintessentially simple, and essentially democratic, point. I cannot for the life of me see why the Government have set their face against open lists.
      I am speaking to amendments Nos. 105 to 107 and I have no intention of pressing those to a Division at the moment. I raise them to put that question squarely to the

      425
      Government. The system I propose is used in Finland and Denmark for European elections and is simple to understand. It would have the benefit that it could be used in the Welsh, European and London elections, giving it a degree of coherence that otherwise the system may not have. When the Minister winds up, will he spend a moment looking at the amendments and, in particular, state why he is against the idea of open lists?
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: In the interests of brevity, I shall confine most of my remarks to amendment No. 41, standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). The Bill proposes a system of proportional representation. I strongly support the principle of PR, which will be a much fairer system than the existing first-past-the-post system. It will also help to ensure that the Scottish Parliament is more representative of the people of Scotland as a whole and of the diversity of views which exist among them.
      The system proposed in the Bill is a hybrid one which causes concern—concern which I have heard expressed outside and inside the House. The Bill proposes that there should be two categories of Members of the Scottish Parliament: first, those elected directly by constituents, and secondly, those elected through regional party lists. There will be constituency Members and what some people may refer to as party hacks. There is concern that the latter may not be as accountable to the people as the former, and that they may consider themselves accountable to the party machine which selected them rather than to the electorate in their area.
      Mr. Heald: What is the hon. Gentleman's view on those individuals who can be elected for a whole region as a candidate on their own? Does not that add a third category, to make the system even more confused?
      Mr. Canavan: It does, to some extent, but I would speak out in favour of people being allowed to stand as individual or independent candidates. That is an improvement on the White Paper, which excluded that possibility. That matter was debated in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not eligible for the convention, but it is a pity that his party boycotted it. Otherwise, it would have heard some interesting debates about these matters.
      I argued within the convention for the single transferable vote system. I accept that I lost the argument within the convention, which looked at various models of PR and eventually decided on the additional list system.
      My amendment is not absolutely opposed to the proposals of the convention, but would improve them by giving voters more say. I am proposing that the names of all candidates should appear on the ballot paper, allowing the voters, and not the party machine, to decide who is No. 1, No. 10 or No. seven. All candidates would receive some approval from the electorate, and might therefore feel accountable to the electorate, rather than just to their respective parties.
      The only serious objection seems to be on the grounds of practicality—that the lists might be too long and the ballot paper therefore too big and unwieldy, which might cause confusion among the electorate. However, I understand that experience from other countries shows that the electorate can become familiar with long lists and big ballot papers.
      426
      If my proposals are considered to create some kind of insurmountable problem, surely—at the very least—there should be a requirement for a list of candidates to be displayed in a prominent place in the polling station, so that people will have an opportunity of knowing exactly who they are voting for. I go along with the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) that the people would be able to choose from the list and mark down the candidates they think should be first, second, third and so on. I should be grateful if the Minister will respond to those points constructively when he winds up.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: If the suggestions of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) were adopted, we would have to issue every voter in Scotland with a computer to deal with the size of the ballot paper. One is hesitant to talk in this debate as a Member who represents an English constituency, but I wish to make one point. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) stated a most sensible idea, which everyone concerned with the devolution proposal should think about.
      Pollok is the kind of place where one gets a great deal of wisdom. On Thursday of last week, I had the pleasure of entertaining the son of Alec Garrow, a former Member for Pollok, whom I well remember from sitting in this House as a Scottish Member of Parliament. Although he was not one of the people on the Front Bench—one of those who win medals—whenever he said something, it was sound common sense which made people think twice.
      The hon. Member for Pollok said that, if we go for this strange system, it will mean that, in a place such as Glasgow—where things have gone wrong since I left—which has a solid Labour tradition, there will be a multitude of single-issue parties. People will go around saying, "By all means vote Labour, but I hope you will give a vote to the battle against cruelty to animals, the battle against crime or for the disabled." That will create a shambles. If we are to have a Scottish Parliament, which seems almost certain, we do not want it to end up in a horrible mess. The Government should try to convince us of the advantage of having a second category of MSPs.
      Because of the virtual destruction of democracy, with so much power being taken away from Parliament, most of us spend our time looking after constituents' interests. Imagine the position of Scottish representatives, representing an area and doing everything in their power to assist its people, working with local authorities on big issues such as whether there should be a housing development or an airport extension, and then finding that these strange list people suddenly descend on the place and take a different view.
      How on earth would a Member feel if he was fighting a battle for his constituency and one of these strange people, who do not represent a constituency but claim to speak for an area as part of the region, came along and met all the representatives and delegations and gave a totally different message?
      The list candidates would almost certainly be of a different party from those who represent constituents directly. I hope that Ministers appreciate the nightmare that will be created for MSPs. In Britain, there has always been a strong bond between the Member of Parliament and the constituents, who can put Members out if they do

      427
      not approve of what they have done. We are creating a situation in which, instead of only one person, a small army of people will be able to claim the right to represent constituents.
      It would be an outrage to have one category of MSPs who do all the constituency work and another who do no direct work but who interfere from time to time in what they regard as issues of interest.
      Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, under the present system, people in Scotland chose representatives who back the system on offer in the Bill, albeit with minor modifications, and that that system was set out in the White Paper that was the basis of the referendum, which they also accepted?
      Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is more of an expert in Scotland than I am, but I spoke to many of my friends who voted in the referendum, and I can assure him that people do not consider the cold, logical definitions in a White Paper.
      Two of my friends who have always been against devolution decided to vote yes; I asked them why, but I found it difficult to establish their reasons. I think that they had the feeling that there was a need to fly a flag. They certainly did not consider the precise representative system on offer. People do not necessarily vote on the basis of carefully thought out ideas, and nobody voted yes in the referendum because they approved of the list system.
      My final point is not a silly one. Do hon. Members honestly think that the system will make the Scottish Parliament a better parliament? If there are all these different groups, the minority parties, which we are not used to having in a democratic parliament, will almost certainly effectively run the show.
      If hon. Members have any doubts about that, let them look around the world. The country with the most highly developed system of proportional representation is Israel, which faces many problems. One of its big problems is the electoral system, under which unusual and sometimes extreme parties hold the balance of power, so the larger parties find it extremely difficult to implement the right policies and ensure that the right thing is done.
      Why on earth do the Government want to do this? A Scottish Parliament is something entirely new in our system of government, and it will have many problems to face. Why give it this additional problem to cope with? The system will not be a boost. The only argument that I have heard for it so far is that it will somehow help the Conservative party. It certainly will not, and it will not help the people of Scotland if we have a shambles in which there are two categories of Member, each suspicious of the other.
      The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) works hard for her constituents. How would she feel if five or six list Members, representing other parties, started to come into her constituency and offer their opinions? The system will create a total shambles.
      We wish the Scottish Parliament well, because people voted for it; but let us not make the situation unduly difficult and complicated. I hope that Government Members will listen to the wise words of the hon. Member
      428
      for Pollok, and think about the need not to make a complex, difficult problem even more complex and difficult, because the only people who will suffer will be the people of Scotland.
      I hope that we will not let Scotland down. We are supposed to consider a huge number of amendments before 10 pm, but it simply cannot be done. If we are letting the people of Scotland down in any way, it is by not giving adequate time for discussion of these important issues.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) made a persuasive case, and should he by any chance press amendment No. 41 to a vote, he will have my support.
      I want to ask a question that owes a great deal to discussions with, and reading the writings of, Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at Oxford university, who takes a very different view of devolution. Coalition government creates special problems for fixed-term parliaments. What happens if there is a change of party alignment? It would be very difficult to bring about a dissolution if there was a stalemate. There would, in fact, be no effective government.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State understandably says that we do not want tactical dissolutions, but, given the problem, is there not an argument for a first-past-the-post system, which can at least punish politicians at the polls, as is the right of an electorate? Is there not a special problem for coalition government in the circumstances of fixed-term parliaments that would be brought about by the Bill?
      Mr. Shepherd: I concur with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
      Clause 9 concerns the situation when a regional seat becomes vacant, and sets out the conditions whereby the next person on the party's regional list automatically takes up the seat. That is a profoundly objectionable idea. Most of the electors in the large regional constituencies will not know who the individual is—that is a criticism of the list system in general—so there will be no possible connection there.
      As became clear with the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, there is genuine concern that, where a party is assured two seats, its two candidates need not even campaign, because they are guaranteed to be returned. The two in the middle of the list would probably struggle around the constituency seeking election, and the rest need not participate in the election at all. Under clause 9, if the Government insist on it, we will accept that an unknown individual, who may not even have canvassed or put his case at an election, will be drafted into a seat automatically.
      An important element in the history of elections in this country is that by-elections are often the barometers that register public opinion, which can then influence the nature of government. Indeed, the history of by-elections is often a drumbeat to remind Governments of how unpopular they are.
      At the last election, we sought courage and strength that there would be a turning. This is a decisive break with the past. There is no reason why an anonymous candidate,

      429
      unknown to the electorate when circumstances have changed, should be drafted into a seat. That is the most undemocratic circumstance that I can think of. I urge the Government carefully to examine that. It is just a matter of reflection. There is no reason why, when a vacancy comes up, there cannot be an election across the region, if that is the form by which the Government wish to hold.
      I urge my party, in its considerations on these matters—they have come up in the context of Wales, they will come up in the Committee proceedings on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill—to reflect that the concept of drafting in an unknown man or woman who does not reflect the general will or wishes of the region they are to represent is unacceptable in a democracy.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I begin by congratulating the Government on proposing the electoral system that amendment No. 47 seeks to scrap. It is a good attempt at proportional representation. It will help democracy. It will give some representation to the Conservative party in Scotland. One of the bad effects of the last election was that no Conservative Members were elected there. There is a body of the electorate that wishes to vote Conservative. That does democracy no good whatever, although at the time it seemed to bring great joy to most of the people in Scotland. The introduction of PR may lead on to the tackling of the problem in local government in Scotland and elsewhere.
      Other problems have not been tackled by amendments. Contrary to what other hon. Members have said, I do not think that there are enough top-up seats in the system. The limits that we have placed are not guaranteed to ensure proportionality. There will still be a bias towards the party that wins most seats under the first-past-the-post system, which is at present the Labour party. That problem will be exacerbated by a later clause, which will reduce the total number of seats and top-up seats. That will worsen the lack of proportionality. I hope that that can be dealt with later.
      I shall briefly touch on some of the other amendments in this group, especially those tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson). One would scrap the seven regional top-up seats. As I said earlier, only the highlands and islands regional seat has disproportionate representation; the other regional seats are more or less equal. The hon. Gentleman ignored argument and the creation of fear that was used by those people who seek to use the divide and rule argument to set the Scottish people against each other. That is the main reason why we need to ensure that we give adequate representation to all the geographical regions in Scotland.
      It was a powerful argument for a Scottish Parliament in the south of Scotland that I could say, "Look, in the Scottish Parliament, you in the south of Scotland will have some 15 Members out of 129. You will have far more influence in the Scottish Parliament than you will ever have through half a dozen Members down in Westminster."
      Mr. Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that I said that the method I suggested would make no difference whatever to the south of Scotland?
      Mr. Morgan: Yes, I took that point, but the argument applies to the highlands and islands. Certainly, in 1979,
      430
      it was a weapon used powerfully in the highlands and islands to increase the anti-devolution vote. That vote was much smaller this time, precisely because people were assured that the concentration of power in the central belt would not occur.
      Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 would restrict candidates to taxpayers. I understand that artists and actors who have earnings in this country pay tax on them here regardless of whether they are resident in Britain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that fact.
      Before I heard from the hon. Gentleman that the amendments were probing amendments, and knowing that he did not wish to disfranchise about 40 per cent. of his constituents, I speculated that he knew something about the rate at which Labour's new minimum wage would be set. I assumed that it would be set at a rate higher than that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished, but that the amendment would none the less enfranchise everyone in Scotland.
      I am puzzled by Tory amendment No. 123 and subsequent amendments. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) spoke about the importance of individuals, but then sought to remove the capability of individuals to stand in the regional list part of the election. It seems to me that any individual who is good enough not only to stand but to get elected from a regional list is a fairly talented individual, and deserves to win his seat.
      Mr. Ancram: I am concerned about this point. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Does he think that that individual who wins the regional seat will be superior to any of the other Members of the Scottish Parliament?
      Mr. Morgan: I did not imply that he was superior in terms of what he could do in the Parliament. I merely said that he must be an excellent candidate to win such a seat, and that such people should be given the opportunity to do so.
      There is no such thing as the perfect electoral system—every system will have anomalies—but we have to recognise that the current system is collapsing under the weight of its inadequacies. It is being scrapped bit by bit throughout these isles. It is being scrapped in Northern Ireland for European and local elections. It is being scrapped for European elections. We ar now scrapping it for elections to the Scottish Parliament. I believe that soon it will be scrapped for elections to Westminster. I shall certainly vote against amendment No. 47.
      Mr. Robert Syms: I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). I support the first-past-the-post system because I believe that it is the best system and that it makes Parliament more effective. The advantage is direct accountability to the electorate: individuals represent a geographical area and, if people have problems, they go to their local Member of Parliament.
      One of the best things about this place is the convention that Members deal only with their own constituents. That saves a great deal of work. It saves us falling over each other's feet. That will not happen in Scotland. The average elector will have a Member of the European Parliament—although the electoral system for that is to change—a Member of Parliament, a Member of the

      431
      Scottish Parliament elected geographically and seven other Members of the Scottish Parliament. People will be falling over each other to take up constituency cases. As different political parties will be represented, there will be great confusion and difficulty. The local government officer, Benefits Agency officer or Child Support Agency officer who deals with an individual will have to deal with half a dozen representatives rather than one.
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend says that under the new system Members of Parliament could be falling over each other to help constituents, but surely it could work the other way: they could easily pass the buck.
      Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It could be difficult for a constituent to find out who is dealing with his problem. Some constituents would no doubt write to every representative in turn, until they got the right answer. That is not a recipe for effective administration in Scotland.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) who made a point about there being two types of Members of Parliament. People will inevitably go to the geographically elected constituency Member, giving those on the regional list an easier ride. That will cause great difficulty. He is perfectly right when he talks about odds and sods standing for the regional list. One can think of the dog lovers party, the Glasgow Rangers supporters party and the anti-airports party. Various people may pop up, especially individuals with deep pockets who can form political parties with their friends, as we have seen in recent elections.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that some odd individuals and parties stood at the last election under the first-past-the-post system?
      Mr. Syms: That is true, but most had only minority support and so were not elected. For example, the Referendum party failed abysmally to achieve representation. The list system will lead to the representation of odds and sods, causing difficulties and strain within the system.
      I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) had to say about the list system. Under our system, a person is nominated for an election campaign and if he or she does not win, that is it. Under the list system, a person is nominated and stays on the list for four years. That could cause difficulties if individual circumstances changed.
      8.30 pm
      Overall, the additional member system is bad. In Germany, changes in Government tend to be the result of changes in alliances of political parties rather than changes in what the electorate want, and that is not a good thing.
      Under the first-past-the-post system, the members of a party coalesce before the election, agree a platform, stand, and obtain a result, and the majority party is accountable to the people for what it does. If it does not do what it said it would do or is perceived to have done a bad job, it is thrown out.
      432
      The best thing about the first-past-the-post system, certainly under our system, is that occasionally furniture vans turn up at No. 10 and there is a change of Government. That is something that the British people can do. The Scottish Parliament may experience the problem of parties changing alliances rather than reflecting changes in the electorate.
      Overall, the system proposed is not the best one for Scotland. The first-past-the-post system would be better.
      Mr. Dalyell: If parties change alliances, special problems arise from fixed-term Parliaments.
      Mr. Syms: I agree. That is a special problem. Elections resolve political problems. They are not always the cause of political problems. Like all democrats, we must face elections, giving the electorate the opportunity to resolve a particular political impasse.
      Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to vote against the proposed system because he does not believe that it is in the best interests of the Scottish people. Is he not interested in the fact that the Scottish people have elected people to represent them who favour that system on their behalf and are promoting it? Why does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, since the method applies only to Scotland, he should listen to the Scottish people and allow them to have the electoral system that they want?
      Mr. Syms: This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom. This is Scotland's Parliament.
      We are discussing an important issue. It would be better to have a system with the accountability that I have set out. That would serve Scotland better in following the course that the Scottish people have decided they wish to follow. The proposed system will not be helpful.
      I have reservations about open lists, even under the Conservative party's amendment. Many people are trying to make an unacceptable system more acceptable by somehow allowing greater electoral choice. If there are seven-member regions and each party puts up seven members or more, as is likely, there could be lists of 20, 30 or 40 people. How do the electorate differentiate? Do those who vote Conservative have to assess one to seven or one to 12 candidates for the Conservatives, or does the electorate list all the candidates from one to 30 or 35? That is another way of doing it. There will be complications.
      The good electors of Washington state in the United States who, under the American system, sometimes face 20 or 30 different elections, used to put out a pamphlet paid for by the taxpayer informing the public who was standing for what in the various categories. If we went to an open list system we would have to do something similar in order to inform people about the 30 or 40 choices. That is not practical. It would be asking too much of the average elector to distinguish between so many different candidates, particularly as some candidates would not be known and would have no political record. Overall, the system would weaken the Parliament.
      Mr. Eric Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the problem of a minority group putting into power a majority Government. Britain has not had a

      433
      majority Government for a long time. That is one of the problems that we are talking about. I am for the system. It may not be perfect and it may cause problems, but a minority Government with a massive majority, of the kind that we have seen in the past, is a big problem.
      Mr. Syms: The point is that a Government should be not only representative but effective. At the end of the day, we cannot have a wholly proportionate system because we would not have decisions; we would not have a system which worked. The first-past-the-post system is proportionate and does work well when two parties stand.
      Sir Robert Smith: Had the hon. Gentleman observed the Scottish Grand Committee meeting the other day, he would have seen how disproportionate the current system is in Scotland. We have a four-party political system, and it cannot cope. We have 56 Scottish Labour Members of Parliament out of a total of 72. The farmers of Scotland do not have a fair voice from their rural constituencies.
      Mr. Syms: The Scottish electorate knew what they were doing. They had a choice and, unfortunately for the Conservative party, they did not make the right choice, voting in many instances against, rather than for, Conservative candidates. I accept the system, however, and I support it in principle. I accepted it when we won and I accepted it when we lost. I have been as consistent as those hon. Members who argue for the single transferable vote, as they have done for donkeys years, honourably, although I think wrongly.
      I support what I believe to be the best and most effective system. It is also the most consistent system within the UK. It is the system that we use currently, and, I hope, will use in the future for parliamentary elections. Overall, it would strengthen the system because it would result in a more effective and accountable Administration. What is proposed will not solve the problems, so I shall support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. We see on the annunciator that there is to be a statement on the channel tunnel at 10 o'clock. I do not know what its content can be, but how does it affect the voting on this measure?
      The First Deputy Chairman: The voting will be completed first. The statement will take place after the voting.
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who has studied proportional representation a great deal. I listened closely to what he had to say.
      A few days ago, I caused some hilarity when, speaking on the Government of Wales Bill, I described a number of systems being introduced as somewhat alien to the British constitution and the British people. That is basically why I object to much of the Bill. It introduces devolved government and more than one Parliament into one United Kingdom. In addition, to stick to the point, it introduces another voting system which has not been experienced by the British people. It has been experienced to some extent in Northern Ireland, but not in Britain. It is a mixed system, to which I object because it will lead to confusion.
      434
      I want to speak briefly against the proportional representation system of voting, because it is an undemocratic system. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, it leads to government by secret deals. In a PR system, it is not the electorate who decide the Government. A few minutes ago, the Committee was asked whether it was fair for a party that gets 40 per cent. of the vote to form the Government—and a case could be made that that is not fair; but I would stress that it is far fairer than a party which gets 5 per cent. of the vote deciding who forms the Government; and, under a PR system, such a party can indeed take that decision. The present system is not perfect, but it is the best one available.
      PR might lead to a direct ratio between the proportion of votes and the number of seats that a party has, but that is only fair if one looks at the whole area. In individual constituencies it is fair that the candidate who gets the highest number of votes should represent that constituency. It is worth reminding ourselves that it is individual constituencies that form the constitution of this country, so not only are two Parliaments in one country somewhat inconsistent with the constitution and a major change to it, but a change in the voting system to a PR system is, too. Some hon. Members might prefer that, but many do not.
      Mr. Gorrie: It is a matter of fact that, in the period since 1707, there were multi-member constituencies for longer than there have been single-member constituencies.
      Mr. Robertson: I would not dispute the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of this matter.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole. Actually, I made the point that it would be easy in those circumstances for Members to pass the buck to someone else; if a difficult issue arose, it would be easy for one Member to ignore it and let another deal with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole made the opposite case, and said that Members would be falling over one another to deal with issues that they particularly wanted to address.
      One of my main objections to PR is that it would break the link between the constituency and the Member. That link is respected by constituents; it is respected in this place and reflected in the way we run this place; and it is respected by Members of Parliament themselves. The system whereby one Member represents one constituency motivates Members of Parliament to a great degree. It is clear to constituents whom they should write to with problems; it is clear who they can depend on; it is clear who they are voting for; and it is clear who will represent them. For those reasons, people like the link between the Member of Parliament and the constituency.
      Looking at it negatively, it is fair to say that people would dislike the way in which party politics would be exercised in a voting system that was dependent on proportional representation. I do not think that they much like the exercise of party politics in the current system, but a PR system would cause polarisation, and people would not like a system wholly governed by party politics. I say this rather nervously, given the presence of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but I think that people dislike the whipping system to some extent. In a PR system, there would be even more of what people do not like and very little of what they do like. People want

      435
      individuals to represent them—individuals with whom they can identify and who can be blamed if things go wrong.
      I also have fears about accountability: Members of Parliament should be accountable to their constituents, but under PR they have to be accountable to those compiling the list. They would serve those compiling the list, because their jobs would depend on their doing so. That would not be good for democracy. In our previous debate, several hon. Members rightly pointed out that sovereignty rests with the people. I entirely agree with that, but under a PR system, sovereignty would rest with the few, not the many—and certainly not with the electorate.
      Those are my basic objections to the PR system. I conclude by saying that PR will lead to yet another change in the sense that political parties will henceforth have to be registered, which will turn them into some sort of constitutional body, which they currently are not. That goes against what people actually want to happen and could lead to a host of undesirable constitutional changes.
      Mr. David Prior: I shall be brief. I speak with some reticence, because I have no links with Scotland; but it is in the interests of people of all parties in all parts of the United Kingdom that the Scottish Parliament is a success. I also speak in the knowledge that we are speaking against something that would be good for Conservatives in Scotland, so our opposition to proportional representation is principled and not born of expediency.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Prior: Not for a minute, no.
      I wish to make only four points. Having been a Member of Parliament for slightly more than eight months, I—like all hon. Members—am aware of the importance of the link between Members of Parliament and their constituencies. It is not a party political link; a Member represents all parts of his or her constituency and all sorts of people. If that link is broken, as it will be broken in Scotland, it will be a great shame for the new Parliament.
      8.45 pm
      Secondly, most ordinary people are pretty unhappy about the degree of control of Members by their parties. The perception in Scotland will be, perhaps especially in the Labour party, that greater control will be given to the parties over Members. That is not a good thing.
      Thirdly, and penultimately, although on the surface proportional representation may seem fair, in practice, as a result of coalitions between various parties, the outcome can often lead to the smallest party having a disproportionate amount of influence. That cannot be good for democracy. For example, in New Zealand, which has recently introduced a PR system, the smallest party ended up having the most influence on which party formed the Government. There have been many surveys since New Zealand changed its voting system, and they showed that there has been a switch in what the people would like.
      436
      Fourthly, it is not good for the United Kingdom to have two separate, distinct and different electoral systems working side by side. I do not know what Opposition Members felt about the previous debate, but I was not convinced that Labour Members were showing the commitment to the Union that I thought they were before the general election. Two separate electoral systems cannot be good for the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Swayne: I shall endeavour to follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) because I wish to be brief in speaking to amendments Nos. 63 to 66. In so doing, I shall not state my principal objections to the system that is to be introduced, because I feel that I dealt with them thoroughly on Second Reading. It would not be appropriate to bring those issues before the Committee.
      There are inherent weaknesses in the proposed system. First, those who have designed the system have decided on the result that they wish the elections to deliver. They have then gone about designing a system to deliver that result. They have decided that there is to be a new, consensual politics. Accordingly, they have designed a voting system that enforces consensus.
      The system is to be gender-balanced. Allegedly, that will make the system even more consensual. Apart from that fatuous nonsense, the proposals play into the hands of the greatest weakness of the Bill, which is that it relies on an abundance of good will. The voting system requires that the parties shall work together to produce consensus.
      The problem is that there will be an absence of good will because of the human condition—the fact of original sin. More appropriately, there will be a lack of good will because the Scottish National party will set out to ensure that there are disputes so that it can profit by them. That is the principal difficulty.
      A further difficulty is the sheer complexity of the voting system that is being introduced. People understand the quirks, the weaknesses, the strengths and, above all, the absolute simplicity of our existing voting system. All it requires is a cross to be made on a ballot paper. Under the proposed system, the voter will have two votes. The first will be simple enough, but the second will require the use of the d'Hondt formula.
      The d'Hondt formula works
      "by allocating additional seats at each stage to the party with the highest total after dividing the total number of list votes they won across the Euro seat by the total (constituency + list) seats they have plus one."
      I wonder what the voter will make of that. Nothing could be calculated to give greater dissatisfaction to the voters than the fact that they cannot understand how their representatives were elected.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: First, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the d'Hondt formula will be used by a returning officer—not by each individual voter, who is meant simply to place a cross on the ballot paper? Secondly, given that the Federal Republic of Germany uses a very similar system, is he saying that the Germans are much more intelligent than the people of Scotland?
      Mr. Swayne: I confirm the first point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I am quite at ease with the fact that the voter does not need to understand the complexity of the

      437
      d'Hondt formula, but that is precisely the system's weakness. The voter is not considered in the allocation of votes to secure his representative. The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the weakness of the system. In that respect, I would refer him to my remarks on Second Reading, to spare the Committee my repeating them.
      Mr. Eric Clarke: I support proportional representation and democracy. I know of no nation that has come out of the one-party system since the breakdown of the iron curtain that has taken up the first-past-the-post system. You name me one—not you, Mr. Martin, but someone name me one. To my knowledge, they have all opted for the PR system proposed in the Bill, or another PR system.
      Mr. Ancram: It may not have been behind the iron curtain, but the hon. Gentleman might like to comment on the fact that Italy, having for many years had a proportional representation system—and myriad Governments as a result—is now moving toward the first-past-the-post system.
      Mr. Clarke: Well, that is up to Italy. I am not in this place to ask what Italy is doing. I am talking about people who had a one-party system. They had a multitude of ethnic minorities and a host of other differences. As hon. Members know, they divided into different sections and different countries—independent and otherwise—and they all went for proportional representation.
      I do not underestimate the intelligence of the Scottish people. In the American system, people vote for everyone from the sheriff to the state legislature and so on, in a huge list. It is a bit of an exaggeration to say that that is the type of thing that we shall put before the Scottish people. The ballot paper for the Scottish Parliament will not be as complicated as that.
      No one has mentioned the fact that thousands of people out there do not vote. Why do they not vote? They do not vote because they do not believe that their vote will count, because they live in an area that is dominated by one party or the other and they believe that the system is a waste of time. They do not vote because of apathy.
      Mr. Heald: How many times when the hon. Gentleman has been canvassing has a person said, "I am not voting because I want proportional representation"? Never.
      Mr. Clarke: Well, it was not on the agenda then, but it was on the agenda following the constitutional convention and our liaison with other people for the referendum in Scotland. We should like to ensure a balance of men and women in the Scottish Parliament if it is legally possible; we would do that as a party, whether or not it was done constitutionally. If we did so, a far better situation would arise than exists in this place, because even the gender balance in this place is all wrong. I do not think that I am a male chauvinist idiot; all my life I have voted for the emancipation of women. I am not apologising for that. I am in favour of positive discrimination.
      One of our arguments in support of the referendum concerned the geography of Scotland and the dominance of the urban areas. People in the north, in the islands and elsewhere feel isolated. The area is huge, and some communities are closer to Norway or Denmark than to
      438
      London. Some people asked what difference it would make if the Parliament were in Edinburgh. It must be explained to them that they will have proper proportional representation. Ethnic minorities and other groups can be represented through PR, in the same way as people from small hamlets and those in urban areas.
      We are speaking about democracy. In my intervention, I asked how a massive majority in Parliament could be justified on the basis of a minority vote. That is what has happened in the past, because of apathy, geographical carve-ups, and so on. Many of my colleagues support the first-past-the-post system, because they won. If they did not win now and again, perhaps some of them would think twice.
      Mr. Ernie Ross: Now and again? Eighteen years.
      Mr. Clarke: Overall, we did not win for 18 years, but I am talking about individual cases.
      The new electoral system is a necessity. It may not be ideal and may not suit everybody, but it is certainly a step forward.
      Sir Robert Smith: I shall answer the question from the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about how proportional representation was brought up during the referendum, and how the proposed electoral system became crucial to the decision this time, as opposed to the decision back in 1979.
      Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but that was not the question I asked. I do not want a history lesson. I want to know how the electoral system will help his constituents.
      Sir Robert Smith: The matter played a crucial part in the referendum because of the way in which it would help constituents. The press and the public constantly raised the issue of the north-east being disfranchised by a Scottish Parliament and dominated by the central belt and the Labour party.
      There are Labour Members who have long stood for reform of the electoral system. Why would a party that could gain a huge majority of the seats in a Scottish Parliament offer the electorate a system under which, barring strange political eventualities, its chances of getting a majority are almost completely removed? The Labour party has accepted a major change in the system. Some say that it is because they are nice Labour people, but behind it all is the recognition that selling the Scottish Parliament as an effective working system to represent the whole of Scotland would require proportional representation.
      The change helps my constituents because it ensures that they will have a far greater voice in that Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman had observed the Grand Committee when we were debating agriculture, he would understand why the farmers in my constituency want far more Members representing agricultural seats, and more parties that support agriculture.
      Under the present system, the Parliament would be dominated by the Labour party—the one party which comes predominantly from the central and urban areas of Scotland. The other parties in Scotland—the Conservative party, the Scottish National party and the Liberal

      439
      Democrat party have roots outwith the urban areas. All those parties would have increased representation in that Parliament, thus making sure that a greater voice was heard from throughout Scotland.
      Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, when the Liberal party stands in Glasgow, it stands as a rural party? Surely it does not. If the Liberal party stands in Glasgow, it stands on behalf of the interests of the people there, just as, when the Labour party stands in the north-east or the south, it fights for the interests of the people there. People recognise that in those areas, which is why they elected Labour Members in increasing numbers.
      Sir Robert Smith: There is a disproportionate dominance within policy making and thinking. There must be some reason why the Labour Government are not listening to the plight of farmers in my constituency. One of the problems is that there are not enough Labour Members of Parliament from rural constituencies to influence policy making.
      Mr. David Stewart: What is the hon. Gentleman's policy on the funicular rail link? I understand that he has asked questions about it, and it affects my constituency. I remember that, during the election, my Liberal Democrat opponent supported the funicular. It now appears that you are now opposing it. What is the Liberal Democrat policy?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members should be careful about using the word "you", because it draws me into the argument. I have no axe to grind in the Chair.
      9 pm
      Sir Robert Smith: I wish to concentrate on the issues before us. I will meet the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber later to discuss the particular issue that he raised.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman help me? It is very important.
      Sir Robert Smith: I shall take one final intervention.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman has taught us a great deal about the Scottish Parliament. What does he believe his party can do for agricultural policy through the Scottish Parliament? The people of Scotland are entitled to know.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not dealing with agricultural policy in these amendments, but perhaps we will some other time.
      Sir Robert Smith: I shall bring my remarks to a close before we stray into all sorts of different directions.
      Dr. Fox rose—
      Sir Robert Smith: Front Benchers will presumably wind up at some point, so the hon. Gentleman can make his point then.
      440
      I shall finish on some of the points that were raised in the debate—in particular, that we should ensure that people's voices can be heard. I hope that the Government will recognise that the system would be improved if the lists were opened up to the electorate, to order the people on the list within the party of their choice.
      When the Conservative spokesman winds up, I want to know whether the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) represents the Conservative party in its desire to abolish any different electoral systems in Northern Ireland, as he argued that we should not have a different system in Scotland.
      Above all—I return to the crucial point—I want to know whether Conservative Members accept the first-past-the-post system and accept that, in Scotland, the vast majority of Members who were elected to represent Scottish constituencies, where this Parliament will be effective, were elected to produce a new and fairer system of election, a system that will ensure that all voices and all spreads of opinion will be fully heard in the Scottish Parliament. I urge the House to reject resoundingly these wrecking amendments, which rip the heart out of the proposal that was put before the people of Scotland in the referendum.
      Mr. McLeish: I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government in relation to the amendments that we have discussed on elections, in particular the regional list.
      I shall curtail my comments, as part of the exercise is to allow the Opposition the maximum time to participate; we have a tight schedule according to the business resolution.
      The point was made about fairness. That is what this is about. We have had a measured, good-hearted debate. The key issue of fairness should always be uppermost in our consideration. The Government are taking a decision that has no party advantage for us. The Conservatives said that they were fighting on a point of principle, not practicalities, but when the elections loom, the issue of practicalities in Scotland will be important. We have no party advantage to obtain. It is important to say that, because we are pursuing a form of proportional representation to ensure fairness. It is a new Parliament; there should be a new politics. Much of the comment has dismissed that notion, but we owe it to the people of Scotland, and we are embracing change.
      Apart from being fair, the system is trying to reach out to all parts of Scotland and to all the parties in Scotland. I urge the Conservatives to consider the beneficial effects of the changes that we are making, because, as I shall show later, those effects are substantial. Within the parameters of 1 May last year, the Conservative party had no representation under the first-past-the-post system, but it will have substantial representation in the new Parliament, even if it does not win a first-past-the-post seat. That is a political advantage for the Conservatives.
      I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 47 to 49, 63, 241 and 64 to 66. The Government will create the Scottish Parliament with 129 Members elected by means of a combination of the simple majority system and the additional member system of proportional representation. That will deliver a Parliament that reflects a broad range of political views, in line with the commitment given in the White Paper.

      441
      The referendum result was a ringing endorsement, and it is wrong for Conservatives to say that people did not understand what they were voting for. We have had a long discussion about the sovereignty of the people, the foundation of which is to trust the people. It does not befit hon. Members to try to suggest that the people of Scotland made a decision that was flawed in terms of the final outcome.
      The Government will ask the Committee to reject the amendments that I have just mentioned. Those tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and his hon. Friends reflect the Conservatives' dislike of the idea of proportional representation, despite the fact that, according to our projections, the Conservative party could win some 20 seats in the Scottish Parliament, which is a vast improvement on its Scottish representation in this House.
      It is worth reminding the Committee that the purpose of the regional Member system in the Bill is to reduce the imbalance in political representation that can arise when one depends solely on the simple majority system at elections. The winner-takes-all aspect of the simple majority system means that a party can secure a significant number of votes but have no seats. As a result, the electorate can feel disfranchised and distanced from Parliament, because they feel that no one reflects their views. That should be a genuine consideration for the Conservatives, some of whom feel that they should be represented in the House. We believe that that should be the case, because some voters in Scotland feel great distance between the House and their activities. The proportional representation system that we suggest will benefit them enormously.
      The result on 1 May brought into sharp focus the need for major change to the voting system in Scotland. Any Parliament interested in democracy cannot sustain the fact that 500,000 votes went unrepresented in the House. The electoral arrangements for the Scottish Parliament will ensure a fairer balance of representation than would be achieved by reliance on the simple majority system. While constituency seats will be contested in the traditional manner, regional seats will be allocated on the basis of proportional representation, but with a corrective element. Taken together, those systems should achieve a much fairer distribution of seats.
      The system for returning regional Members is complex, but the voting process is relatively straightforward. Each elector will be able to vote for a constituency candidate and cast a separate regional vote for the party or independent candidate he or she favours.
      The proposal in amendment No. 41, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), appears to be derived from the single transferable vote system, which is complex to operate in isolation. It would be even more complicated to operate in the system that we propose for returning regional Members. At a time of numerous changes to electoral systems, we need to make life as easy as possible for the electorate, and the amendment would simply complicate matters. I therefore ask my hon. Friend not to press his amendment.
      Mr. Canavan: Would my hon. Friend consider the compromise of a rule whereby all party lists were prominently displayed in the polling stations?
      Mr. McLeish: I was about to make that very point. It is a valid suggestion, and we are considering how best
      442
      the names on the lists could be publicised. It is important to make that link, and I am happy to take my hon. Friend's suggestion on board.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have commented on the new system. They will have received the notes on clauses and schedules, which show how the new system would work under clause 7. An example within the North-East Scotland European parliamentary constituency is based on votes cast in the parliamentary constituencies at the 1 May election. It takes no account of independents at this stage. The results on a first-past-the-post system were five Labour Members, two Liberal Democrats, two SNP Members and no Conservatives. Under the system that we recommend, and on the assumption that the vote on 1 May was replicated, the result would be five seats to Labour, which is no change, three to the Liberal Democrats, which is an increase of one, the SNP would increase its seats from two to four, and the Conservatives would have four seats instead of zero.
      That shows the impact that such a system can have, although it is not necessarily a selling point for Conservative Members. The details of that practical example show the merits of a fairer system, which would be reflected in other parts of Scotland.
      I do not agree with the suggestion that regional Members are second-class because they have not been returned in a constituency election. That is not a valid assumption. The lists will comprise people who want to make a contribution to the Parliament, and will be scrutinised more than any other lists for elections since the war. I believe that the parties will nominate good-quality candidates in the constituencies and on the regional lists if they want to maximise the number of seats that they secure.
      Dr. Fox: The Minister said that regional lists would help to make up the democratic deficit. Does he accept that if lists are closed to the electorate and people have no say over who is on them and in what order, the democratic deficit will not be made up? At a time when the Labour party's internal discipline makes the Moonies look like a civil rights movement, it is hardly reassuring to the electorate that they will not have a say. Will the Minister, even at this stage, reconsider offering the electorate greater choice about who will be on the lists?
      Mr. McLeish: I shall resist the temptation to deal with the comment about the Labour party, because it ill behoves a party that has no Members of Parliament in Scotland to make such a remark. I shall pick up the hon. Gentleman's serious point about open and closed systems when I deal with the appropriate amendments.
      Mr. David Stewart: Reference was made to the Moonies, but in my view the Moonies were more successful in Scotland than the Tories at the election. It was argued that candidates on the list would be second-class citizens. What is my hon. Friend's view about candidates under the first-past-the-post system also standing under the list system?
      Mr. McLeish: Mr. Lord, you will be pleased to know that I shall again resist the temptation to respond to the first part of my hon. Friend's intervention. The rules and

      443
      regulations will allow candidates to be on the firstpast-the-post part of the ballot and to stand under the list system, as long as it is in the same region.
      I do not think that the second-class citizen problem would arise. Why should we visit on a new Parliament problems that are being created purely because it is a new idea with a new set of politics? It must be a mature Parliament, and we must trust what we are doing. It is not right to say that because it is a new Parliament, it will be second-class, or that any of the electors will be second-class. That does not make sense, and there is no evidence to suggest that that has happened elsewhere.
      Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend accept that problems will arise if two Members represent the same geographical area? On a planning dispute, the first-past-the-post Member may legitimately say that he has an interest, and a regional Member may say the same. If they choose to take different positions, there will be chaos. Protocols and arrangements will have to be drawn up to handle such a problem, otherwise there will be chaos.
      Mr. McLeish: I do not accept my hon. Friend's central premise. Just because there are two Members, it does not mean that the system will collapse and there will be a crisis. It is realpolitik: people must talk to one another. There is no evidence to suggest that having both a first-past-the-post group of Members of the Scottish Parliament and a group elected under the regional Member system will create a dilemma and cause conflict. We could throw that up as a possibility, but there is no evidence for it, and we should have faith in our aspirations for the Parliament.
      Mr. Ancram: Let me ask a genuine question. If a constituent has a housing problem, who should that constituent write to? Should constituents write to the directly elected MSP, or to the regional MSP? Will there be a difference in work load? I think that hon. Members are worried about that.
      Mr. McLeish: We are discussing a great constitutional reform. When I became a local councillor 20-odd years ago, we dealt with questions such as that raised by the right hon. Gentleman: "Who will write to me? How shall I deal with the matter? Should I take it straight to the director of education, or should I send the correspondence to the local councillor first?" Some common sense must be applied. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's question is relevant. Indeed, it demotes the Parliament to suggest that that will be an aggravating factor in the equation.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Swinney: Might not the committee that the Minister is convening consider what the protocols of the Scottish Parliament should be in regard to important issues that obsess the Conservatives—and some Labour Members as well?
      Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman stretches my charity, but I am happy to consider anything in relation to
      444
      the consultative steering group. I do not think that there is a problem, but I can write to the hon. Gentleman—as they say—and, perhaps, clarify those points.
      If a party runs mediocre candidates in either category, the electorate will quickly pick up on the fact. A good deal of discussion is currently taking place in Scotland about the quality of candidates, and that will ensure that the Labour party, at least, will scrutinise every candidate on every list. In fact, all the other parties will be doing the same. But why should we worry about quality? We have a unique opportunity to get it right—to attract a wide cross-section of people into the first-past-the-post system and on to the list—and I think that quality will be there anyway.
      Once elected, a regional Member will have the same rights and responsibilities as any other Member. How well Members do their job will be important to the success of their party at the next election. The regional Member system also allows independent candidates to stand, and, potentially, to be returned if they can achieve sufficient support across the region. That is a useful advance on the proposals in the White Paper.
      Let me return to my North-East Scotland example. If we base the calculation on the results of 1 May, we find that 20,520 votes—the votes of 5.7 per cent. of the electorate—would be needed for the election of an independent candidate. It is a low threshold, but it is a useful illustration. We make no apologies for a system that will not only involve the traditional political parties, but allow the involvement of those who do not want to be recognised as members of political parties.
      I understand the reasons behind amendments Nos. 105, 106 and 107. Those who tabled them believe that we should give voters more freedom of choice by allowing them to identify their preferred candidate on a party list. The Government considered that possibility, but concluded that the drawbacks were significant in the circumstances that would apply to the elections. I understand that a similar view was reached in the Scottish Constitutional Commission, which developed the proposals subsequently adopted by the Scottish Constitutional Convention and now contained in the Bill.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I do not think that the Minister can get away with merely saying that there are disadvantages. Will he share some of them with us?
      Mr. McLeish: I shall do that shortly, because I think it important.
      It must be borne in mind that the Scottish parliamentary elections will combine a constituency poll with a regional poll, the results of which will be applied on a corrective basis. Candidates may stand on a party list and in a constituency. If candidates are elected as constituency Members, their names will have to be disregarded in the allocation of regional seats to the party on whose list they stand.
      The amendments would introduce more complication and, we think, confusion for voters, some of whom may feel that they are being asked to vote twice for the same candidate. I gave an illustration of that earlier. Let me say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West that we suggested a way of achieving a better link between those who will be on the lists and appreciation of them by the electorate. We think that it would go some way towards meeting the concerns of hon. Members.

      445
      The amendments assume that voters will always prefer individual candidates. However, the question arises, "What if they do not?" In the interest of simplicity and comprehension, a closed-list system, which the Bill provides, is the best way forward at this time. Of course, voters will still have a direct say in electing their constituency Member. The amendments would complicate matters for the electorate and could lead to confusion and, although it is not a major consideration, they could lead to an increased risk of spoiled ballot papers. Hon. Members have mentioned that.
      Mr. Kirkwood: I am anxious to bridge the gap, which I do not think is great. The Minister has diminished the risk that we all face, of the charge that this is a party political stitch-up. Of course, there might be difficulties and the Minister has adverted to some, which I shall carefully consider. Will he keep an open mind on the matter? The Bill has to go to the other place and will come back to us. Will he undertake to leave us just a chink of light on the issue of closed versus open lists?
      Mr. McLeish: In Committee and elsewhere, I think carefully about these issues. As I said, the closed-list system is in the Bill, and that will continue. In a spirit of fairness and in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West, I undertake to look at the issue of it being said that there is a closed list because the parties devised it. However, we can go some way towards ensuring the involvement of people in regional areas.
      I now come to amendment No. 129. The Government's position is that electors who wish to vote for a political party rather than an independent candidate in the election for regional Members should vote for the party and not for the individual candidates on the party lists. The lists and the order in which candidates will be returned will be published well beforehand, and the Bill makes it clear how seats should be allocated among the people on each list.
      I was asked about informing the Scottish people about the new system. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that people understand what is happening so as to minimise confusion. The parties will also want to engage in such an exercise. On the basis of what I have said, the electorate will know who is more or less likely to be returned by their votes. The amendment would leave the allocation of seats entirely to the parties. However, it does not say how or when they should reach a decision on that matter, and that could mean that the electorate had absolutely no idea as to which candidates would be preferred. We do not want that to arise. We want a system in which the candidates are known. The amendment may suit the parties, but it is not at all fair to the electorate, and in the spirit of what I have said, I hope that it will not be pressed.
      Amendment Nos. 120, 121, 123 to 126 and 128 would prevent independent candidates from contesting regional seats in the Scottish Parliament. The Government's policy is to allow as wide a range of people as possible to stand for election. We are conscious that many talented people have no direct party political affiliation, and the regional Member system offers them the ideal opportunity of standing and of being elected to the Scottish Parliament.
      446
      The provisions have been warmly welcomed, particularly in the highlands and islands and in the borders, where there is a long tradition of independents in local government. That might not be good news for the established political parties, but it is a sign of the new politics that we are trying to develop.
      The Government think that it is wholly appropriate for the electorate to be given choices beyond those that are presented by the political parties, and the electoral system in the Bill does that. The Government believe in choice and opportunity, and the new Parliament will provide those. I invite the Committee to reject the amendments.
      I shall now deal with amendment Nos. 233 and 241. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) suggested an alternative approach to the calculation of the number of regional Members in any region. He explained that the aim was to try to achieve greater parity in the ratio of electors to Members in any part of the country. I understand the logic of the amendments, but I cannot accept them. The Government recognise that the Bill will tend to favour rural areas to some degree. That is consistent with the Government's aim that the Parliament should be representative of Scotland as a whole and should not be dominated by any one geographical area. I invite my hon. Friend not to press his amendments.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Pollok, in speaking to amendment Nos. 237 and 238, raised the intriguing idea that only people who pay income tax in Scotland should be allowed to stand as regional Members. It will come as no surprise to the Committee to learn that the Government cannot accept those amendments. We want there to be no restrictions, and have tried instead to create an open franchise. The fewer restrictions on those who can stand, the better. The amendments are unnecessary, and I invite my hon. Friend not to press them.
      Mr. Dalyell: Are we sure that it is not the Sean Connery enablement clause?
      Mr. McLeish: We have continually made the point that we are not putting restrictions in place. The issue was raised in the context of tax, and we are not accepting those amendments. The Bill and the literature show that the Government are trying to have an open approach to the Parliament. That is the best way forward.
      Mr. Ancram: Mr. Lord, I think that the Minister was trying to tell the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that the gentleman to whom he referred will have licence to stand.
      Mr. McLeish: That was not bad.
      Mr. Ancram: It was not bad for this time of night. I actually think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) was stirring rather than shaking.
      It was interesting watching the Minister trying to sell that voting system to the Conservative party, because the more he suggested that there was a benefit in it for Conservatives, the less enthusiastic about it his Back-Bench colleagues seemed to become. As a salesman, he was losing some of the sales that he had already managed to achieve, while not managing to persuade those whom he was trying to persuade to buy.

      447
      The Minister must have heard from Conservative Members—to whom I am very grateful for the way in which they entered the debate—that we feel very strongly on the issue, and that, merely because we might win seats in the short term, we are not for sale on it. We believe that we are trying to achieve the best possible voting system for the Scottish Parliament, and that first past the post will achieve that. We are quite prepared to take our risk—as does every other political party—on the hustings to secure election to the Scottish Parliament on a first-past-the-post basis. I am confident that, when the Scottish Parliament elections come, Conservatives will achieve good representation on that basis in the directly elected seats.
      Mr. Dalyell: Does the Conservative party therefore fancy the idea of a Scottish Parliament of perhaps 142, which would enable first past the post to operate?
      Mr. Ancram: I am not sure that increasing the size of the Parliament necessarily means that there will be a change in the proportions of those elected. I have not done the psephological study on it, although it is an interesting concept. In this debate, lists containing 56 Members have been mentioned. I am sure that, like me, the Minister is conscious that there will probably be far fewer than 56 Members in the long term because the Bill's provision for a boundary revision is likely to reduce the number of directly elected seats—although, regrettably, after the Parliament has been elected—and because, on the same basis, as the White Paper states, there will be a proportionate change in those elected to regional lists. The point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow therefore underlines and highlights one of the system's difficulties.
      The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) talked about lists on walls. In June 1996, we had that precise problem in the Northern Ireland elections on the negotiations, and—because it was impossible to put the number of names on a ballot paper—we resolved it by having printed lists in the polling booths, thereby enabling those who were voting to see who was on the list. I freely give him that advice, as I think that that is the way round the issue.
      Conservative Members and other hon. Members raised important points in the debate, which were regrettably not dealt with specifically by the Minister—but then, we are used to him not necessarily dealing with all the points that have been raised. He might like to take account of two points that I think are important.
      The first is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that the currently proposed system would allow a plethora of parties that did not stand in the direct elections to appear on the party lists, and that that could be used as a way of engineering if not manipulating the results. He gave the example, which I have heard gossiped about in Scotland, that some Labour Members might stand on a Co-operative party ticket on the regional list, because they know that no more seats would be available on the Labour list for direct elections.
      Clause 4(8) is very unclear about how political parties will be registered. It states:
      "'registered political party' means a political party registered under any enactment providing for the registration of political parties".
      448
      That does not inform us very much. I do not know whether there is an Act in place already to which the Minister is referring or whether there will be an Act. Could we please be told what legislation will provide for the registration, and particularly whether there is protection in it against the type of manipulation and abuse about which we have been talking?
      Mr. Davidson: The example that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) cited of the Labour party and the Co-operative party is not necessarily a manipulation of the system. Under the existing first-past-the-post system, the two separate parties feel it best to operate together and run joint candidates. Those two parties, each of which has its own members, structure, general secretary and policies, might feel that, given what the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland said, it is best that they learn new tricks. A new system could mean a new system of running for election. It would be excellent if the Co-operative party ran separate candidates, and I would thank it for reflecting my idea.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has allowed me to flush out what I thought was a rumour but what now appears to bear more resemblance to reality. It strengthens my request to the Minister to inform the Committee—whether now or by putting a letter in the Library at a later date—about the form of legislation that will register political parties and the protection against abuses from wherever they occur. It would be intrinsically bad for the Scottish Parliament if it were felt that it had been elected by some sleight of hand through the regional list system. It is in all our interests that we have an answer to that question.
      Another important question was raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). He asked who, after the Bill passed into law, could decide a future system of election if the current system turned out not to work. Would it be the House, through primary legislation, or the Scottish Parliament? It is important that we have an answer to that. Whatever else has been said in the debate, several very severe doubts have been raised about the system. The system may have to be changed, but at the moment we have no idea how. I shall give way to the Minister if he would like to intervene.
      Mr. McLeish: I shall come back to the right hon. Gentleman on that after he has finished making his points.
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Minister, because that is an important point.
      We have had a full debate. My hon. Friends have covered comprehensively the reasons why we are against such a system of proportional representation. It shook me somewhat when the hon. Member for Pollok reminded us that we might be faced in the borders, where I still have certain interests, with Mummy Steel, Daddy Steel and Baby Steel. That nightmare does not necessarily bode well for the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Davidson: The only thing that is more frightening is the right hon. Gentleman's extended family running for election. If we returned to a different voting system, such

      449
      as the one to which I referred earlier, in which there is one acre, one vote, his extended family would virtually be able to sweep the whole country.
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is in his place, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Pollok will want to discuss that proposition with him.
      Mr. Home Robertson: Is there any truth in the rumour that the right hon. Gentleman might again contest his old constituency of East Lothian? He would be very welcome to try.
      Mr. Ancram: I was rather hoping that the hon. Member for Pollok was going to tell us that he would be the Goldilocks in the scenario of Daddy, Mummy and Baby Steel. Perhaps that would give us some hope in the borders.
      We have dealt with several important issues in relation to the PR system. I do not want to go over ground that has already been covered, but I shall make several points. We believe that the proposed PR system is neither fair nor effective. It will produce a system that will be decided largely by political patronage.
      How the ranking on the party lists will be worked out is a matter for conjecture. I could not help thinking that, if some of the Labour Members who have spoken tonight were standing for such a list now, they might have received notes from the Whips telling them that they had just dropped from first to fifth. That ability to exercise influence on political grounds gives me great concern. We want a live Parliament. The proposed system is dangerous, because it could result in a large proportion of the Parliament consisting of party placemen—or party hacks, as one of my hon. Friends called them.
      Several hon. Members have said that the whole point about proportional representation is that it produces moderate and balanced government. That is not my experience of PR. The Italians are moving away from PR to first past the post. The French tried PR, saw extremists being elected as a result and moved away from it again. In Ireland, with a Parliament elected completely by PR, in the middle of intense negotiations, the Government changed not because of a change in political opinion or a general election, but because two coalition partners fell out and a new coalition had to be formed. A different Government came in as a result of a falling out behind closed doors.
      The Liberal Democrats say that PR secures balanced, moderate government because it brings in more people from the centre. It may have done in Germany, with the 5 per cent. threshold, but other countries with PR systems have had problems. In Israel, for example, the Parliament and the Government have been dominated for generations by minorities—normally extremist minorities.
      Mr. Salmond: What process of accountability, democracy or consent from the people was employed when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) took over from Lady Thatcher?
      Mr. Ancram: I had not realised to whom I was giving way. The hon. Gentleman has not attended the debate
      450
      from the beginning and has obviously not heard all the points. He should think carefully about what is being proposed.
      Mr. William Thompson rose—
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has not been here at all during this debate, so I shall not give way to him.
      The Bill proposes a variety of PR that will give enormous power to the parties. It will not necessarily produce the balanced result that those who favour PR want to achieve. Our amendments are designed to remove it from the Bill. We believe that, for all its imperfections, first past the post produces firm, clear government. People can see what they voted for and what they will get.
      Before I draw my remarks to a close, I shall give way to the Minister if he wants to reply to me. I shall give my views on what we shall do with our amendments after that.
      Mr. McLeish: The right hon. Gentleman said that his party was not for sale. Nobody wants to buy it. Principles and practice often coincide. The possibility of 20 seats may bring about an early rehabilitation.
      The right hon. Gentleman made three important points. First, we have no interest in manipulating lists. We want to provide a fair system of voting. We have outlined some of the potential advantages for the Conservatives and for the people of Scotland. Secondly, we shall prepare full proposals on political registration. As soon as they are ready, I shall contact the right hon. Gentleman so that everything is in the open. The proposals will then be put in the House of Commons Library.
      Thirdly, questions were asked about any future changes to the system of voting. That is a reserved matter, but we are very relaxed on the basis that there will be discussions within the Scottish Parliament and at Westminster. I have no doubt that, as we move towards changes in Wales and London, possible changes in Northern Ireland and the creation of regional agencies, the constitutional machine will be on the move. There will be much discussion in Westminster and Scotland over the coming years on this important point.
      Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Minister for the two pieces of information that he has provided, and I look forward to seeing the draft of any order that will enact the legislation that is passed. He has taken seriously my point, and the point made by the hon. Member for Pollok. I thank him for his solicitude about my party. I shall look at him as someone once looked at St. Luke and say, "Physician, heal thyself." These are serious amendments, and we appreciate that these are difficult matters on which there are mixed views. It is right that we should make clear our objections to this system and to PR in general.
      Mr. Davidson: The right hon. Gentleman said that his party was not for sale, but there is an important point. We ought to be clear about what his party and others will exact as the price for entering a coalition. Is the Conservative party saying that it will go into the election for the Scottish Parliament stating that it will not go into coalition with another party under any circumstances? Does he agree that other parties ought to make the same commitment?
      Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is living in wonderland if he believes that that is the way in which

      451
      coalitions work. My experience is that there is a lot of deal-making, smoke-filled rooms and expediency so far as coalitions are concerned. I have had experience of that and if that is what the Government want to create, they are doing a disservice to Scotland for the future.
      Having said that, and having had this debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 1

      CONSTITUENCIES, REGIONS AND REGIONAL MEMBERS
      Mr. Davidson: I beg to move amendment No. 240, in page 53, leave out lines 6 to 9 and insert
      'the parliamentary constituencies in Scotland'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 205, in page 53, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert—
      '(c) the Western Isles, and
      (d) seventy constituencies covering the mainland of Scotland to be determined b the Boundary Commission for Scotland in a way which ensures that the average electorate for constituencies lying wholly or partly within the unitary local authorities of Highland, Aberdeenshire, Moray, Argyll and Bute, City of Aberdeen, City of Dundee, Angus, Perthshire and Kinross, Stirling, Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders are lower than those lying wholly or partly within other unitary local authorities in Scotland.'.
      No. 113, in page 53, line 9, at end insert—
      '(1A) The parliamentary constituencies to which paragraph 1(c) applies are those determined by the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1995, or those Scottish parliamentary constituencies determined following a report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland as determined by paragraph 3 of this Schedule, except a parliamentary constituency including either of those islands referred to in paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b).'.
      No. 114, in page 53, leave out lines 15 to 17.
      No. 115, in page 53, leave out lines 18 to 37 and insert—'Redistribution of Scottish Parliamentary constituencies—
      3.—(1) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall keep under review the representation in the Scottish Parliament and shall submit to the Scottish Executive a report either:—

      (a) showing the constituencies into which they recommend that Scotland should be divided in order to give effect to the rules set out in Schedule 2 (subject to paragraph 7 thereof) to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Act) in so far as they apply to Scotland, or

      (b) stating that, in the opinion of the Commission, no alteration is required to be made in order to give effect to the rules set out in Schedule 2 (subject to paragraph 7 thereof).

      (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 81 of this Act, the rules in Schedule 2 of the 1986 Act as they apply to Scotland shall have effect in relation to the redistribution of the Parliamentary constituencies in paragraph 1(c).
      (3) Subject to sub—paragraph (5), the provisions in sections 3, 5, and 6 of the 1986 Act shall, in so far as they apply to Scotland, have effect in relation to the reports and the workings of the Boundary Commission for Scotland's review of Parliamentary constituencies for the Scottish Parliament.
      452
      (4) Subject to sub—paragraph (5), the provisions of section 4 of the 1986 Act shall have effect in relation to the draft of any Order in Council laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Executive for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland.
      (5) References to the Secretary of State in the 1986 Act shall, for the purposes of this paragraph, be construed as references to the Scottish Executive and references to "Parliament" in the 1986 Act shall be construed as references to the Scottish Parliament.
      (6) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall submit its first report under this paragraph to the Scottish Executive no later than 30th June 2005.
      (7) In the report, the Commission shall also recommend any alteration in any of the regions which, in their opinion, is required to be made in order to give effect to the rules in paragraph 7.
      (8) If the Commission do not make any such recommendation under sub—paragraph (7), they shall in the report state that, in their opinion no such alteration is required.
      (9) A report making a recommendation for an alteration in any region shall state the name by which the Commission recommend that the region should be known.'
      No. 116, in page 53, leave out lines 38 to 43.
      No. 117, in page 53, line 46, leave out '3(2)' and insert '3(7)'.
      No. 236, in page 54, line 49, leave out '73' and insert '72'.
      Mr. Davidson: I shall speak speedily on this matter, as much of the ground has been covered. If this is to be a Parliament for all Scots, and all Scots are to be equal, is it fair that some should be more equal than others? Is it fair that 15,000 Orcadians should have a parliamentary representative in the Scottish Parliament—the same as 66,000 people in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley? Where is the proportionality in that system? There are undoubtedly problems in Orkney caused by remoteness, but we must recognise that those may be met in many ways; perhaps by providing additional staff to the MSP for Orkney. The Scottish Parliament must take account of the special problems faced by people in remote areas, but not necessarily by making additional provision for them at the centre.
      I have listened over the years to Liberals calling for fair votes, but at the first whiff of advantage to themselves, they grab it. "A Liberal seat for 15,000 votes? That will do nicely." Their fine words are easily jettisoned for partisan advantage. I understand why this is being done—clearly a deal has been struck to keep the Liberal Democrats on board.
      Dr. Peter Brand: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are Liberal Democrats in this place who represent as many as 104,000 people—also on an island—who receive no recognition?
      Mr. Davidson: That island, unless I am mistaken, is not within Scotland and is therefore not covered by the Bill. That seems to be a not unreasonable point to make.
      Clearly, a back-door deal was done—we can expect many such deals under coalition politics—but there was also an attempt to be inclusive, to try to draw in the marginalised and take special account of those in rural areas, which I welcome. My reservation concerns who is the most marginalised and alienated in Scotland today. I am not convinced that it is the people of Orkney.

      453
      There are more people on social security in my constituency than in the whole of Orkney. In my constituency, the unemployment rate is more than three times as high as in Orkney and Shetland. There are twice as many car owners in Orkney than in my constituency. There are three times more lone parents in my constituency as in Orkney, all of whom need representation. Twice the percentage of people in my constituency have long-term illness.
      9.45 pm
      Education, in particular, illustrates the issue of need and representation. In 1995–96, 72 school leavers from secondary schools in my constituency went on to full-time higher education; in Orkney, the figure was 120. From a population that is less than a third of that of my constituency, many more went on to further and higher education. Who, in those circumstances, is most in need of greater representation? In my view, those who are poor are in greater need than those who are much better off.
      Another statistic is worth citing. In my constituency, 23 per cent. of school leavers went on to what are described as other known destinations; in Orkney, it was 8 per cent. "Other known destinations" generally means unemployment, which is far higher among young people in my constituency than in Orkney. Why, then, should the constituents of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) require three times the representation? That is not fair, proportionate or reasonable.
      In my constituency, 19 per cent. of part-time workers earn less than £2.50 an hour. The equivalent figure for Orkney is less than 3 per cent. Who in those circumstances is most in need of representation at a Scottish Parliament?
      There has clearly been an understandable concession to an articulate, well-organised lobby. I fear that there will be concessions and special arrangements in the Scottish Parliament for those who are articulate and able to operate the system as, to their credit, the Orcadians have done in this case. Orkney gets a seat to itself, but what about the socially excluded, on the margins of society? What guarantee is there that they will also be provided for?
      That is my reservation about the imbalance in representation. I have no particular antagonism towards the Orcadians, who I am sure are all fine upstanding citizens.
      Mr. Wallace: I am moved to reply to that onslaught from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson). It was an interesting speech, and betrayed the central Scotland, old Labour mentality that makes this arrangement necessary to ensure that the islands have proper representation. I do not in any way diminish or disparage the social, employment, education and health problems faced by the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I very much hope that the creation of a Scottish Parliament will be a more effective way of dealing with them than Westminster has been for many years, but he must recognise that constituencies have traditionally been based on geography.
      It would be an interesting concept if we started to arrange constituencies on a different basis—perhaps on the basis of car owners or non-car owners; numbers of people who go on to higher education; relative number of sheep; or some other criterion. It could create some interesting cross-party
      454
      alliances. Of course, that is not how it is done. To be serious, the reason why Orkney and Shetland secured separate representation was nothing to do with secret deals in secret rooms. Representatives of the island areas in the constitutional convention—not only me as Member of Parliament but members of Orkney islands council, Shetland islands council and the Orkney and Shetland movement—argued the case before the convention.
      As the hon. Member for Pollok, who is a member of the convention, knows full well, the convention proceeded only by agreement and consensus. The argument made by representatives of the islands persuaded the convention. The recommendation that there should be separate representation for Orkney and Shetland is contained in the convention document. I cannot recall whether the hon. Member for Pollok was present on 30 November 1995 when we all signed the document, but if he was, he signed it, too.
      In the context of the referendum, separate representation was important in persuading my constituents to vote yes. Let it be recalled that, in 1979, they recorded a 72 or 73 per cent. vote against devolution. In the referendum last year, both sets of islands recorded a majority vote in favour of the proposals. Although Orkney and Shetland are linked together for the Westminster parliamentary seat, they are two distinct sets of islands. If Glasgow, Pollok was the southernmost part of my constituency, the most northern part would be Dingwall. That is a substantial area to cover, even though the population is relatively small.
      Amendments Nos. 113 to 117 seek to ensure that, once the number of Scottish Members of Parliament in the Palace of Westminster is reduced—something that we recommended and the Government accepted—the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament should remain roughly the same as now—129, rather than 105 or 106. There are a number of reasons for that, not least that the Parliament will operate substantially on a Committee basis, and a certain number of Members is necessary to run Committees.
      It was foreseen by the constitutional convention that there might be a reduction in the number of MSPs. The convention was of the opinion that there should be a separate boundary commission to examine Scottish constituencies for the Scottish Parliament, which is what I and my hon. Friends have set out in amendment No. 115. I acknowledge that schedule 1 contains an effort to maintain the ratio of 73:56. Perhaps we have to work out the arithmetic in much more detail. Our concern is that the smaller the number of additional Members, the lower the chance of obtaining good proportionality. Our principal concern is that the degree of proportionality could be lost if the overall number, and the number of top-up Members, were reduced.
      I hope that the Government are prepared to retain the proportionality that we thought we had agreed. I hope that the Minister will express a willingness to look at that.
      Dr. Fox: The amendment tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends would protect against central belt dominance, which was one of the great themes to emerge during the referendum campaign. Whenever one went outwith the central belt, people had a genuine fear that between Glasgow and Edinburgh the political parties and the cliques that dominated the parties in those areas would have a disproportionate say over what

      455
      happened in the Scottish Parliament and over the Scottish agenda. That is not a figment of the imagination of the Conservative party. Other hon. Members have said that there is a genuine fear that the central belt will be unduly dominant.
      The Bill already specifies special treatment for Orkney and Shetland. The Western Isles have the smallest electorate in Scotland. In our amendment, we merely extend the principle that they should have separate representation and that the numbers in directly elected Member constituencies in non-central belt areas should be smaller. Anyone who represents a rural constituency will know that there is a great deal more travelling and logistical difficulty in representing a rural seat than in representing an urban seat.
      At the moment, many of the electorates in Glasgow and other west of Scotland seats are smaller than some in the highlands of the north-east. For example, Glasgow, Anniesland has an electorate of 52,955 while Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber has one of 65,701. Given the huge geographical area that needs to be covered in the latter, it seems only sensible that the electorates in the rural seats should be cut and those in the urban seats increased so that there is some sort of matching between the two.
      Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is developing an interesting theme. Will he concede that much of the debate in Scotland has not been about isolation from this place and the supremacy of this Parliament, but about the separation of the people and power? It does not matter whether that power is vested in this Parliament or in the central belt. People in rural Scotland would feel just as remote in the exercise of political power if it was dominated by the central belt of Scotland.
      Dr. Fox: There is a genuine worry about the exercise of power in the central belt. One of the worries that we dealt with in the previous set of amendments concerned the closed list, which the Minister mentioned in his reply, although, given some of the assurances, I am still not yet convinced that that particular threat has been removed.
      However, it is important that the rural-urban split is dealt with early on, because it is extremely important to give confidence to areas outwith the central belt at the outset of the political process. We are seeing in general in the House a growing rural-urban split in our politics. It would be extremely unfortunate if that particular brand of politics, which seems to be seeping into the House and which was well displayed yesterday, was to poison the Scottish Parliament at the outset. Some of the arguments made earlier on that were important.
      As the link between Westminster and the Scottish parliamentary seats is broken down under the system proposed by the Liberal Democrats, there would be a reduction in Scottish representation at Westminster, but what would then happen in the Scottish Parliament. Do they propose that even though Scottish representation in this House might fall, as the Government envisage, the number of seats in the Scottish Parliament would remain the same?
      Mr. Wallace: That is precisely what would happen, because the rule that there must be no fewer than 71 seats in Scotland would continue to apply when the Boundary Commission addressed the question of seats in the Scottish Parliament.
      Dr. Fox: The problem is that the electorate may see that as simply jobs for the boys. When Scotland's representation was being cut at Westminster, why should Scottish taxpayers continue to pay for the same number of people in the Scottish Parliament? If there were less for Scottish Members to do in this House, why should they continue to pay for a vast new bureaucratic army to sit in the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh? We could not support the amendment because of that. I understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to do in terms of proportionality, but I cannot accept the amendment, because there would be a disproportionate cost later.
      I am sorry that the Minister is being pushed on this, but I look forward to his answer. I hope that he will take extremely seriously the point that Liberal Democrat Members and I have made concerning the problems of rural seats and the disparities between the electorates. That problem was mentioned time and again during the referendum and the Government said that they would try to put it right as best they could. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
      Mr. McLeish: I shall try briefly to deal with amendments Nos. 113 to 117. The Government are committed to the maintenance of the United Kingdom. We believe that the integrity of the Union will be strengthened by having common constituencies for the Scottish and United Kingdom Parliaments, with the exception of Orkney and Shetland where separate representation in the Scottish Parliament will be guaranteed. The Bill provides that.
      I know that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has given considerable thought to the amendments and there are arguments on both sides, but we believe that the Bill strikes the right balance. I am mindful that he might not wish to press the amendments to a vote this evening; if that is the case, we shall have a chance to look further at the arguments involved.
      I have listened with care to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) in respect of amendments Nos. 233 and 240, but I cannot accept the amendments. The Government gave a commitment in the White Paper that there should be separate constituency Members for the Orkney islands and the Shetland islands and that the present UK Parliament constituency would be split for that purpose. The Government believe that such representation is important to ensure that the interests of the northern isles are properly reflected in the deliberations of the Scottish Parliament.
      That embraces the points made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) that rural areas must be properly represented. That is the purpose of the Bill, and we can deliver on those options.
      Mr. Davidson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Motion made, and Question put That this schedule be the Frist schedule to the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 341, Noes 73.

      Division No. 142]

      [7 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Amess, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Letwin, Oliver

      Arbuthnot, James

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lidington, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Bercow, John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Loughton, Tim

      Body, Sir Richard

      Luff, Peter

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      McCartney, Robert (N Down)

      Brady, Graham

      MacKay, Andrew

      Brazier, Julian

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Madel, Sir David

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Burns, Simon

      Mates, Michael

      Cash, William

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Chope, Christopher

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Norman, Archie

      Ottaway, Richard

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Page, Richard

      Collins, Tim

      Paice, James

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Paterson, Owen

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Prior, David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Randall, John

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Day, Stephen

      Robathan, Andrew

      Duncan Alan

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Evans, Nigel

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Fallon, Michael

      Ruffley, David

      Flight, Howard

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Shepherd, Richard

      Fraser, Christopher

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gale, Roger

      Soames, Nicholas

      Garnier, Edward

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Gibb, Nick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Spring, Richard

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Steen, Anthony

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gray, James

      Syms, Robert

      Greenway, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Grieve, Dominic

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hammond, Philip

      Trend, Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Hayes, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Heald, Oliver

      Walter, Robert

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Wardle, Charles

      Horam, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Whittingdale, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Willetts, David

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Jenkin, Bemard

      Yeo, Tim

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Key, Robert

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Mr. James Cran and

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Mr. Nigel Waterson.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Allan, Richard

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Ainger, Nick

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Alexander, Douglas

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      410

      Ashton, Joe

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

      Austin, John

      Baker, Norman

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Banks, Tony

      Barnes, Harry

      Dafis, Cynog

      Barron, Kevin

      Dalyell, Tam

      Battle, John

      Darvill, Keith

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Beard, Nigel

      Davidson, Ian

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Denham, John

      Benton, Joe

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dobbin, Jim

      Berry, Roger

      Doran, Frank

      Best, Harold

      Drew, David

      Betts, Clive

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Blackman, Liz

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Efford, Clive

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Borrow, David

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Brake, Tom

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Flint, Caroline

      Breed, Colin

      Follett, Barbara

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Browne, Desmond

      Foulkes, George

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Galbraith, Sam

      Burden, Richard

      Galloway, George

      Burnett, John

      Gapes, Mike

      Burstow, Paul

      Gardiner, Barry

      Byers, Stephen

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Godman, Norman A

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gorrie, Donald

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Casale, Roger

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Grogan, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hain, Peter

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Church, Ms Judith

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Harvey, Nick

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clelland, David

      Heppell, John

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hill, Keith

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Colman, Tony

      Hoey, Kate

      Connarty, Michael

      Home Robertson, John

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hope, Phil

      Cooper, Yvette

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Corbett, Robin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cotter, Brian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cranston, Ross

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Crausby, David

      Hurst, Alan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hutton, John

      411

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Norris, Dan

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Oaten, Mark

      Jamieson, David

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Plaskitt, James

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pope, Greg

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Keetch, Paul

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Purchase, Ken

      Khabra, Piara S

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kidney, David

      Radice, Giles

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Raynsford, Nick

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Rendel, David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Rooker, Jeff

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Rooney, Terry

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Laxton, Bob

      Rowlands, Ted

      Leslie, Christopher

      Roy, Frank

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Ruane, Chris

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Linton, Martin

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Livsey, Richard

      Salmond, Alex

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Salter, Martin

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Sanders, Adrian

      Love, Andrew

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McAllion, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McCabe, Steve

      Sheerman, Barry

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Singh, Marsha

      McDonnell, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      McFall, John

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

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

      McLeish, Henry

      Soley, Clive

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Spellar, John

      Mandelson, Peter

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Marek, Dr John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stevenson, George

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Martlew, Eric

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Meale, Alan

      Stott, Roger

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Stringer, Graham

      Milburn, Alan

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Miller, Andrew

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mitchell, Austin

      Swinney, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Morley, Elliot

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mountford, Kali

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Mudie, George

      Touhig, Don

      Mullin, Chris

      Trickett, Jon

      412

      Truswell, Paul

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Willis, Phil

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Wills, Michael

      Tyler, Paul

      Wilson, Brian

      Vaz, Keith

      Winnick, David

      Wallace, James

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wise, Audrey

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wood, Mike

      Wareing, Robert N

      Worthington, Tony

      Watts, David

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Webb, Steve

      Wyatt, Derek

      Welsh, Andrew

      White, Brian

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Mr. Jim Dowd.

      Division No. 143

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Ainger, Nick

      Clelland, David

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Alexander, Douglas

      Coaker, Vernon

      Allan, Richard

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cohen, Harry

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Colman, Tony

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Connarty, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Austin, John

      Cooper, Yvette

      Ballard, Mrs Jackie

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Banks, Tony

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Barnes, Harry

      Cotter, Brian

      Barron, Kevin

      Cranston, Ross

      Battle, John

      Crausby, David

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Benton, Joe

      Dafis, Cynog

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Berry, Roger

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Best, Harold

      Darvill, Keith

      Blackman, Liz

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davidson, Ian

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Boateng, Paul

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Borrow, David

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Denham, John

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Brake, Tom

      Dobbin, Jim

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Doran, Frank

      Breed, Colin

      Dowd, Jim

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Drew, David

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Browne, Desmond

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Efford, Clive

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Burden, Richard

      Ennis, Jeff

      Burgon, Colin

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Burnett, John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Burstow, Paul

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Caborn, Richard

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Flint, Caroline

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Foulkes, George

      Canavan, Dennis

      Fyfe, Maria

      Cann, Jamie

      Galbraith, Sam

      Caplin, Ivor

      Galloway, George

      Casale, Roger

      Gapes, Mike

      Caton, Martin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cawsey, Ian

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Church, Ms Judith

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Clapham, Michael

      Godman, Norman A

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Goggins, Paul

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Gorrie, Donald

      458

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McWilliam, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Grogan, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hain, Peter

      Mandelson, Peter

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marek, Dr John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hanson, David

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Martlew, Eric

      Harvey, Nick

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Meale, Alan

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Michael, Alun

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Heppell, John

      Milburn, Alan

      Hill, Keith

      Miller, Andrew

      Hinchliffe, David

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Home Robertson, John

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hope, Phil

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Morley, Elliot

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mudie, George

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mullin, Chris

      Hurst, Alan

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hutton, John

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Norris, Dan

      Illsley, Eric

      Oaten, Mark

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Öpik, Lembit

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Plaskitt, James

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pope, Greg

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Keetch, Paul

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Khabra, Piara S

      Purchase, Ken

      Kidney, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Radice, Giles

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Raynsford, Nick

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Rendel, David

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Rooney, Terry

      Laxton, Bob

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Ruane, Chris

      Linton, Martin

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Livingstone, Ken

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Livsey, Richard

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Salmond, Alex

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Salter, Martin

      Lock, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Love, Andrew

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McAllion, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McCabe, Steve

      Sheerman, Barry

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Singh, Marsha

      McDonnell, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      McFall, John

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McLeish, Henry

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

      459

      Soley, Clive

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Tyler, Paul

      Spellar, John

      Vaz, Keith

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wallace, James

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Stevenson, George

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Watts, David

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Webb, Steve

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Welsh, Andrew

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      White, Brian

      Stott, Roger

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stringer, Graham

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Stunell, Andrew

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Swinney, John

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Willis, Phil

      Wills, Michael

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wilson, Brian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Winnick, David

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wise, Audrey

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wood, Mike

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Worthington, Tony

      Touhig, Don

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Truswell, Paul

      Wyatt, Derek

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Mr. David Jamieson and

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Key, Robert

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Lansley, Andrew

      Beggs, Roy

      Letwin, Oliver

      Blunt, Crispin

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Brazier, Julian

      Loughton, Tim

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Luff, Peter

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Cash, William

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Chope, Christopher

      Madel, Sir David

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Norman, Archie

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Day, Stephen

      Paice, James

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Paterson, Owen

      Evans, Nigel

      Prior, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Randall, John

      Flight, Howard

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Gale, Roger

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gray, James

      Soames, Nicholas

      Green, Damian

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Greenway, John

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Grieve, Dominic

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hayes, John

      Syms, Robert

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hunter, Andrew

      Thompson, William

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Viggers, Peter

      460

      Walter, Robert

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Wardle Charles

      Wells, Bowen

      Whittingdale, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Mr. Oliver Heald and

      Wilkinson, John

      Mr. Nigel Waterson.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Schedule 1 agreed to.
      It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Questions to be decided at that hour.

    Clause 2

      ORDINARY GENERAL ELECTIONS
      Amendments made: No. 212, in page 2, line 2, after 'The', insert 'day on which the'.
      No. 213, in page 2, line 3, leave out 'on a day' and insert
      'and the day, time and place for the meeting of the Parliament following that poll shall be'.
      No. 214, in page 2, line 22, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
      '(c) require the Parliament to meet within the period of seven days beginning immediately after the day of the poll'.—[Mr. McLeish.]
      Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3

      EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL ELECTIONS
      Amendment made: No. 215, in page 2, line 42, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
      '(c) require the Parliament to meet within the period of seven days beginning immediately after the day of the poll'.—[Mr. McFall.]
      Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 4 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 14

      DISQUALIFICATION FROM MEMBERSHIP OF THE PARLIAMENT
      Amendments made: No. 216, in page 7, line 16, after 'made', insert 'by Her Majesty'.
      No. 217, in page 7, line 18, after 'made', insert 'by Her Majesty'.—[Mr. McFall.]
      Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 15 to 17 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 to sit again.—[Mr. McFall.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

    Channel Tunnel Rail Link
    10.15 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Madam Speaker, I beg leave of the House to make a statement about the channel tunnel rail link.
    In March 1996, the development agreement to build the channel tunnel rail link was awarded to London and Continental Railways, known as LCR. LCR also took control of the European passenger services railway company, Eurostar UK, operating services from London Waterloo to Paris and Brussels.
    The agreement provided for a taxpayer contribution worth £1.8 billion, due to be paid after 68 per cent. of the scheme by value had been built. LCR planned to raise the project finance through a flotation and major debt-raising exercise, towards the end of 1997.
    LCR has recently explained that it has reassessed projections for Eurostar passenger traffic, and has concluded that its original forecasts were far too optimistic. As a result, LCR has now informed me that it would not be able to attract project finance from the debt and equity markets, as planned.
    LCR said that it needed a further contribution worth £1.2 billion from the taxpayer over the next 10 years. That was in addition to the £1.8 billion already committed, making a total of £3 billion of taxpayers' money. I have told the board tonight that that was not acceptable.
    I regret to tell the House that, at 8 o'clock tonight, the board informed me of its decision to issue me with a formal notice under clause 7.7 of the agreement, to confirm that it cannot fulfil its obligations under the agreement.
    The agreement now provides for a 30-day period, during which there will be urgent discussions to reassess the situation and explore any revised proposals for completing the current agreement on the agreed route. I have assured the board that my Department stands ready to discuss, at the earliest opportunity, any revised proposals that it may have to complete the agreement. At the same time, preparations will be made for an orderly handover of the business to the public sector. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
    I should like to assure the House, the public, passengers and employees of Eurostar, that, whatever happens in the next month, the excellent international train services provided by Eurostar will continue to operate as normal, as we are obliged to ensure by various agreements. Whether on the platform, on the trains or in the booking halls, it will be Eurostar business as usual.
    I thank the House for allowing me to make this brief statement. I will certainly report back to the House as soon as possible on any further developments.
    Sir Norman Fowler: This was a project that had all-party support. Therefore, does the Secretary of State agree that the aim in the next 30 days must now be for everyone concerned to explore all the options to allow the project to go ahead? If it were to fail, would it not represent a great blow not only to the rail link as a transport project but to the development plans in Stratford and east London? The aim must be to see what other options can be developed. With that in mind, I ask four short questions of the Secretary of State.
    462
    First, the Secretary of State referred to a possible handover of the business to the public sector. Will he confirm that he has absolutely no intention whatever of making it a publicly financed project, and that it will go ahead with the help of only private investment?
    Secondly, the Secretary of State referred to the reassessed projections for Eurostar passenger traffic. How much of it was due to the effect of the channel tunnel fire? The effect could be temporary. How much was more permanent?
    Thirdly, London and Continental had been seeking to conclude a sale and leaseback arrangement for 11 Eurostar trains. What obstacles stood in the way of that arrangement? Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when looking at the options, he will look at all the alternatives, including, in particular, the contribution that Railtrack could make, and that he will have talks with it?
    Lastly, is the Secretary of State aware that, whatever political differences there may be between us on this issue, every hon. Member in the House wants the rail link to succeed, and that that should be the aim of policy over the next month?
    Mr. Prescott: It is the view of the House that we want to be connected to Europe by a fast, modern railway system. We will spend an awful lot of time trying to secure an integrated railway system. That view is shared on both sides of the House. I am asked to confirm whether I am prepared to provide £3 billion of taxpayers' money for a project that was estimated to cost the taxpayer £1.8 billion. Whether it is public or private, that is the reality.
    Arguments about leasebacks may have had more to do with LCR getting sufficient finances to get to stage one before it began to raise the money on the markets. Since it does not have sufficient resources to complete the deal, I have to accept giving back the company to the public sector.
    There are 30 days in which, under the development agreement, discussions can take place. I have told the company tonight that I am quite prepared to consider any further proposals it has, if it can complete the contract that it signed with the previous Administration.
    The great problem with the deal, of course, is that, at the time—as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) may know, there may well have been an agreement for a channel tunnel rail link; the difference was in the judgment made by the competing companies about passenger traffic—LCR estimated that, at this stage, there would be 9 million passengers. Other bidders said that the figure could be as low as 6 million. It was, in fact, 6 million.
    LCR made a wrong judgment about passenger numbers. That is why the deal is in real difficulty. It is not the intention of the Government—I do not know whether it would have been the Opposition's intention—to provide the £3 billion that LCR is asking for. If it can complete the contract, I will, of course, discuss with it public-private contracts, whatever.
    What is absolutely clear—[Interruption.] In regard to Railtrack, it is not Railtrack that owns the company at the moment. If LCR wants to make an arrangement with other companies about future changes to the deal, I will be prepared to consider it, but as the guardian of the

    463
    taxpayers' interest in this matter, I have to say to that company, or, indeed, to any new company, that £3 billion is too much to pay for the link at this time.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that we have some sympathy for him in having to deal with an agreement botched by the previous Government? If the company must go back into—I am sorry, I mean go into—public ownership, does that mean that investment in the high-speed rail link will fall, or will the Government take on that investment and, if so, at what cost?
    Have the Government had any contact with Eurotunnel itself, the financial position of which has not been steady, and which may be put at risk by tonight's announcement? Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that putting the liabilities that result from this into the public sector should be a last resort, not a first resort?
    Mr. Prescott: There is a large, complex agreement on the Channel tunnel rail link, involving property and all sorts of matters that made up the grants given to the company by the Government. I was informed of this decision by the directors at 8 o'clock tonight, and my first job was to inform the House as quickly as possible, which is what I have done. Many of the questions they asked I have asked myself, and I have agreed to further talks on the matter.
    The hon. Gentleman thought that he was making a mistake by saying that the company would be going back to the public sector. It started off in the public sector, went to the private sector, and is now possibly returning to the public sector.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is almost like going back 20-odd years. In the early 1970s, a similar statement was made when Rolls-Royce had to be rescued by Parliament. We sat through the night and took it back to the public sector because the then Tory Administration had cocked things up good and proper.
    Labour Members will do all we possibly can to ensure that this first taste of nationalisation continues. There may be other occasions when we shall have to take similar measures. Some eight months have elapsed since we won a historic victory on 1 May; I did not think that we would be doing this in the first year, but thank God we have started.
    Mr. Prescott rose—
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Mr. Prescott: I will try.
    I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful contribution. I think that I know his mind on this matter. He is right to point out the history concerning Rolls-Royce. Let me reassure the House that I have been an advocate of public-private partnerships in respect of transport financing. Indeed, I think that the concept of publicly owned, publicly accountable is compatible with public-private financing, and I reassure my hon. Friend that there is a lot of sense in raising private capital, so
    464
    long as it is in the form of accountability and public ownership. I may have an opportunity, when the underground case arises, to justify my point.
    In this case, under the development agreement, if the company comes forward with an alternative during the next 30 days, it can carry out the contract agreed with the Government, in whatever changed form. Provided that it does not cost taxpayers any more money as has been suggested, I am still bound to consider that as part of the contract agreement. That judgment will be made in the next 30 days; I stand ready to talk to anybody involved to see whether the contact can be agreed.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the observation of Field Marshall Lord Slim in world war 2 that no news is ever as good or as bad as it first appears?
    Mr. Prescott: No.
    Ms Margaret Hodge: Does the Deputy Prime Minister understand the anger and despair that will be felt by thousands of my constituents whose homes have been blighted for many years by the proposed channel tunnel rail link? They now face further blight as a result of the mess that we inherited owing to the previous Government's failure to produce a proper scheme. Does he realise that, when the legislation came before the Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and I argued strongly that the financing of this proposal was always unrealistic? The chickens have come home to roost far sooner than I would have dreamed.
    Will the Deputy Prime Minister make a statement on the delay that this crisis could cause to the construction of the channel tunnel rail link? Will he please examine again the compensation scheme for those who are affected by the blight, who are locked into home ownership and have lost their freedom to move at different times in their lives?
    Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes some sound points. I cannot answer her questions now, but I hope that I shall be able to give the House a further statement when we have had discussions about the success or failure of LCR under this agreement. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy my hon. Friend on the issues that she raised.
    Mr. Tom King: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that his demeanour at the Dispatch Box is much more appropriate to the gravity of his announcement than the jollity of those on the Benches behind him? The announcement is very serious, and is extremely bad news for east London. It holds out the prospect that we will not get a channel tunnel rail link. We will continue with the existing rail communications to the channel tunnel, whereas the French have a high-speed rail link—[Interruption.]
    The rail link may have to be nationalised, and the public sector may have to put up £3 billion, but the right hon. Gentleman's objective must surely be to ensure that it is built. I assume from his statement that he wants to minimise the cost to the public Exchequer, and to involve private finance.
    Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman should realise that the £3 billion is the public sector's contribution to a

    465
    project costing £6 billion or £7 billion. Public and private resources are already involved. A doubling of the taxpayer's contribution is not acceptable. I shall wait to hear from the companies.
    I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to mislead the House, but we should remind ourselves that there is an existing channel tunnel link. Many people will be thinking about their holidays. I can assure them that, whether they use the shuttle or the existing link, they can still make their travel arrangements, because those services will continue.
    I have long advocated public-private partnerships to raise tremendous resources for investment in the transport sector. Since I have been in this job, one of the difficulties has been renegotiating the terms of the channel tunnel and the channel tunnel rail link, largely because Mrs. Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, decided that they had to be privatised projects.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that there will be great concern in east London about the implications of this collapse? We are pleased that the Government intend to act with determination to ensure that the project goes ahead and is completed on time, because it will regenerate the economy of east London. Will the Government guarantee that the project will go ahead for the benefit of east London and the whole country?
    Mr. Prescott: I deliberately made a short statement, to give the House the essential information. There were many questions that I thought hon. Members would want to ask—and, indeed, some of those questions have been asked—but I cannot give an adequate answer at this stage. There are many questions that I must ask the company during the discussions that will take place in the next 30 days. After that, I shall be able to give a more appropriate and comprehensive reply.
    I am afraid that I cannot answer all the questions that are evidently in all hon. Members' minds, without engaging in a full discussion with the company. As I am sure the House will appreciate, difficult negotiations went on all day—until 8 pm. That was quite traumatic for the company as well. I must wait to hear the result of other reflections before I can give a proper and comprehensive reply to the House.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the public contribution to the project went far beyond the £1.4 billion cash contribution? There is the Waterloo international terminal, the freedom from Eurostar debt, and all the railway land that has been given to the consortium. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us that all those public assets will be returned if no deal is done, free and unencumbered? He has said that a £3 billion cash contribution is unacceptable; will he assure us that he will not negotiate well beyond £1.4 billion?
    Mr. Prescott: 1 do not think that the company doubted that I was in no mood for negotiation beyond the contract agreement. The £1.8 billion that is in the present development agreement was made up of land, grants and all manner of things. The company is now asking for £1.2 billion in cash, and it wants that to be advanced
    466
    earlier than the profile suggested. As the total amount increased, so the risk for the public sector increased. I did not consider that acceptable, which is why I refused to accept the deal.
    Dr. Howard Stoate: Does my right hon. Friend share the anxiety that will be felt by my constituents, particularly about the future of the Ebbsfleet station and about the number of jobs and businesses and the future economic prosperity that ride on the project?
    Mr. Prescott: That is another of the questions that I want to discuss with the company. If it could find some means by which it could fulfil its contracts, my hon. Friend's constituents' fears would be groundless, because the project would be implemented. At this stage, I cannot see where the money will come from, but I am prepared to discuss that. Until I hear from the company, I do not think that I can say anything more to the House.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that thousands of people in Kent will have been deeply offended by the manifest glee with which Labour Members greeted his statement? Does he agree that that reaction was wholly inappropriate? Furthermore, does he agree that the cheers at the mere mention of nationalisation and public ownership—almost like the reaction of Pavlov's dogs—brings into disrepute any claims that the Labour party may have to be approaching the issue seriously? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] The right hon. Gentleman should indeed apologise, and I hope that he will do so at the Dispatch Box.
    Thousands of people in Kent, including some of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends—who I hope will catch your eye, Madam Speaker—have been affected by blight, and have been made anxious. [HoN. MEMBERS: "It was your Government!"] Labour Members regard that as a laughing matter. Let the right hon. Gentleman stand up and apologise for his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Prescott: I do not think that the right hon. Lady's contribution will assist proper consideration of this serious matter. Over a long period—much of it during the time when the right hon. Lady's party was in government—the problems and concerns of the people of Kent were met by sheer incompetence. The route of the rail link was changed four or five times, and talk of privatisation added to the uncertainty.
    Mr. George Galloway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best course for Opposition Members would be to apologise humbly to the House for the disaster that they have visited on the country? Would that not be the proper demeanour for them to adopt? There are those who brayed "Private sector good, public sector bad"—especially when the public sector was investing billions of the taxpayer's pounds in what was to be a private profit-making venture. Was this not a piece of Thatcherite madness from the beginning? Should not we have followed the French example of public investment and public ownership which has given them a successful rail network on their half of the channel tunnel project?
    Mr. Prescott: I understand what my hon. Friend says. The difficulty is that one cannot turn the clock back.

    467
    We should treat this matter with all seriousness, because the House is committed to desiring and maintaining a modern, fast railway connection to Europe. The Government intend to seek to achieve that, and at the moment we are discussing the failure, for the reasons that I have given, of a particular project. I look forward to modern, fast communications to Europe. I do not want to be outside Europe without such connections, and, while I have some responsibility for the environment and transport, I shall seek to achieve our aim.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: Before Labour Members get too excited about the benefits of public ownership, it might be worth reminding them that this project had its roots in a British Rail proposal on estimates that have proved to be lamentably wrong. British Rail bought at the height of the market a huge number of properties much too early at a cost that decimated the prospects of the property market in my area. It created blight by designating four possible lines.
    What is more, not only British Rail but, I have to say, my own Government, flatly refused to contemplate a freight-carrying capacity on which the future of the line depends. We now have a failed passenger project, which is exactly what my constituents forecast. They now want certainty. I congratulate the Secretary of State on coming to the House to give an early statement. Will he promise that my constituents can expect certainty rather than doubt, and freight-carrying capacity rather than mere passenger capacity for which there is no demand?
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman has a long history of debating all these issues on the channel tunnel rail link, and he has often been right in his judgments over other judgments. British Rail may have made an estimate of the passenger numbers, but when the deal was done and signed, private companies got together and estimated what they thought the passenger flow was likely to be. This company judged that it would be 9 million passengers. It was 6 million, and another bidder estimated 6 million.
    There was much controversy at the time about whether those passengers could be gained. The hon. Gentleman may have commented on that. It was not a British Rail but a private sector assessment. I do not relish whether it was private or public. We must not just make the ideological point that it was British Rail and argue public-private. Why cannot they work together to achieve the objectives that we want? I intend to follow that course.
    I shall give another fact to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent which is not clearly known. When the channel tunnel agreement was signed, it was to be all private capital. The guarantee on which most of the loans were based was that public sector rail, both in France and in Britain, would have to pay for more capacity in the tunnel than it could use. That has contributed to some of the financial difficulties not only of the passenger link but also of the rail freight link. That is why we have had to do a deal on the rail freight side, too. It is nonsense to talk about it purely being private money. As usual, it was underpinned by a great many public guarantees.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only Londoners and the people
    468
    of Kent are angry, but that the whole nation feels let down? Many people in the north of England looked forward to benefiting from the rail link. We have wasted a decade because of the totally ideological view that the link could be accomplished entirely by the private sector. We now face the fact that the French have been benefiting from the link for years. Their investment came almost entirely from the public sector. Our public sector is now being required to pick up the bill and tidy up the pieces.
    I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has come to the House to make his statement. The House is totally behind him in finding a solution to the problem. However, will he please ignore the disorganised hypocrisy of Conservative Members? They are the ones who should apologise, not only to the House but to the nation.
    Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He has reminded me of the channel tunnel debates, during which many hon. Members were told that the channel tunnel link would have northern route services. As one of the first casualties of the agreement to face the realities, those services—like sleeper services—were cancelled, causing great resentment. Ultimately, we will have to find some way of making the link work—although, as I said, not at any price. I wait to hear the company's proposals in the next 30 days.
    Mr. Damian Green: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that my constituents in Ashford have probably suffered as much blight over as long a period as anyone, and that—not universally, but by and large—they were prepared to put up with that blight and to welcome the prospect of the benefits that a decent high-speed link through the tunnel, through Ashford to London and beyond, would accrue not only to Ashford but to the nation. One of the matters that my constituents will be most concerned about is how long the uncertainty caused by today's announcement will last.
    I ask the Deputy Prime Minister for two specific assurances. The first is that, after the 30-day period in which negotiations will continue with LCR, he will try to move as swiftly as possible to one of two options: that the line goes ahead, with either LCR or another operator; or that it is scrapped as soon as possible and replaced by a scheme to upgrade existing lines through Kent—as, over the years, many rail engineers have argued would be a practical alternative. The second assurance is that, in no circumstances, will he or anyone else attempt to reopen the route by trying to draw new lines across the maps of Kent, as that would cause blight for many thousands of people.
    Mr. Prescott: No hon. Member who remembers our debates over the years and the very real blight problems in the south-east would want to reopen discussions on the link; we are discussing the link and the route that are associated with the contract. I cannot give full answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions, except to say that it is sensible to start thinking of how we might relieve rail congestion. In planning the link, about 80 per cent. of services and income were based on improved Network SouthEast trains. In achieving a modern transport system, we have a great desire for those improvements to be made. However, I cannot comment on those judgments until I have had further talks with the company.

    469
    As for the suggestion that another operator might take over running the company, an awful lot of public money would be required. For the next few years, until the income stream provides a return, Eurostar's projected losses would require a subsidy of about £1 billion. That is a lot of money, and I have not seen any private-sector interests queueing to provide it.
    Mr. Harry Cohen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shambles derives from the previous Government's poor decisions, and that it has serious implications for east London, including Stratford and its surrounding areas? Will he give a promise to ameliorate the ill effects that that shambles will have on Stratford and those areas?
    Mr. Prescott: It is quite improper to comment until I hear from the company whether it has a further proposal to extend the contract. That is what I have told the House, and I cannot say more than that.
    Sir John Stanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clearer assurance than he has just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), and an absolutely clear statement to the House, that, if the channel tunnel rail link is built, the Government's policy is that it will be built on the line as agreed in legislation passed by the House, and on no other route?
    Mr. Prescott: I have made it clear twice; I shall try a third time. The contract is wedded very much to the route. There is no intention or desire to move away from that route. I thought earlier about whether I could give a later statement, but I took the view that I should make a statement to the House as soon as possible. The financial implications require me to do so. I have not given many answers to the House. I would like to give a fuller statement. That will be made as soon as I know whether the project has failed, and whether the company is no longer able to find an alternative way of building the link as required under the development agreement.
    Dr. John Marek: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and wish him well in his negotiations. Does he intend to make an integral part of any new arrangements fast trains, using the rail link, going through London to the midlands and the north?
    Mr. Prescott: It has always been the desire of my hon. Friend and many of us to see those fast links go further than London. That should be the intention of any modern transport system. Again, I must ask that I am allowed to wait and see what I have got—whether the company can do a further deal. It has asked me to stand by for further negotiation. I intend to do that. It has notified me that, within 30 days, the keys must be passed to me as the person responsible for the railway system. Until the company makes the statement and I have completed those discussions, I cannot add anything further.
    Mr. Roger Gale: I am sure that all Kent Members of Parliament appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has come to the Dispatch Box as fast as he has to deliver the message—however unpalatable it may be. I am personally grateful to him for that. He will be aware that those of us in east Kent who represent
    470
    channel ports and constituencies with channel port interests have been very concerned at the full effect of the channel tunnel on channel ports. He is much better placed than most to appreciate the threat faced by the cross-channel ferries from the ludicrous imposition of some new registration schemes for passengers and the loss of duty free trade. I know that he appreciates the value of cross-channel ferries to the prosperity of the nation. Will he assure the House that the ferries are not about to face back-door unfair competition as a result of a huge subsidy to bail out the project?
    Mr. Prescott: That is a little wide of the statement. I am pleased that my Government decided to agree with the shipping companies on a regulated arrangement, so that there could be more stability on channel services and the public interest rather than the interests of competition was met. Matters relating to the channel tunnel are much better, because we rejected the previous Administration's view to leave it all to competition, which was causing great uncertainty. With the agreement of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, we have agreed a better system, which brings stability and requires the public interest to be better met.
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when the dust has settled, an independent observer would contrast the ability of the French and German Governments to build through public-private partnerships fast rail links, with the inability of the Conservative party—through dogma—to deliver links in this country?
    The £1.8 billion already committed by the Government, and any additional monies that may be committed, will be contributed by taxpayers from every part of Great Britain. Those taxpayers, including the majority who live north of London, will be expecting this public investment to show a return for them in the regions north the London. Simply to complete a service to London, although that is necessary, will not be good enough.
    Mr. Prescott: Whatever the inadequacies of the present development agreement, under which £1.8 billion is provided, that £1.8 billion will not be increased. We are not considering whether we should increase the subsidy beyond what is in the agreement. We may have to look at that if we find that there has been a total failure, or the company says that it can no longer provide a successful project. That is all I can say, and that is all I am reporting to the House.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Conservative Members wish him luck over the next 30 days in trying to negotiate a new deal, in the initial circumstances, with London and Continental Railways? Such circumstances—perhaps—occurred because the previous Government defended the taxpayers' interest too rigorously for the consortium.
    I suspect that there is a difference of opinion between the Secretary of State and the Treasury, which I suspect is putting pressure on him, on the merits of putting £1.2 billion or some sum between £1.8 billion and £3 billion into the project. Will he assure the House that

    471
    the Treasury will not play unnecessarily hard ball, and that we will not end up with a poorer project that costs a great deal more than £3 billion?
    Mr. Prescott: The agreement, which involves a commitment of £1.8 billion, was agreed by the Treasury of the previous Administration. The hon. Gentleman should not think that I am going to negotiate, or that there is any difference on the issue between the Treasury and me. We have said that we are not prepared to find £1.2 billion on top of the £1.8 billion that the previous Government negotiated, which we honour in the contract. That is not acceptable. I hope that the companies take that into account when they come back with their next deal.
    Ms Oona King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to have a fast, reliable and efficient service, it must not be driven purely by ideological dogma? However unpalatable the fact, we must accept that, in this instance, the private sector has not delivered, and, in France, the public sector has. I worked at the European Parliament in Brussels for five years, and I had to put up with howls of derision and laughter from French, German, Spanish and Italian colleagues who travelled through the tunnel. When the train arrived in this country, it invariably broke down. I wish my right hon. Friend the best of luck, and thank him for bringing the issue to the House so quickly.
    Mr. Prescott: The House will agree that we would prefer our trains to go at the same speed as they are travelling when they enter the tunnel from the French side. We intend to give the British people as good a transport system as the French have.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that LCR got the contract by grossly over-estimating the traffic by 50 per cent.? Will he assure the House that taking the project into the public sector is not a euphemism for finding the £8 billion that he admits will be the total cost? The trains are running perfectly well at the moment. The extra money is needed to build a monstrous and vandalistic stretch of rail and concrete across Kent. Why does he not drop the whole project, and let matters stay as they are?
    Mr. Prescott: I cannot drop the whole project, because the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member committed me to a contract, which I am honouring. If the company comes up with a deal and says that it can build the line and operate it for the price in the development agreement, I am bound to accept it. As for taking over Eurostar, it is not making a profit, and is not envisaged to do so for some years. It will still be costly, whether to the private sector or the public sector. LCR made the wrong calculation that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, putting a huge hole in its finances. That is why the contract is unlikely to be met.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, preparing us to ensure that the public sector runs the project if all else fails. He will be aware that, in east London and in my borough, there has been enormous concern about the environmental
    472
    damage that the original plans and route would have done. I understand what he has said about maintaining the existing route. Will he assure the people of the urban areas of London and the rural areas of Kent that there will be no cuts in the environmental improvements agreed during the planning, and that the tunnelling arrangements will not be ended? All the campaigning, deputations and demonstrations must be borne in mind, and there must be no change to the planned route, which is part of the Act.
    Mr. Prescott: The route is already contracted for in the agreement, including the arrangements for which parts of the line go in tunnels and which parts go overland, as well as the environmental protection arrangements. We shall have to wait and see what proposals the company comes up with in the next 30 days. Until we hear that, I cannot make any further comment.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Is not the reality of the announcement this evening that the channel tunnel rail link has never been an economic viability? The last Government wanted it done totally by private sector finance, but were eventually persuaded to part with £1.8 billion of public funds because the customers were not willing to pay to speed up the journey by ten or twenty minutes.
    Is not the prospect of spending £3 billion of public money—or even spending £8 billion to take over the whole project, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) mentioned—nonsense? Whatever his gut feel for rail may be, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we should not be spending this amount of the United Kingdom's resources—private or public—on something that will always be a white elephant.
    Mr. Prescott: Before it becomes history that the cost of the project is £8 billion, I should point out that a lot of factors make up that figure, including servicing the debt. Whether the figure is £7 billion or £8 billion does not matter at present—what is relevant is that a contract is before us which I am quite prepared to honour. The company has said that it cannot honour it, and it has 30 days to consider that matter.
    The hon. Gentleman may lead the House to believe that the numbers of passengers using the service are not increasing. In the last few years, the passenger figure doubled from 3 million to 6 million. Other companies which bid for the contract thought that that was a proper projected rate for the traffic. The company with the contract thought that the figure should be 9 million, and built its whole financial agreement on that. It made a terrible mistake, and we are debating that tonight.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Is it not clear from my right hon. Friend's statement that the whole concept of the transfer of risk to the private sector for essential infrastructure is nothing more than an expensive sham?
    Mr. Prescott: Clearly, if we paid the bill that the company is asking us to pay, it would be expensive—costing up to £3 billion. There are good examples of combinations of public and private finance providing for infrastructure. That means that public money can be used to pay for other things in the economy which my

    473
    hon. Friend and I feel are important but which cannot be met by private means. In transport, private means can be found, and where there is an income flow, one can borrow against it. I have not set my mind against that, and I am quite prepared to consider anything that improves the transport system for the benefit of this country.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: I appreciate the hesitancy that the Deputy Prime Minister has rightly displayed, as he would not wish to say certain things in the course of what will no doubt be a perplexed negotiation over the next 30 days. However, a simple question has been asked repeatedly in various forms by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could reassure us on this point.
    If, during that thirty days, the negotiations should, alas, fail, and if the project should thereafter be transferred back to the public sector, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the public sector will not come up with what he has described as £7 billion or £8 billion to carry the project forward in its current form?
    Mr. Prescott: I can assure the House that the Government would not feel that paying £7 billion or £8 billion of public money to cut the channel tunnel rail link services by 35 minutes was a priority. That is the argument with which we have been presented, but that is not the bill. Some in the company would say that we were getting a £5 billion facility for £1.8 billion of public money. These are the judgments one must make in these projects.
    Let me assure the hon. Gentleman—and others—who said that I am in perplexed negotiations. I do not want to misguide anyone outside this House. I am not in negotiations; I want to hear from a company about whether it can complete its contract.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is not the whole saga a terrible scandal? We are not talking about only £1.8 billion from the public sector. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, Waterloo international station—which is barely completed—was handed over for £165 million; St Pancras hotel was handed over for £75 million; and the King's Cross railway lands—God knows how much they are worth—were also handed over. The whole thing has been a scandal.
    The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) talks about £1.8 billion. The Conservative party sold the entire British Rail network for £2 billion. We are talking about a 68-mile-stretch of line for £1.8 billion—the Conservatives sold off British Rail for £2 billion. This link should have been built a decade ago, and the person responsible was the noble Lord Parkinson, who decided in 1990–91 that there would be no public money to build the link. The link will never be built without public involvement. It could be
    474
    entirely and directly in the public sector or in a partnership, as must be possible, between public and private sectors.
    Mr. Prescott: There is a history to be written about the plundering of assets during privatisation, but that is for another time. Clearly, the issue before us is the building of the channel tunnel rail link. I am well aware, as my hon. Friend said, that the judgment was that no public money would be involved; but that is simply not true of either the tunnel or the rail link. Public money was involved, despite a clause that said that it would be illegal to subsidise the tunnel.
    It is a matter of interpretation of the way in which finance works: if the private sector cannot find the money, the public sector must underpin the loan to some extent. That is precisely what happened with the tunnel. It was a sorry episode, but we have a tunnel and we want the fast links, which are an important part of a modern economy. They must be built, one way or another.
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for coming to the House so promptly with a statement. He has to make the best of a very bad job, bequeathed to him by the dogma-driven divisions in the Conservative party, not only because this is the worst property blight problem in the history of this country, but because, as his statement definitively demonstrated, the only way in which to get infrastructure built is to have a fluid and flexible line between the public and the private sector, without any dogma about private sector always being good and public sector always being bad.
    Mr. Prescott: There is an awful lot of common sense in bringing the public and private sectors together, especially in transport investment. I have been an advocate of that for a long time, and I continue to advocate it.
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this delay will cause great concern to those of us who represent seats in and around the Medway towns, and that it is absolutely vital that the construction of the channel tunnel rail link and the widening of the M2 over the Medway valley happen at the same time? We have been campaigning for that for a long, long time. It is essential, to avoid further chaos in and around the Medway area.
    Mr. Prescott: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but we are drifting into the area of motorway policy. The roads are under review, and a White Paper on integrated transport is to due to be published. I will have the opportunity to give proper answers to such questions when that has happened.

Housing (Brown-field Sites)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McFall.]
11.7 pm
Dr. George Turner: The subject of the debate should have been linked as a sequel to an important debate in the House yesterday, when we had the opportunity to discuss seriously the compromises required to ensure that we have adequate housing, for 2012 in particular, along with proper protection for the green belt and our rural environment.
Responsibilities in Committee kept me from much of the debate, but, having read Hansard and heard some of what was said, I judge that it was a sad reflection on the House's ability to examine the nation's priorities and policies.
The problem with the Conservative party is its record in government. Having spent 30 years in rural Norfolk, I know the shame with which the Conservatives should regard their planning policies over that period. Like the grand old Duke of York, they first led us to build out of town. Driven by a dogma of priorities determined by a need for competition, they presided over urban sprawl and inadequate facilities for the estates that were built. As chairman of my local education committee, I spent several years picking up the pieces, because they did not even plan for the schools in those urban sprawls.
Again like the grand old Duke of York, the Conservatives then marched us all back into town again and we had a pretty rigid period of policy in which certain developments could take place only in the town centre. It was a shameful record. No wonder they had to use yesterday's tactics of slur and other topics to avoid the serious issues.
I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that people in my constituency want serious debate on serious issues. Last Friday, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary came to King's Lynn, the main market town in north-west Norfolk. Some 600 to 700 people turned up to hear him discuss the serious issue of crime, rather than the drivel from the Opposition that we hear so often, and heard again this afternoon at Prime Minister's Question Time.
Several organisations have written to me in the short period since they found out that I had this Adjournment debate. They include the National Farmers Union, the Norfolk Society, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I know from the work that I have done with the King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council and the interest taken by the county council and charitable bodies, especially the Clean Rivers Trust, let alone commercial organisations, that people see that there is a real issue to be tackled and that there is a need for real debate and a change in policy to reflect the needs of the country in the next millennium.
I have noted with interest and pleasure the Government's robust and innovative approach, led by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to the issues involved. I have read with interest the press releases. I want to bring to the House a specific example of a site. I can speak with some authority, having researched it, about the detail of the problem. I ask the Minister for assurances that I can carry back to my
476
constituents in North-West Norfolk, who are interested in the real debate, not the shambles that we had yesterday, that the Government intend to do something about the problem, which we need to tackle.
The site to which I wish to refer is largely derelict. It is mainly a former fertiliser works, with adjoining land, commonly known in the locality as the muckworks. That reflects the fact that, for many years, the site was used to produce fertiliser for agriculture, which dominated my constituency for so long.
The site is on the outskirts of the town of Lynn on the south side. It is bounded in part by the River Nar and in part by residential properties on the Saddlebow road. It has a mixed history over 100 years of industrial use. Records are poorly kept, but we know that many of the industrial activities that have been undertaken there have left the site contaminated. We know that the contamination includes cyanide, asbestos and a range of pasties that will make it difficult for any owner to clean up the site and for any developer to develop it.
The site currently has three owners. The main site—the muckworks, some 32 acres—is owned by Benside Ltd. a company owned entirely by well-known local business men who will be personally known to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) through his associations with football in the county. The company has little financial backing. The borough council owns some 14 acres of former allotments. One wonders how safe those allotments were for a number of years. The balance of the site, mainly cleared, is owned by Dalgety plc.
I mention that to the Minister because it is interesting that most of the contamination probably came from gas works and the former fertiliser works, which were operated originally by the West Norfolk Fertiliser Company, which has been purchased by Fisons Ltd. None of the current partners had any involvement or association with the activities on the site or with the West Norfolk Fertiliser Company or Fisons. Therefore, the current owners cannot be held responsible for the contamination of the site. I suspect that the land was bought as a bit of a pig in a poke.
The site is identified as a key site within the county of Norfolk because, on its own, it could provide one twelfth of the borough's housing needs in the planning period that we are addressing. Its problems and opportunities are typical of those presented by brown-field sites as an alternative to unnecessarily building on the green and pleasant land which much of Norfolk still remains.
We have to build, and some of our villages will need to build on fresh land. We will never build all we need on the brown-field sites, but we can and must ensure that, where possible, there is proper encouragement to do so.
Dr. Ian Gibson: The strong Labour-controlled council in the fine city of Norwich has been responsible for decontaminating land and riverside, and building 1,500 dwellings on brown-field sites of some 24 hectares, and 1,400 houses on city green-field sites of some 46 hectares. Is not that a fine example of how, even in inclement times with no Government support for 18 years, with determination those brown-field sites can be decontaminated and developed to provide the houses that our people need?
Dr. Turner: I recognise the importance of local initiative, and I hear and commend what my hon. Friend

477
says. However, local initiative has not been lacking in my constituency either. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that it is not a matter of asking the Government to bail us out.
Those who have responsibility, including the borough council, which has been assiduous in looking for ways forward for these sites, have been considering what can be done. The problem is that their resources remain limited. A proposal to consider the technical requirements of decontamination, which have changed significantly since work was carried out around 1990, is out to tender.
English Partnerships' willingness to fund up to 40 per cent. of the cost of the initial study is most welcome. However, the study of how to decontaminate the site may require a five-figure sum. To pluck a figure from the air of the order of magnitude that is required, £5 million may be required to decontaminate the site once that study is complete. A little more than the contribution that the borough council can make will be required if we are to see building, rather than talk about building, on brown-field sites in my constituency.
In principle, English Partnerships can offer financial assistance for decontamination works, as the site is within one of its priority areas. That support is most likely towards the abnormal infrastructure costs and would be through gap funding the cost of reclamation against the site value. English Partnerships can either make its support as a direct grant or on the basis of a deferred share in any development. At the moment, English Partnerships cannot provide any further information on its level of support. It will not be able to assess that until the proposed development costs and, in particular, the decontamination costs are known.
Mr. David Prior: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although decontamination can be expensive and is a major consideration on a number of brown-field sites, two other factors must be taken into account? First, it can take a long time for a developer to put together a package for a brown-field site and, secondly, VAT is charged on refurbishing houses and not on new-build. Those two factors should be taken into account more in the Government's future planning guidelines, to encourage brown-field rather than green-field development.
Dr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Indeed, on the site that I am talking about, one option would have been to make a submission under the single regeneration budget challenge fund. However, if the bid is successful, the year-to-year funding does not provide sufficient flexibility, and a complex site in multiple ownership could easily lead to the sort of slippage that the challenge funding would not accommodate under its rules.
The local involvement and commitment to the site are clearly there, but to meet the requirement in the plan that the site be multi-use in future will require some Government involvement and help. If there is to be decontamination of the site and redevelopment of the former fertiliser works, in reality—rather than just talk, which is what happened under the previous Government—there will have to be a strong public-private partnership where the public sector provides the important and essential role of pump-priming the process through the injection of capital both at the beginning and at critical
478
stages throughout the development, assisting the provision of, or directly providing, infrastructure. It will also require a positive and flexible planning process that will enable redevelopment to become a reality. That may mean giving a more responsive interpretation of planning guidance than we have seen hitherto.
Mr. David Drew: I cannot match my hon. Friend's knowledge of his local scene, but, in a debate yesterday, we had an opportunity to discuss the sequential principle, which is that, if we allow developers to develop green-field sites, that must be as part of a commitment to brown land. The degree to which that is tied in may be the subject of some flexibility, and may require some changes in attitude.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the short term, that could be done by strengthening the conditions under which green-field sites are currently used and making the conditions relating to brown land less rigorous, thus changing the balance in the hope that developers would respond accordingly?
Dr. Turner: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but this is only the start of the debate. What I welcome about the Government's approach is that they are clearly interested and willing to make changes to the planning and financing regimes.
Mr. John Hayes: At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman condemned the previous Government in respect of what he describes as urban sprawl. It is all very well to talk about changes in planning procedures, but planning authorities—many Labour, some Tory—have a key responsibility for some of the worst decisions that have been taken. Any liberalisation of the planning procedures should not be designed to give still more power to people who have a dodgy track record.
Dr. Turner: That was not a helpful intervention.
I should like the Minister briefly to address the following points. May I take back to my constituents a recognition by the Government that the market towns and the rural environment need the protection that can be provided by proper attention to development on brown-field sites? This is not an inner-city issue, but one related to market towns.
Will the Minister confirm that, with innovative measures in mind, the Government are looking at ways to provide carrot as well as stick in the process, to ensure that we get building in the most appropriate sites? Finally, will he confirm that, in the review of planning procedures and while balancing the protection of the town centre correctly, the Government will ensure that they will sensitively approach the need for mixed-site developments and so enable the development of sites such as the muckworks to become a reality instead of remaining a pipe-dream, talked about year after year as under the previous Government?
11.24 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on initiating the

479
debate. After yesterday's debate on the protection of the countryside, my hon. Friend could not have chosen a more topical subject. I am especially pleased, however, that he has chosen the positive dimension of building on previously developed land as the focus for debate tonight. He was supported in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), and other hon. Members contributed to the debate. They all predominately focused on the positive dimension to which I referred.
My hon. Friend's topic has a clear and constructive purpose, and that is to make our town centres and cities better places, rather than focusing on a narrower, more negative and possibly "not in my backyard" approach. On the strength of last night's performances, that approach tends to dominate the Opposition's thinking.
The debate provides another opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, to set out some of the facts and to clarify how the Government's thinking on this important subject is developing. As we said in yesterday's debate, we shall be making an announcement next month on household growth, on household projections, on how they are to be translated into development plans, on targets for the use of previously developed land and on how to prioritise where new development should go. I am sure hat the House will understand that I cannot anticipate that announcement, but I should like positively to respond to my hon. Friend's comments.
The latest household projections, produced under the previous Government, were for an extra 4.4 million households between 1991 and 2016. Already, more than 1 million of the homes that we need have been built since 1991. The projections have been endorsed by two independent inquiries. The numbers may seem large, but they involve only an extra 175,000 households a year. If that is translated into housebuilding, it means 175,000 extra homes a year, which is a low figure when compared with the rates of housebuilding since the war, and far lower than the levels of new housebuilding during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. We need to get that into perspective.
Those who wish to raise scares conjure up the figure of 4.4 million as a horrible prospect. The reality is that it will be one of the lowest levels of new housebuilding in the post-war era.
When we make our announcement next month, it will be seen that we propose a number of things. First, as my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning told the House yesterday, we shall move away from the old "predict and provide" philosophy in housing. We do not believe that the patterns of the past should always dictate the future. Changes in policy can, and will, make a difference. At the same time, we recognise our responsibility to ensure that every member of our society has the opportunity of a decent home.
Secondly, just as we want to give political power back to people in Scotland, Wales, London and the English regions, we want to decentralise decision making on a range of issues, including how the regional housing figures will be arrived at. We shall listen more to what people have to say locally, on how to accommodate household growth.
480
Thirdly, we want to avoid unnecessary building in the countryside. The presumption against development in the green belt will remain as strong as ever, but that does not mean that there will never be any building on green-field sites.
Fourthly, we want to make the maximum use of previously developed land and buildings within urban areas. My hon. Friend is particularly interested in that. We recognise that what is achievable will vary from place to place. North Norfolk, for example, is very different from south-east England, let alone the north-west. Our policies will seek to reflect significant regional differences.
We see making the best use of previously developed land and buildings as central to our strategy. We are concerned that too many approaches to assessing capacity are conservative. They have been defensive exercises designed to show that a county is full up and not serious attempts to explore the options by examining more imaginatively issues such as densities, car parking and other standards.
A recent study for London, commissioned by the London Planning Advisory Committee and the Government office for London, considered what that would mean. I accept that the study's findings are not necessarily appropriate in every part of the country, but there are general lessons to be drawn from them. The scope for creating more housing, especially round town centres, needs to be more fully explored. We should look at buildings as well as sites, and ways of finding more housing and providing a wider range of choices.
We are committed to enhancing the quality of life in both town and country. Part of that means a good-quality environment. We must ensure that, when we build or convert housing in our towns and cities, those new homes add to the quality of the urban environment. Good design is crucial to creating a better quality of urban life—so, too, are jobs, good transport links and access to services. We must not forget the importance of parks, green spaces and recreation facilities. Our approach will encourage high-quality urban design and developments that enhance the urban environment—not "town cramming", which would be an inappropriate response.
We are committed to the regeneration of our towns and cities. We want to make them more attractive and more sustainable. We are already refocusing our regeneration efforts on the worst areas. We have allowed councils to increase investment through the capital receipts initiative, to renovate rundown housing.
It is crucial to improve our towns and cities. If we cannot make them more attractive, people will continue to leave and the pressure will really be on the countryside. We cannot protect the countryside at the price of a poor urban environment.
Mr. Prior: Will the Minister take into account the need to regenerate not only bigger towns and inner cities, but small market towns, such as North Walsham and Fakenham in my constituency?
Mr. Raynsford: I will indeed, but the debate was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk, and I shall say a little bit about regenerating small towns, such as King's Lynn. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that, in an Adjournment debate, prime attention must be given to its initiator, and that I show no disrespect to his concern.

481
Overall, it is our approach that is getting support—whether from the Countryside Commission or the House-Builders Federation. People are starting to understand that we must look at the big picture—how to create more sustainable towns, make the best use of brown-field sites, and protect the countryside and the green belt.
Household growth is an opportunity not only for urban regeneration but to promote more sustainable patterns of development. We can build on the advantages of existing towns, using and supporting existing infrastructure and services. In Norfolk, as the county has suggested, that could mean putting major new developments in the key urban areas, such as Norwich, Great Yarmouth and King's Lynn, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk. It could mean encouraging development in various towns that act as centres for rural areas, including some in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), and allowing development in other smaller market towns, represented by the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend. I think especially of Hunstanton in my hon. Friend's constituency.
I know that King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council, which has one of the highest housing figures in Norfolk, has been actively considering that issue—indeed, it is one of the few local authorities that have a policy that sets a minimum density. I only wish that more did that, because low-density housing developments tend to be the biggest consumers of land. Therefore, if we can achieve higher density in appropriate circumstances—I am talking not about a return to soulless estates or to high-rise housing, which was a disaster in the past, but about sensitively, well-planned housing at high density—that can help to contribute to the solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk is worried about other types of development—not just housing. Even though housing accounts for about 70 per cent. of land used for urban development, other uses can be a greater threat to sustainable development. Our planning policy guidance on town centres—to which we formally reaffirmed our commitment in our response to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs in July 1997—makes it clear that we expect offices, shopping, leisure and other key town-centre uses to go to town centres.
That policy is especially important for small market towns, which are easily undermined by out-of-town-centre shopping and leisure developments. Not building out of town also saves green-field sites.
One of the issues that my hon. Friend raised is how to get brown-field sites back into use, especially if they are contaminated. In particular, he raised the question whether a tax on green-field development could be used for that purpose. The issue of taxing green-field development was raised by a number of respondents to the previous Government's Green Paper. Many respondents who argued for high brown-field recycling levels called for economic instruments to help local authorities to achieve that end.
482
We have not taken decisions yet on those options. We want to hear people's views and undertake more research and analysis. Unlike the previous Government, we want to open up a debate about the scope for using economic instruments to help to achieve our planning objectives.
In his intervention, the hon. Member for North Norfolk referred to VAT. That is another important issue, but when we are discussing bringing back derelict and empty sites such as the one to which my hon. Friend referred, VAT is not relevant, as no VAT is chargeable on new housing. Any decisions on national taxation are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised the issue of a sequential test. He will know that we are considering the matter. We shall say more about it when we make the statement in due course.
With regard to the muckworks site in King's Lynn, I understand that a study on the potential for redevelopment on the site may soon be undertaken, as my hon. Friend said, and that English Partnerships has indicated that it will contribute a significant proportion of the costs of the study. My hon. Friend questioned English Partnerships' potential on-going contribution. My understanding is that subject to the outcome of the study, and subject to demand and to detailed development proposals demonstrating a shortfall of developed value against development cost, English Partnerships will consider financially supporting the regeneration of that site.
Finally, I shall deal with the countryside—the other side of the coin. Let me make it clear that we are committed to protecting the countryside, but we cannot freeze it in a time warp. People in the countryside need homes and jobs. In some cases, change is inevitable, but it must be positive and sustainable. Our planning policies already promote such change with an emphasis on strict control, decent design and rural regeneration.
From some accounts, one would think that the English countryside was now confined to a few pockets of land. In fact, almost 90 per cent. of England remains rural; 12 per cent. is green belt and another 33 per cent. is specially protected—for example, national parks. Urban areas look set to grow from 10.6 per cent. to 11.9 per cent. of England by 2016. That figure could be even smaller if local authorities and private developers did more to recycle land. Even at 11.9 per cent., there will be more green-belt land than urban land.
However, we are concerned not just with protecting the green belt. We are concerned about the countryside as a whole. We are looking for the most sustainable solutions, and sometimes, as was said last night, a green-belt site will offer the most sustainable place for new development—for example, when the alternative would mean developing on better quality land beyond the green belt.
Overall, we must look at these difficult issues—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to Twelve midnight.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Appeals Committee
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects the Appeals Committee to consider the application made on 21 May for leave to appeal to the House of Lords in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Reeman of Brixham and the Department of Transport. [25942]

  Mr. Hoon
  The petition for leave to appeal has been considered by an Appeal Committee and was refused on 26 January 1998.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from the Law Society on its proposals for a Contingency Legal Aid Fund, and what assessment he has made of the options proposed for setting up such a fund. [25871]

  Mr. Hoon
  The President of the Law Society wrote to me on 16 December 1997 enclosing a paper entitled "A proposal by the Law Society to link legal aid and conditional fees". I am considering the proposal and I am due to meet the President shortly to discuss it further. No final decisions will be taken about this, or any other representations, until the consultation paper has been issued and all the responses received.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the funding of Legal Aid Board franchises, with particular reference to Citizens Advice Bureaux. [25869]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Legal Aid Board is piloting contracts for advice and assistance services provided by both solicitors and not-for-profit agencies, including Citizens Advice Bureaux. These contracts allow contract-holders meeting the franchise quality standard to provide advice, assistance and some limited representation. The pilot began in 1994.

  On 14 January the Lord Chancellor asked the Legal Aid Board to construct an implementation plan to achieve the objective of delivering all advice and assistance through fixed-price contracts with quality-assured suppliers by the end of 1999. These contracts will include contracts with the not-for-profit advice sector, of which the Citizens Advice Bureaux form a part, in an expansion of the original pilot.

  22 Citizens Advice Bureaux participated in the first phase of the pilot with contracts in 1996–97 to the value of £1,722,000 out of a total budget of £3 million.
  222
  Approximately 200 organisations, including more than 70 Citizen Advice Bureaux, are likely to be offered contracts in 1998–99. The Board has been allocated up to £14 million within its PES allocation for legal aid to support these contracts.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received with regard to the future funding of those disbursements and up-front costs in civil cases which at present receive legal aid for those purposes; and if he will make a statement. [25870]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have received many representations on our plans for reform of legal aid which refer to the problems of funding disbursements and up-front costs. The wide consultation we are undertaking is partly aimed at looking at ways of meeting these costs, either through lawyers funding these as a business cost, or by lawyers sharing the risk with insurers, banks or other funders. It may be that in certain types of case public funds may be necessary where there is no alternative.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to introduce a merits test on legally aided civil cases of 75 per cent. [25868]

  Mr. Hoon
  We intend to introduce a flexible legal aid merits test that can take account of the priority and importance of different types of case. Changing the merits test will require primary legislation. We intend to bring forward a Bill that will fundamentally reform the legal aid scheme, as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the preparedness of(a) his Department, (b) the Land Registry and (c) the Public Record Office for the computer consequences of the arrival of the year 2000. [25430]

  Mr. Hoon
  Comprehensive plans for the achievement of Year 2000 compliance in the Department, its Agencies and other bodies which report to the Lord Chancellor, including the Land Registry and the Public Record Office, were delivered to the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency in October 1997. They have since been placed in the public domain. The plans document in detail areas of vulnerability and the remedial action required to combat the Year 2000 problem.

  A supplement to the plans was issued in December 1997 and quarterly progress reports will also be made available. The first of these will be prepared shortly, for publication in March.

  Judicial Committee
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the procedure for appointing members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. [25509]

  Mr. Hoon
  Membership of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council derives from the occupancy of certain judicial and ministerial posts. The membership comprises the Lord Chancellor, the present and former Lords President of the Council, the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary,
  223
  and those other members as shall from time to time hold or have held high judicial office. In practice this also includes the Heads of the Divisions of the Supreme Court, members of the Court of Appeal and those judges of the Court of Session and Supreme Court of Northern Ireland who are members of the Privy Council.

  Retired judges in these categories who have not yet attained the compulsory retirement date of 75 are also members.

  Serving and retired judges of certain Commonwealth superior courts who are members of the Privy Council are members of the Judicial Committee by virtue of the Judicial Committee Amendment Act 1895, as amended by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1908.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the membership of the Judicial Committee of the Privy

  Name

  Age

  Jurisdiction of origin

  Public bodies

  The right hon. Ann Taylor MP

  50

  (President)

  The right hon. The Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone KG CH

  90

  (Former Lord President)

  The right hon. The Viscount Whitelaw KT CH MC

  79

  (Former Lord President)

  The right hon. The Lord Carr of Hadley

  81

  (Former Lord President)

  The right hon. The Lord Prior

  70

  (Former Lord President)

  The right hon. The Lord Glenamara CH

  85

  (Former Lord President)

  The right hon. Michael Foot

  84

  (Former Lord President)

  The right hon. The Lord Pym MC

  75

  (Former Lord President)

  The right hon. The Lord Biffen

  67

  (Former Lord President)

  The right hon. The Lord Wakeham

  65

  (Former Lord President)

  Chairman, Press Complaints Commission

  The right hon. The Lord Howe of Aberavon CH QC

  71

  (Former Lord President)

  The right hon. John MacGregor MP

  60

  (Former Lord President)

  The right hon. The Lord Newton QBE

  60

  (Former Lord President)

  The right hon. The Lord Irvine of Lairg

  57

  (Lord Chancellor)

  Member, Supreme Court Rule Committee

  Member, Crown Court Rule Committee

  Member, Family Proceedings Rule Committee

  The right hon. The Lord Mackay of Clashfern KT

  70

  (Former Lord Chancellor)

  The right hon. The Lord Bingham of Cornhill

  64

  England

  Member, Supreme Court Rule Committee

  Member, Crown Court Rule Committee

  The right hon. The Lord Woolf

  64

  England

  Member, Supreme Court Rule Committee

  The right hon. Sir Stephen Brown

  73

  England

  Member, Supreme Court Rule Committee

  Member, Family Proceedings Rule Committee

  The right hon. Sir Richard Scott

  63

  England

  Member, Supreme Court Rule Committee

  The right hon. The Lord Goff of Chieveley

  71

  England

  The right hon. The Lord Browne-Wilkinson

  67

  England

  The right hon. The Lord Slynn of Hadley

  67

  England

  The right hon. The Lord Lloyd of Berwick

  68

  England

  The right hon. The Lord Nolan

  69

  England

  The right hon. The Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

  64

  England

  The right hon. The Lord Steyn

  65

  England

  The right hon. The Lord Hoffman

  63

  England

  The right hon. The Lord Hope of Craighead

  59

  Scotland

  The right hon. The Lord Clyde

  65

  Scotland

  The right hon. The Lord Hutton

  66

  Northern Ireland

  The right hon. The Lord Saville of Newdigate

  61

  England

  Chairman, Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct

  The right hon. The Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

  72

  Scotland

  The right hon. The Lord Griffiths MC

  73

  England

  The right hon. The Lord Mustill

  66

  England

  The right hon. The Lord Cooke of Thorndon

  71

  New Zealand

  The right hon. The Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

  53

  Scotland

  The right hon. Sir Robert Carswell

  63

  Northern Ireland

  The right hon. Lord Cullen

  62

  Scotland

  The right hon. The Lord Cameron of Lochbroom

  66

  Scotland

  The right hon. The Lord Mackenzie-Stuart

  73

  Scotland

  The right hon. Lord Ross

  70

  Scotland

  Chairman, Judicial Studies Committee, Scotland

  The right hon. Lord Wylie

  73

  Scotland

  The right hon. Lord Justice Nourse

  65

  England

  The right hon. Lady Justice Butler-Sloss

  64

  England

  224
  Council indicating their (a) age, (b) legal jurisdiction of origin and (c) membership of other public bodies; and if he will make a statement. [25508]

  Mr. Hoon
  Those who are eligible to sit as members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council include the present and former Lords President of the Council and those members of the Privy Council, not over the age of 75, who hold or have held any of the following high judicial offices: Lord Chancellor, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary or judge of a superior court of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Membership of the Judicial Committee extends to serving and retired judges of certain Commonwealth superior courts who are members of the Privy Council.

  I list below the names of the members together with the other information requested, where available. By convention, the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are the regular judges of the court, drawing occasional assistance from the Commonwealth and retired judges.

  I have no plans to make a statement.

  225

  Name

  Age

  Jurisdiction of origin

  Public bodies

  The right hon. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith

  70

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Beldam

  72

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Kennedy

  62

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Hirst

  72

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Simon Brown

  60

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Evans RD

  63

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Rose

  60

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Roch

  63

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Gibson

  63

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Hobhouse

  65

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Henry

  66

  England

  Chairman, Judicial Studies Board

  The right hon. Lord Justice Millet

  65

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Swinton Thomas

  66

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Morritt CVO

  59

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Otton

  64

  England

  Member, Crown Court Rule Committee Chairman. Special Health Authority for the Royal Brompton National Heart and Lung Hospital

  The right hon. Lord Justice Auld

  60

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Pill

  59

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Aldous

  61

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Ward

  59

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Hutchison

  64

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Schiemann

  60

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Phillips

  60

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Thorpe

  59

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Potter

  60

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Brooke

  61

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Judge

  61

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Waller

  57

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Mummery

  59

  England

  Member, Ecclesiastical Committee

  The right hon. Lord Justice Mantell

  60

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Chadwick ED

  57

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Walker

  59

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice Buxton

  59

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice May

  57

  England

  The right hon. Lord Justice MacDermott

  70

  Northern Ireland

  The right hon. Lord Justice McCollum

  64

  Northern Ireland

  The right hon. Lord Justice Nicholson

  64

  Northern Ireland

  The right hon. Sir Christopher Staughton

  64

  England

  The right hon. Sir John Waite

  65

  England

  The right hon. Sir Michael Mann

  66

  England

  The right hon. Sir Alexander Leggatt

  67

  England

  The right hon. Sir Donald Farquharson

  69

  England

  The right hon. Sir Anthony McCowan

  70

  England

  The right hon. Sir Christopher Slade

  70

  England

  The right hon. Sir Patrick Russell

  71

  England

  The right hon. Sir Brian Dillon

  72

  England

  The right hon. Sir John Balcombe

  72

  England

  The right hon. Sir Iain Glidewell

  73

  England

  The right hon. Sir Brian Neill

  74

  England

  The right hon. Sir Roger Parker

  74

  England

  The right hon. Sir Thaddeus McCarthy KBE

  90

  New Zealand

  The right hon. Sir Harry Gibbs

  80

  Australia

  The right hon. Sir Owen Woodhouse

  81

  New Zealand

  The right hon. Sir William Douglas

  76

  Barbados

  The right hon. Sir Ronald Davison

  77

  New Zealand

  The right hon. Sir Ivor Richardson

  67

  New Zealand

  The right hon. Sir Duncan McMullin

  70

  New Zealand

  The right hon. Sir Edward Somers

  69

  New Zealand

  The right hon. Telford Georges

  75

  Cayman Islands

  The right hon. Sir Maurice Casey

  74

  New Zealand

  The right hon. Sir Gordon Bisson

  79

  New Zealand

  The right hon. Sir Thomas Eichelbaum

  66

  New Zealand

  The right hon. Thomas Gault

  59

  New Zealand

  The right hon. Ian McKay

  68

  New Zealand

  The right hon. Sir Vincent Floissac CMG QBE

  69

  West Indies

  The right hon. Edward Zacca

  67

  Jamaica

  The right hon. John Henry

  New Zealand

  The right hon. Edmund Thomas

  New Zealand

  226

  Civil Service Staff
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of Civil Service staff of grade 5 and above within his Department(a) have spent their entire civil service career within his Department, (b) have had secondments to (i) the private sector and (ii) other departments and (c) have come from other departments. [26027]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are currently 55 permanent members of the Senior Civil Service (the equivalent of grade 5 and above) in this Department. Of this total:

  (a) 33 have spent their entire civil service career within the Department;

  (b(i)) two have had secondments or loans to the private sector;

  (b(ii)) six have had secondments or loans to other departments; and

  (c) 14 have come from other departments.

  Of the total, 35 had experience in another sector before entering the civil service.

  The Department also employs three fixed-term appointees at Senior Civil Service level, all of whom have had experience in other sectors prior to taking up their current appointments.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 January,Official Report, column 262, what is the estimated cost to public funds of those heavy goods vehicles which evade vehicle excise duty. [24728]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The estimated net cost to public funds of VED evasion by heavy goods vehicles was £19 million in 1996–97. The enforcement cost to DVLA in the same period is estimated at £200,000. It is not possible to provide estimates for enforcement costs related to VED evasion by heavy goods vehicles in relation to other agencies.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress his Department is making in introducing legislation to provide for the impounding of illegally operated heavy goods vehicles. [25956]

  31 March 1990

  31 March 1991

  31 March 1992

  31 March 1993

  31 March 1994

  31 March 1995

  Locomotives—Diesel1

  1,835

  1,752

  1,634

  1,559

  1,428

  1,422

  Locomotives—Electric1

  260

  278

  262

  260

  260

  258

  High speed trains—power cars

  197

  197

  197

  197

  197

  197

  Coaching vehicles

  12,514

  12,451

  11,825

  11,184

  10,892

  10,665

  1 Includes freight locomotives (it is not possible to disaggregate these figures as some locomotives could be switched between passenger and freight haulage).

  228
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We hope to issue a consultation paper shortly.

  Working Time Directive
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend the Working Time Directive to transport workers. [25964]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We recently responded to the European Commission's White Paper on proposals for extending the working time Directive to the transport sector. We will consider specific proposals once these have been brought forward by the Commission.

  Channel Tunnel (Chemical Products)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the regulations covering the carriage of chemical products through the Channel Tunnel. [25259]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Europe-wide controls on the transport of dangerous goods apply to the Channel Tunnel. Over and above these, special additional restrictions apply to Eurotunnel's dangerous goods policy, approved by the Intergovernmental Commission on the advice of the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority (CTSA). The policy approved in 1994 was reviewed as a consequence of the fire in the Channel Tunnel on 18 November 1996, and some further restrictions were introduced as a result in June 1997, when HGV Shuttle services were allowed to resume operations.

  HSE's Railway Inspectorate carries out inspections designed to verify that risks are being properly controlled as required. Information from that process is also shared with the CTSA.

  Passenger Rail Network
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many carriages and train sets were in service on the passenger rail network as at 31 March in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [25274]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The latest figures held centrally relating to the overall passenger rail network are contained in the British Railways Board's annual report and accounts and show the number of vehicles owned by the Board as at 31 March for each of the years 1990–95 inclusive. These are shown in the table. The rolling stock leasing companies who now own most of the passenger rolling stock, were privatised in 1995. Figures for subsequent years are not held centrally.
  229
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many carriages and train sets on the passenger rail network were(a) withdrawn from service and (b) commissioned into service in each year since 1990. [25276]

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Locomotives1—Diesel

  +20 (-103)

  +59 (-177)

  +14 (-89)

  +19 (-150)

  +4(-10)

  —Electric

  +29 (-11)

  +0 (-16)

  +0 (-27)

  no change

  +0(-2)

  High speed trains

  no change

  no change

  no change

  no change

  no change

  Passenger carrying vehicles

  +414 (-1,091)

  +283 (-909)

  +115 (-756)

  +661 (-1,614)

  +265 (-492)

  NB: Negative figures in brackets include not only withdrawals, but also transfers or conversions.

  1 Includes freight locomotives (it is not possible to disaggregate these figures as some locomotives could be switched between passenger and freight haulage).

  Tour Operators
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many tour operators, broken down by sector, over each of the last three years, have been investigated for trading without a licence. [25308]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Civil Aviation Authority, which operates the Air Travel Organisers' Licensing (ATOL) scheme, has advised that the number of travel organisers investigated for trading without holding an ATOL in each of the last three years is as follows:

  1995: 685

  1996: 1,122

  1997: 1,449

  To break down these figures further would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many companies the Civil Aviation Authority licensed as tour operators, broken down by sector, over each of the last three years. [25307]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Civil Aviation Authority issued the following number of new Air Travel Organisers' Licences in each of the last three years:

  1995: 379

  1996: 360

  1997: 192

  The total number of licence holders as at December of each year, broken down into the various ATOL categories, is as follows:

  Year

  Fully

  Scheduled

  Agency

  Wholesale

  Total

  1995

  1,199

  145

  17

  n/a

  1,361

  1996

  1,301

  186

  63

  105

  1,655

  1997

  1,336

  196

  60

  124

  1,716

  Fully: fully bonded business—schedule or charter-based inclusive packages and also seat only sales on charter flights.

  Scheduled: scheduled bonded business—consolidators and other firms that sell air tickets on a seat only basis but do not provide tickets immediately.

  Agency: consolidators that sell discounted air tickets as agents of scheduled airlines.

  Wholesale: licences held by companies set up by established tour operators for tax purposes.
  230
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The latest figures held centrally relating to the overall passenger rail network are contained in the British Railways Board's annual reports and accounts. The relevant figures for the financial years 1990–91 to 1994–95 are shown in the table. The rolling stock leasing companies, who now own most of the passenger rolling stock, were privatised in 1995. Figures for subsequent years are not held centrally.

  Air Services
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will quantify the(a) jobs expected to be created in the tourism industry of the North West and (b) the (i) regional and (ii) national employment effects as calculated in the Civil Aviation Authority's analysis for bilateral air service talks with Pakistan, India, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates. [25474]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The CAA's analysis for bilateral air services talks with Pakistan, India, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates included the calculation of expenditure effects. However these were not translated into employment effects. The calculation of employment effects can be drawn from the expenditure effects and I have asked the CAA to produce the figures requested and will write to my hon. Friend with the information shortly.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library copies of the full regional economic analyses prepared by the CAA for bilateral air service talks for(a) Australia, (b) India, (c) Pakistan, (d) Canada, (e) Mauritius, (f) Seychelles, (g) Singapore and (h) the United Arab Emirates. [25473]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: Some of the information contained in the documents requested is of a commercially confidential nature: the release of such information in to the public arena could be prejudicial to future negotiations with our bilateral partners. It would therefore not be appropriate to place the information in the House Library.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what was the original budget allocated for the building and equipping of the new air traffic control centre at Swanwick; and what is the current level of expenditure; [25953]

  (2) if he will list (a) the original target date for the Swanwick air traffic control centre to become operational and (b) the current target date; and what factors underlie the difference; [25954]
  231
  (3) if he will place in the Library a copy of the action plan drawn up by the Civil Aviation Authority and National Air Traffic Services for dealing with millennium compliance issues. [25976]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The original estimate by National Air Traffic Services Ltd. (NATS) for the capital expenditure at the Swanwick Centre, made in July 1989, was £215.5 million at 1988–99 prices, which equates to £313 million at 1997–98 prices. A reappraisal of the project was approved by the Government in December 1991, with a new budget of £310.2 million at 1990 prices. Using actual inflation indices, this gives an actual costs budget of £350.7 million—NATS still expects to be within this budget.

  The original operational date for the Swanwick Centre, given in July 1989, was November 1996. The current target date is the winter of 1999–2000. The major causes of the delay were (a) problems with the integration of 23 software sub-systems, and (b) the need for additional functions in the system, which was identified following testing of the system by air traffic controllers.

  I have arranged for copies of the CAA and NATS documents showing the steps that they have taken to address the millennium problem, and any further action they intend to take, to be placed in the Library.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what occasions Eurotunnel has asked(a) his Department and (b) the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority to refrain from publishing information relating to the safety of the Channel Tunnel; and on what occasions it has invoked clause 33.3 of the Channel Tunnel Treaty to prevent publication. [25959]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There have been no such occasions in either case. My Department, and the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, both abide by the terms of Clause 33.3 of the Channel Tunnel Concession Agreement, but these do not prevent the Safety Authority from publishing its own reports, such as the eight Annual Reports published to date, the 1989 Report into non-segregation of tourist shuttle passengers from their vehicles, and the 1997 Report into the fire on HGV Shuttle 7539.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the extent to which clause 33.3 of the Channel Tunnel Treaty enables adequate information relating to safety in the Channel Tunnel to be published. [25958]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am satisfied that the requirements of Clause 33.3 of the Channel Tunnel Concession Agreement enable adequate information to be published. Eurotunnel is free to publish the safety information which it produces, and the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority publishes an annual report on its activities, covering all aspects of Channel Tunnel safety. Copies of this report are placed in the Library.

  Non-domestic Rating
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the valuation date for the 2000 non-domestic rating revaluation. [26340]

  Ms Armstrong
  The next non-domestic property revaluation will come into force on 1 April 2000. We have decided that the antecedent valuation date for England and Wales, that is the common valuation date for the 2000 revaluation, will be 1 April 1998. I have today laid the necessary order before the House.

  This decision will provide certainty for businesses and will allow adequate time for the assessment to be carried out.

  Energy Saving Trust
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has made a decision on the Government grant support for the Energy Saving Trust in 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [26531]

  Mr. Meacher
  The previous Government's planned public expenditure total provided £13.5 million for 1998–99, compared to this year's £19 million. We have allocated an additional £5.5 million to the Trust, to avoid the previous Government's planned cut, and to maintain Government support for the Trust. This allocation of grant support reflects the contribution which energy efficiency makes both to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and to reducing consumers' energy bills. The increased allocation will enable the Trust to maintain and develop its successful programmes, and will secure the Trust's capability to plan for the climate change task ahead. For the present year, the Secretary of State has allocated the Trust an additional £450,000, to enable it to extend its successful 'Energy Efficiency' promotion campaign and extend other successful programmes.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Exclusions
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils were permanently excluded from schools in England and Wales, on 1 December 1997. [23286]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Data on permanent exclusions during the 1997–98 school year will be collected as part of the annual school census in January 1999. The latest figures currently available are for the school year 1995–96. These show a total of 12,476 permanent exclusions in England during the year—an average of 60 permanent exclusions on any one school day. Exclusions from schools in Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list his decisions on each school from which he has considered applications for grant-maintained status since 1 May 1997, indicating the grounds for his decision. [24081]
  233
  Mr. Byers
  The table lists decisions on applications for grant-maintained status since 1 May 1997. Each proposal was decided on its individual merits. Factors taken into account included the following:the effect of the proposals on the standard of educational provision in the area generally;
  the quality of education at the school;
  the demand for places at the school;
  the financial viability of the school;
  the financial management of the school;
  the cost implications of the proposals;
  the acceptability of the admission policy of the school;
  the views of interested parties, including parents and other local residents, the LEA, other schools, the FAS and FEFC, and, in the case of Church schools, the Diocese or Trustees;
  the strength of support for GM status demonstrated by the ballot; the commitment of the head and governing body to GM status.

  LEA

  School name

  Approved

  Bedfordshire

  Westoning Lower School

  Birmingham

  St. Paul's Community School

  Croydon

  Virgo Fidelis Convent Senior School1

  Hertfordshire

  Jewish Community Day School1

  Lambeth

  Julian's Primary School

  Southwark

  Surrey Square Grant-maintained Infant School

  Southwark

  Surrey Square Grant-maintained Junior School

  Minded to approve subject to certain modifications

  Barnet

  Matilda Marks Kennedy School1

  Birmingham

  1 Al Furqan Muslim Primary School

  Brent

  Islamia Primary School1

  Rejected

  Barnet

  Pardes House and Beis Yaskov School

  Bedfordshire

  Shortstown Lower School

  Brent

  Torah Temimah Primary School1

  Bradford

  Stoney Lee Middle School

  Buckinghamshire

  Chartridge County Combined School

  Devon

  Mount St. Mary's Convent School1

  Devon

  Ratcliffe Special School

  Gloucestershire

  Oakdene Special School

  Hampshire

  Rookwood County Infant School

  Hampshire

  The Foxbury Special School

  Kent

  Amherst County Junior School

  Kent

  St. Thomas of Canterbury School

  Kent

  Woodchurch CE Primary School

  Lancashire

  The Maharishi School1

  Stockport

  Doodfield Primary School

  Surrey

  St. Peter and St. Paul CE Primary

  Surrey

  The Ashford High School

  Tower Hamlets

  Bishop Challoner R. C. School

  Trafford

  Stretford Grammar School

  Warwickshire

  Ilmington CE Primary School

  Walsall

  Birchills CE Primary Community School

  West Sussex

  Herbert Shiner School

  Wiltshire

  Broad Hinton CE Primary School

  Wiltshire

  Leigh Primary School

  York

  Fulford Cross Special School

  1 Proposals for new GM schools by promoters.

  Shropshire Local Education Authority
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the ability of Shropshire Local Education Authority to meet its statutory obligations in the next financial year within his proposed financial settlement. [24432]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Shropshire is set to receive a 4.7 per cent. increase in its education SSA for next year to help it meet its obligations. However, I am aware of the concern of Shropshire parents and teachers about the financial settlement announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the effects of local government reorganisation and am keeping in close touch with developments.

  Religious Education
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many qualified religious education teachers are employed in local education authority schools; how many vacancies exist; and if he will make a statement on the recruitment of religious education teachers. [24436]

  Mr. Byers
  LEA-maintained secondary schools in England had about 8,200 qualified religious education teachers at November 1996 and 17 vacancies at January 1997. ITT courses for the primary sector equip all teachers to deliver religious education.

  Student Support
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will review the rules concerning provision of support for students who take a year out of their degree course for health reasons. [24456]

  Dr. Howells
  Local Education Authorities have the discretion to continue paying grant to students holding mandatory awards who, with the permission of their academic authority, are absent from their courses. We have issued detailed guidance to LEAs on how to approach the question of payments for students who are absent through sickness. It encouraged LEAs to take a sympathetic and positive view when dealing with sick students, and to bear in mind that they are not immediately eligible for benefits. Sick students may become eligible for Income Support and other benefits only where the period of illness has continued for 28 weeks or more. It is right for LEAs to have discretion in this area and I have no plans to change the present position in 1998–99.

  One of the eligibility criteria for obtaining a student loan is that students must be attending their courses. Students who leave their courses for any reason, including sickness, cease to be eligible until they return to their course.

  We are currently considering what arrangements should be put in place for sick students once loans replace grants in 1999–2000.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many additional places in higher education he expects to be financed by the introduction of tuition fees in each of the first four years of the operation of the scheme. [24724]

  Dr. Howells
  We have made it clear that the savings from the introduction of the new funding arrangements for higher education will be used to improve quality, standards and opportunities for all in further and higher education. The funding for higher education in 1998–99 announced by my right hon. Friend on 23 September 1997 will enable an additional 1,000 full-time places to be provided in higher education, on sub-degree programmes mainly in further education colleges. Plans for subsequent years will be announced in due course, having regard to the Government's comprehensive spending review and our aim to widen participation in higher education.

  Labour Mobility
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to encourage greater labour mobility to ease labour shortages. [25220]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government will continue to encourage employers to consider the widest possible range of sources of labour when recruiting, including people whose preference is for flexible working arrangements such as part-time or tele-working. Equally, we shall continue to encourage individuals to increase their employability, including their flexibility and mobility as well as their skills.

  To assist geographical mobility, the Employment Service operates a Travel to Interview Scheme. This encourages people to widen their job search by helping with travelling costs incurred in attending interviews outside their usual travel to work area.

  Training and Enterprise Councils continue to work with employers locally to respond to the skills needs identified in particulars areas. In addition, the Government are setting up a new Skills Taskforce to advise on the extent and nature of skills shortages, and on appropriate action for tackling them.

  New Deal (Gateway)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average allocation of money for each young person for the gateway to the new deal; and how this money is to be disbursed. [25410]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Gateway will help young people to finds jobs or to take up New Deal option places. Individual young people's circumstances and needs will differ considerably. At present, our broad planning assumption is that the Gateway will meet these varying needs within an average expenditure of £260 per young person. As this includes those who leave the Gateway early for unsubsidised jobs, significantly more will be available for those who need the greatest help, the amount in each case related to the young person's needs.

  Greenwich Judgment
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a sttaement on the effects of the Greenwich Judgment on(a) grant-maintained schools and (b) proposed foundation schools. [25320]

  Mr. Byers
  The 1989 Greenwich Judgment does not cover grant-maintained schools, but the Department has consistently encouraged them to adopt the same approach. Our proposals in the School Standards and Framework Bill mean that the judgment would apply to all maintained schools, including those in the new foundation category. We shall expect school admission authorities to work closely with those in neighbouring LEA areas in the interests of all parents, and look to the proposed new forums to help bring this about.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps the Government have taken to tackle age discrimination. [25646]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government firmly oppose age discrimination in employment. Following my announcement in the House on 22 May 1997,Official Report, column 825, I have been consulting widely on how best to achieve a consensus to tackle this complex issue. The consultation will continue into the spring.

  New Deal (Cornwall)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the guide price per trainee per week for placements on the New Deal in Cornwall(a) in total and (b) excluding payments to the trainee. [25470]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: There is no guide price for New Deal participants in Cornwall. The funding for an individual participating in the programme will vary considerably depending on the amount of help they require during the Gateway and, if they enter an option, the nature of the opportunity they take up.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average amount per trainee allowed for supervision under New Deal contracts in Cornwall. [25468]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: No "average amount" has been suggested for the supervision of New Deal participants. All those wishing to tender were asked to submit a full costing analysis for the delivery of Gateway provision or the New Deal option that they were interested in providing. This analysis included the management and supervisory costs that they intended to charge.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the environmental objectives for the New Deal in Cornwall. [25471]
  237
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: Work undertaken on the Environment Task Force in Cornwall will contribute to the improvement of the local and/or global environment and will be compatible with sustainable development.

  Opportunities for young people on the Environment Task Force will be as broad and inclusive as possible and will, where possible include opportunities for young people to become involved in the regeneration of their local communities for example on housing, reclamation, recycling and conservation projects.

  Work on environmental projects under the New Deal must complement and contribute to national and international environmental objectives and run in synergy with the aims and objectives of the New Deal.

  New Deal (Child Minders)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will give a breakdown of the numbers from each new deal programme making up the 50,000 new child minders to be trained in the Chancellor's Budget initiative. [25777]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is a principle of the design of the New Deal that young people should be helped to choose the option most appropriate for them. Accordingly, we have not estimated the number of child care opportunities likely to be pursued under each New Deal option. We expect, however, that many of the placements will be found under the Voluntary Sector option of the New Deal, with further opportunities under the Employment and Full Time Education or Training options.

  Teachers Superannuation Scheme
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the cost of giving a full widow's pension to spouses of members of the teachers superannuation scheme who married those members after the members' retirement in each year since 1994–95. [25867]

  Dr. Howells
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will publish his Department' s response to the Education and Employment Committee's First Report on Teacher Recruitment (HC 262–1) of Session 1997–98. [26513]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I welcome the Committee's report.

  Copies of the Department's response have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Poor People
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will carry out an assessment of the impact of his Department's current policies on the(a) income, (b) employment opportunities and (c) living standards, of the poorest 30 per cent. of the population. [23333]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The sectors for which my Department is responsible—arts, museums, libraries, sport, tourism, the built heritage, the music industry, film and broadcasting—are central to delivering improvements to the quality of life for everyone. In all these sectors our objective is to ensure access for the many, not just the few, whether as audience or participant.

  The arts, sport and broadcasting have a widely accepted role in promoting social cohesion, and in providing through formal and informal education the necessary skills which individuals need to develop socially and at work.

  Public libraries are a vital focus for the community, offering a source of information and advice to help the unemployed into work or training, and free access to sources of learning and enjoyment for all.

  All our sectors are supporting the New Deal. The tourism industry in particular has the potential to provide many new job opportunities over the next few years.

  The National Lottery has provided sporting and cultural infrastructure around the country from which all benefit. The National Lottery Charities Board in particular gives grants to help meet the needs of those at greatest disadvantage in society. The Bill currently before the House for the reform of the National Lottery will help the disadvantaged further through the New Opportunities Fund, whose first programmes will include out of school hours activities and healthy living centres.

  My Department is working with the Social Exclusion Unit to ensure that we fully exploit opportunities for sport, the arts, broadcasting and the other DCMS sectors to play their part in helping to tackle the problems of social exclusion.

  Publications (Legal Deposit)
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how he plans to take forward policy on the legal deposit of publications following the response to the consultation paper published in February 1997. [26339]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The consultation period closed on 11 April 1997. One hundred and sixty one organisations and individuals submitted responses. I am grateful to them for taking the trouble to address the issues which the consultation paper discussed, and for submitting their views. I have placed a summary of the results of the consultation exercise in the Libraries of the House.
  239
  The Government believe that it is extremely important to ensure that material published in this country is incorporated into our national archive irrespective of the medium used. The arrangements for legal deposit, which are concerned primarily with published material in print form, underpin the nation's academic, research and educational sectors. We intend to ensure that these benefits extend also to material published in format other than print. But in so doing, we recognise the need to minimise the burden that such arrangements might place on the publishing industry.

  I am therefore establishing a working group, chaired by Sir Anthony Kenny, comprising representatives of the British Library and legal deposit libraries, the British Film Institute, and publishing sectors. The working group will be asked:

  (i) To advise on how an effective nation archive of non-print material might be achieved, taking into account the need to minimise the burden on publishers, the need to safeguard deposited material from unauthorised use, the archival value of the material, and the scope for making deposited material available among legal deposit libraries through secure IT networks;

  (ii) To draw up and agree a voluntary code of practice to achieve deposit of electronic and microform publications until such time as the Government may decide to introduce legislation;

  (ii) To ensure that such arrangements are compatible, where appropriate, with the existing arrangements for the voluntary deposit of films and sound recordings;

  The Government will keep under review the case for introducing legislation to extend legal deposit to these additional categories of publication. We will take account of the working group's recommendations and the extent to which the voluntary code meets the reasonable current and future needs of those requiring access to deposit material.

  The Government do not for the present plan to make any amendments to the system for print publications under which up to six copies are deposited, although we will expect the legal deposit libraries to operate together

  Table 1: Incidence of small intestine, colon and rectum cancer (ICD9, 152–154) England and Wales 1983 to 1992

  Year

  Small intestine (ICD9, 152) cases males

  Small intestine (ICD9, 152) cases females

  Colon (ICD9, 153) cases males

  Colon (ICD9, 153) cases females

  Rectum (ICD9, 154) cases males

  Rectum (ICD9, 154) cases females

  1983

  179

  180

  6,907

  8,667

  5,547

  4,636

  1984

  173

  171

  6,983

  8,611

  5,599

  4,569

  1985

  196

  176

  7,237

  8,992

  5,875

  4,649

  1986

  167

  172

  7,053

  8,876

  5,572

  4,523

  1987

  187

  172

  7,569

  9,237

  5,625

  4,566

  1988

  181

  193

  7,727

  9,403

  5,834

  4,586

  1989

  176

  199

  8,000

  9,347

  5,855

  4,715

  1990

  177

  190

  8,047

  9,355

  5,934

  4,502

  1991

  219

  185

  8,069

  9,403

  5,826

  4,441

  19921

  243

  213

  8,419

  9,790

  6,250

  4,745

  Note:

  1 Provisional Monitor MB1 97/1 Registrations of cancer diagnosed in 1992, England and Wales (1997).

  Source:

  ONS.
  240
  to ensure that the burden on publishers is reduced through greater selectivity and co-operation. The working group will therefore also be asked:
  (iv) To advise on the scope for developing the existing arrangements for the deposit of printed publications with a view to ensuring greater co-operation between the different legal deposit libraries, encouraging greater selectivity in the material claimed from publishers, and the scope for developing IT networking solutions which can in the longer term be used to reduced the statutory burden on publishers in complying with the deposit arrangements.

  In the light of the responses to the consultation paper, we are not convinced that there is a sufficient case for establishing an additional legal deposit library in Northern Ireland. Users of legal deposit material who live in Northern Ireland are able to gain access to it at the other legal deposit libraries. It would also take many years for an additional legal deposit library to build up a collection which would provide significant benefits to users.

  I have, however, asked the working group to include in its work under item (i) examination of the scope for improved access in Northern Ireland to deposited material through IT networking. A representative from Northern Ireland will be appointed to the working group.

  I have asked the Working Group to report to me on these matters within six months.

HEALTH

  Intestinal Cancer
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of people diagnosed with intestinal cancer over the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement on how this compares with other(a) Commonwealth and (b) EU countries. [24470]

  Mr. Milburn
  The number of people diagnosed over the last 10 years in England and Wales with cancers of the small intestine, colon and rectum is shown in table 1. Table 2 gives the figure for bowel cancer, a combination of the three cancers.
  241

  Table 2: Incidence of bowel cancer (ICD9 152–154) England and Wales 1983 to 1992

  Year

  Cases males

  Cases females

  Age standardised rates per 100,0001 males

  Age standardised rates per 100,0001 females

  Crude rate per 100,00 males

  Bowel (ICD9, 152–154) crude rate per 100,000 female

  1983

  12,633

  13,483

  32.9

  24.4

  52.2

  52.9

  1984

  12,755

  13,351

  33.0

  23.7

  52.6

  52.3

  1985

  13,308

  13,817

  33.8

  24.4

  54.6

  53.9

  1986

  12,792

  13,571

  32.3

  24.1

  52.3

  52.8

  1987

  13,381

  13,975

  33.7

  24.3

  54.5

  54.2

  1988

  13,742

  14,182

  34.2

  24.4

  55.8

  54.9

  1989

  14,031

  14,261

  34.5

  24.1

  56.7

  55.0

  1990

  14,158

  14,047

  34.5

  23.9

  56.9

  54.0

  1991

  14,114

  14,029

  34.3

  23.8

  56.5

  53.7

  1992

  14,912

  14,748

  35.8

  24.6

  59.4

  56.3

  1 Directly age standaridised using the world standard population.

  Source:

  ONS.

  The incidence of colorectal cancer is highest in developed countries in North America, northern and western Europe and New Zealand. The lowest rates are found in Africa and Asia. However, there are difficulties in the comparison of data where health care systems are less well developed and there is no comprehensive or standardised cancer registration system. Table 3 gives estimated incidence (1990) in the European Community for cancer of the colon and rectum.

  Table 3: Cancer of the colon and rectum estimated incidence European Community 1990

  Country

  Males

  Females

  Number of cases

  Age standardised rates per 100,000 population

  Number of cases

  Age standardised rates per 100,000 population

  Belgium

  2,641

  36.9

  3,034

  31.2

  Denmark

  1,566

  39.2

  1,648

  32.6

  France

  14,166

  35.1

  14,580

  26.2

  Germany

  21,362

  39.4

  27,809

  32.0

  Greece

  1,389

  18.2

  1,427

  15.8

  Ireland

  732

  35.5

  675

  27.5

  Italy

  12,285

  29.4

  12,489

  22.6

  Luxembourg

  107

  41.8

  104

  28.4

  Netherlands

  3,416

  35.0

  3,818

  29.3

  Portugal

  1,893

  29.0

  1,905

  21.9

  Spain

  6,697

  25.9

  6,962

  20.9

  United Kingdom

  13,941

  32.2

  14,721

  24.9

  European Community

  80,195

  32.2

  89,172

  25.5

  Source:

  Facts and Figures of Cancer in the European Community (IARC,1993).

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to advise health authorities to use recombinant blood products for haemophiliacs. [24670]

  Mr. Boateng
  In line with the recommendations of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee we have recently commissioned an assessment of the risks of possible human to human transmission of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease through blood and blood products. When we have the results of that assessment we will decide what further advice, if any, we should give.

  Commission for Health Improvement
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the public health responsibilities of the Commission for Health Improvement. [25004]

  Mr. Milburn
  We will consult on the role and responsibilities of the Commission for Health Improvement before bringing forward legislation.

  School Nurses
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on(a) regional and (b) locality variations in school nurse numbers. [25016]

  Mr. Milburn
  The number of school nurses is for employers to determine in the light of local needs and clinical priorities. Any future proposals authorities wish to make should be made in the light of the Green Paper on Public Health which will shortly be published.

  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the ratio of(a) school nurses to schools and (b) schools nurses to numbers of children; [25015]

  (2) how many school nurses, expressed as whole-time equivalents, were employed by the NHS in England in (a) 1990, (b) 1995, (c) 1996, and (d) 1997. [25012]

  Mr. Milburn
  School nurses employed by the National Health Service hospital and community health services are not separately identifiable from other community nursing staff within the non-medical workforce censuses conducted by the Department of Health after 1994. Consequently, figures for 1995 and 1996 are not available centrally. In addition to the number of school nurses, the table gives the numbers of schools and school children, as changes to the ratios can be the result of changes to these components as well as changes to the numbers of nurses.
  243

  NHS hospital and community health services nursing and midwifery staff (excluding agency and learners) working in the school nurse area of work, numbers of schools and numbers of pupils in England for 1990 to 1994

  Year

  Number of school nurses1

  Number of schools

  Number of schools per school nurse2

  Number of pupils (thousands)

  Number of pupils per school nurse1

  1990

  2,540

  27,385

  11

  7,401

  2,910

  1991

  2,460

  27,179

  11

  7,452

  3,020

  1992

  2,440

  26,956

  11

  7,541

  3,090

  1993

  2,470

  26,752

  11

  7,665

  3,100

  1994

  2,350

  26,442

  11

  7,700

  3,280

  Notes:

  1 Rounded to the nearest ten whole-time equivalents.

  2 Rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Figures for school nurses relate to the position at September each year, the figures for schools and pupils relate to the position at January each year.

  Ratios are calculated on unrounded figures.

  Sources:

  Department of Health's annual non-medical workforce census.

  "Statistics of Education: Schools in England" published by the Department for Education and Employment.

  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what national standards he has set for school health services; [25022]

  (2) what guidance he has issued to (a) purchasers and (b) commissioners of health provision on the employment of school nurses relating to (i) numbers and (ii) job descriptions. [25014]

  Mr. Boateng
  Good practice guidance,"Child Health Services—A Guide to Good Practice", was issued to the National Health Service in 1996. Copies are available in the Library.

  The exact job descriptions and numbers of school nurses are for local commissioners and employers to determine in the light of local needs and priorities.

  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the benefits of giving each school pupil access to a named school nurse. [25023]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are considering the terms of a new Patient's Charter to include the health care needs of children. The level of benefit to be gained by their having access to a named school nurse will form part of that consideration.

  Carbamazepine
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many unfavourable side-effects of the drug carbamazepine have been reported in the past 10 years; and if he will list them; [24996]

  (2) how many people have been treated with carbamazepine for medicinal purposes in the last five years; and how many cases of harmful side-effects have been reported. [24997]

  Mr. Milburn
  The number of patients prescribed carbamazepine is not available. The number of prescription items for carbamazepine dispensed in England from 1 January 1992 to 31 December 1996 (the last five years for which data are available) was 8.9 million. During this period, 672 suspected adverse drug reaction reports for carbamazepine were received by the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM).
  244
  A drug analysis print for carbamazepine, listing all suspected adverse drug reactions reported to the CSM from 1988 to 1997 inclusive will be placed in the Library, together with an information sheet to help with interpretation of the print.

DEFENCE

  Indonesian Military (Training Contracts)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which contracts to train Indonesian military personnel remain outstanding. [22907]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 8 July 1997,Official Report, column 422. I will, as promised then, write to the hon. Member once the review has been completed.

  Newsletter
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current security classification of the newsletter produced for the staff of(a) the Ships Support Agency, (b) the Ministry of Defence Police and (c) the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre; how often each newsletter is produced; and when each newsletter was first produced. [24508]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executives of the Agencies concerned. I have asked them to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from W. E. E. Boreham to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 28 January 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the publication of a newsletter for Ministry of Defence Police (MDP), as this falls into my area of responsibility, as Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency.
  My staff produce, every two months, an unclassified colour magazine, entitled Talk Through. The magazine was first produced in 1986.
  245
  Letter from Brigadier C. G. Holtom to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 28 January 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the publication of newsletters as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as the Chief Executive of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre Agency.
  The DISC does not currently produce a newsletter. However, as part of the preparations for the move of a number of units to form the DISC at its new site at Chicksands, unclassified leaflets were produced containing information for personnel and their families moving into the area. Six issues were produced between July 1996 and February 1997 covering such topics as housing, schools, public transport and leisure facilities.

  Letter from J. D. Coles to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 28 January 1998:
  I am reply to your Question to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence about the Ships Support Agency (SSA) newsletter as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the SSA.
  The current newsletter produced for SSA staff, titled 'Ships Telegraph', was first published in October 1995 following the formation of the Director General (Ships) organisation. This magazine has remained in circulation since the launch of the Ships Support Agency in December 1996 and continues to be published on a monthly basis.
  The security classification of 'Ships Telegraph' has always been, and remains, unclassified.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 482, (1) when discussions began in his Department concerning the non-statutory agreement with the Scottish Executive; on what dates discussions took place; and who was present at such meetings; [25589]

  (2) what representations he has received from other government departments concerning the format and aims of a non-statutory agreement between his Department and the Scottish Executive; if he will list the number of representations from each department; and if he will make a statement; [25592]

  (3) if he will publish the most recent drafts of non-statutory agreements with the Scottish Executive; when he proposes to publish the final document; and if the agreement will operate in the first instance for a trial period; [25590]

  (4) in what areas a non-statutory agreement between his Department and the Scottish Executive will give the lead role in policy formation to his Department; to what extent it will include mechanisms to harmonise policy between Scotland and his Department on devolved matters; and if he will make a statement. [25591]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: Discussions are being held between departments, both at official level and Ministerial level, on all matters relating to non-statutory agreements between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. In most cases,
  246
  these discussions are in their early stages in the light of the fact that such agreements cannot be finalised until the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive are established. Parliament will be kept informed of progress on these matters.

  Trident
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 480, if he will list the amounts in US dollars and pounds sterling paid to the United States in each of the US fiscal years from 1980 to date in support of the United Kingdom Trident programme; how much he expects to pay, in dollars and sterling, for each of the next five US fiscal years, to support the operations of the United Kingdom Trident programme; and if he will give dollar and sterling figures for each of the amounts cited in his answer; and if he will make a statement. [25487]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Payments to the United States in respect of the United Kingdom's Trident programme are made in US dollars and are largely made through the US Department of Defense. I am unable to provide a breakdown of payments by US Fiscal Year but cumulative expenditure during UK Financial years to 31 March 1997 through the Department of Defense on Trident was some $3,430 million, broken down as follows:

  $000

  Prior to 1986–87

  174,451

  1986–87

  51,295

  1987–88

  144,594

  1988–89

  229,274

  1989–90

  249,269

  1990–91

  270,359

  1991–92

  341,738

  1992–93

  418,354

  1993–94

  649,634

  1994–95

  432,502

  1995–96

  213,015

  1996–97

  255,135

  Total

  3,429.620

  In addition, lesser payments were made directly to US companies under contracts which were in place over a number of years. Such payments, again all in US dollars, amounted to some $194 million to 31 March 1997. Sterling values for the dollar expenditure varied according to exchange rates at the time.

  Expenditure in the United States in future years remains subject to Ministerial approval and will be dependent on the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review.

  The hon. Member will have noted that a misprint in my answer of 20 January 1998, Official Report, column 480, was corrected on 22 January, Official Report, column 1252. Both sums quoted were in US dollars. Expenditure

  247
  resulting from these commitments will fall across a number of years so equivalent sterling expenditure will vary dependent upon prevailing exchange rates.

  Helicopters (Civilian Rescue Work)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number, type and location of Royal Navy and Royal Air Force helicopters available for civilian rescue work in Scotland. [25982]

  Dr. Reid
  All MOD helicopters, depending on military commitments, are available to assist the civil community in an emergency situation. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force provide dedicated Search and Rescue helicopter cover for Scotland from the following locations:

  Service

  Location

  Type

  Number

  Royal Navy

  HMS Gannet, Prestwick

  Sea King

  2

  Royal Air Force

  RAF Lossiemouth, Morayshire

  Sea King

  2

  Royal Air Force

  RAF Boulmer, Northumbria

  Sea King

  2

  In addition, based in Scotland there are a further seven Sea Kings at HMS Gannet in the Anti-Submarine Warfare role and the Territorial Army have four Gazelles at RAF Leuchars. These helicopters may be supplemented by other MOD helicopters based elsewhere in the UK if necessary. This includes a Chinook helicopter at RAF Odiham and a Puma helicopters at RAF Benson, both on "national standby".

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 November 1997,Official Report, column 66, how many papers have been produced for conferences and other purposes since January 1994 by the AWE Directorate of Environment, Safety and Health; and how many of these are currently unclassified. [24803]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since October 1994, when a central register for such things was started, 11 unclassified papers by staff of the Directorate of Environment, Safety and Health have been through MOD clearance procedures for use at conferences or as MSc theses. As regards the total number of papers produced for conferences and other purposes since January 1994, I have nothing to add to the answers I gave on 17 November and 22 July 1997,Official Report, columns 66 and 529 respectively.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many special safety teams in respect of nuclear weapons accidents there are currently. [24510]
  248
  Dr. Reid
  The RAF has five station nuclear accident response teams (formerly called Special Safety Teams) that would provide immediate response forces in the event of a nuclear weapon accident. A similar capability is provided as an integral part of the escort for a nuclear weapon road convoy, and immediate response capabilities are also maintained by the Clyde Naval Base and the Atomic Weapons Establishment.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed within the Defence Export Services Organisation; what is the breakdown of their posts; and how many of the staff are employed in London. [24840]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are a total of some 687 personnel employed with the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO). Of these, a total of 478.5 are located in London. The posts are broken down in the following way:

  UK based

  Overseas

  Senior Civil Service grades

  12

  —

  Middle and senior management grades

  223.5

  33

  Non-mobile grades

  137

  9

  Locally engaged staff

  —

  34.5

  Staff on secondment from Industry

  2

  —

  Military Personnel

  163

  73

  Total

  537.5

  149.5

  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of staff of the Defence Export Services Organisation are seconded from defence manufacturers; and what functions they perform. [25669]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are currently two secondees from defence manufacturers working in the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO). One is the head of the organisation itself; the other is a middle manager seconded for one year to gain a general understanding of the work of DESO.

  Land Command
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his estimate of the additional staffing and administration costs of expanding Land Command United Kingdom's Scotland Headquarters to take command of both the Scotland and North of England districts; [25935]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 16 January 1998, Official Report, column 349, what estimate he has made of the redundancy costs which would be incurred with the closure of 2nd Division headquarters at York. [25934]

  Dr. Reid
  This kind of information will form part of the internal analysis of options to be considered during the study of the restructuring of Land Command. At this stage, therefore, I am withholding the information requested under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  249
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his Answer of 16 January 1998,Official Report, column 349, what other options are being studied by the Commander in Chief Land Command for the restructuring of his command. [25933]

  Dr. Reid
  We are prepared to consider any option which provides an efficient structure for the command and administration of the Army in the UK. At this stage it is too early to say whether any options will emerge other than that outlined in my earlier reply.

  Sir Arthur Harris
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to recognise the wartime service of Sir Arthur Harris; and if he will make a statement. [25726]

  Mr. Spellar
  The achievements of Sir Arthur Harris have been recognised by the bestowal of many highly valued honours and awards. He was awarded the Air Force Cross in 1918, the OBE in 1927 and the GCB in 1945. He was promoted to Marshal of the Royal Air Force in 1946 and Her Majesty The Queen conferred a Baronetcy upon him in 1953. He was further honoured in 1992 when his statue outside St. Clement Danes Church in The Strand was unveiled by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. There are no plans for further recognition.

  Armed Forces (Travel Allowances)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Her Majesty's forces' access to(a) indulgence travel, (b) free flights on posting, (c) leave travel at public expense and (d) other concessionary and privileged travel is restricted to serving personnel and their wife or husband and children; and what plans he has to extend (a) to (d) to other relationships. [25743]

  Dr. Reid
  Entitlement to Her Majesty's forces access to indulgence travel, free flights on posting, leave travel at public expense and other concessionary and privileged travel is restricted to serving personnel and their wife or husband and children.

  We have no plans at present to extend access to concessionary and privileged travel beyond Service personnel, their spouses and dependent children, but the situation is kept under review.

SCOTLAND

  Private Finance Initiative (NHS)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, for each of the major acute PFI schemes prioritised by his Department since May, he will(a) list the capital cost in the outline business case, (b) estimate the current cost and (c) state the percentage change. [21411]
  250
  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 18 December 1997]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  1

  2

  3

  4

  NHS Trust

  Capital cost in OBC1£ million

  Capital cost in OBC at current prices2£ million

  Latest estimated capital cost at current prices3 £ million

  Percentage change between columns 2 and 3

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  174.5

  186.5

  188.5

  1.1

  Law Hospital

  78.6

  84.9

  85.0

  0.0

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals

  52.4

  66.0

  66.1

  0.2

  1None of the projects prepared outline business cases (OBCs) since the projects were initially developed along the lines of public funding. Figures have been taken from the nearest equivalents.

  2 Figures in column 1 have been uplifted to current prices using the BCIS index (to 4th Quarter 1997).

  3 Figures are gross of sales of surplus land and include the costs of land (except in the case of the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh), construction and professional fees but exclude the cost of equipment (other than items which are supplied and fixed under the terms of the construction contract), VAT, rolled up interest and financing costs. Figures are based on current prices.

  The capital cost of a scheme in the OBC (or equivalent) is not necessarily comparable with the capital cost of the facility provided under the PFI. The capital cost in the OBC is based on the scheme being funded from limited public capital whereas under PFI the same constraints on capital do not exist. PFI allows Trusts to develop schemes which transfer risks from the public sector to the private sector and offer the best value for money to the taxpayer.

  Only the projects that prove to be affordable to the healthcare planners, value for money to the taxpayer and offer real healthcare improvements to the public will proceed under PFI.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the numbers and percentage rates of 18 to 25-year-olds unemployed in(a) November 1997, (b) May 1997 and (c) May 1996 in the local authorities of (i) Angus, (ii) City of Dundee and (iii) Perthshire and Kinross. [23833]

  Mr. Wilson
  ONS measures unemployment using the internationally standard ILO unemployment rate. This is measured through the Labour Force Survey, which is a survey of households in the United Kingdom. This is internationally agreed and counts the number of people who are:(a) without a paid job; (b) available to start work within the next two weeks and (c) have actively sought work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.

  The ONS also publishes the monthly claimant count, which is based on the administrative system and includes all people claiming unemployment-related benefits (i.e. Jobseekers Allowance or National Insurance credits) at Employment Service offices on the day of the monthly count, who on that day had signed on as unemployed and available to do any suitable work.
  251
  The data requested, which can be derived only from the claimant count due to the sample size of the labour force survey, are presented in the table. Information on rates by age is not available.

  Claimant count unemployed aged 18 to 241 2

  Angus

  Dundee City

  Perth and Kinross

  (a) November 1997

  655

  1,633

  575

  (b) May 1997

  835

  1,765

  675

  (c) May 1996

  965

  2,184

  805

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Notes:

  1Information for those aged 18 to 25 is not readily available.

  2 Excludes clerical claims, which represent about 1 per cent. of all claims. A full analysis of the age and duration data is available quarterly (January, April, July and October).

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he will ensure that each eligible child who had a nursery place under the voucher scheme will have a similar place at the centre of their parents' choice, under the new arrangements. [22081]

  Mr. Wilson
  I published on 27 November 1997 a major consultation paper,Education in Early Childhood: The Pre-school Year, which sets out the Government's vision of the way forward for pre-school education in Scotland after vouchers are discontinued in June 1998. The policy set out in the consultation paper has been widely welcomed, and I look forward to the detailed responses from many quarter which have already begun to come in, in advance of the end of the consultation period on 6 February.

  Under the new arrangements, pre-school education grant will be available to support a part-time place for every child in the pre-school year whose parents want one. Local authorities, accountable to their local electorates, will have the lead role in planning and delivering pre-school education in partnership with centres in the private and voluntary sectors, and will be able to use their local knowledge to ensure that places are well matched to local circumstances, to the varied needs of children, and to the preferences of parents, at the same time securing the best value for public money. All centres in receipt of grant will be required to implement the same curriculum guidelines and will be liable to inspection by HM Inspectors of Schools to ensure a high quality of education.

  E.coli
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the reasons for the reduction in charges in the case of John Barr Butchers and the E.coli deaths in Wishaw. [25234]

  Mr. McLeish
  Criminal prosecutions are a matter for my right hon. noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate. I understand that the Procurator Fiscal consulted Crown Counsel before agreeing to accept pleas of guilty which were offered on behalf of the firm of John. M. Barr and Son in respect of two charges under the Food Safety Legislation and to drop two other, less serious, charges against the firm and the three charges against the 252
  partners in the firm. The charges in respect of which the firm pleaded guilty reflected the most serious offences which were charged in the case, namely those involving E.coli 0157 contamination. The Lord Advocate is satisfied that acceptance of the pleas tendered was in accordance with the interests of justice.

  Social Work Services
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, by local authority, the level of charges levied on residents in receipt of the social work care services broken down by service item. [25605]

  Mr. Galbraith
  This information is not held centrally.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) by what means he has made public the change in the ownership structure relating to the Skye Bridge; and if he will make a statement; [25452]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the compliance of the change in the ownership structure relating to the Skye Bridge with the concession agreement; and if he will make a statement. [25998]

  Mr. Dewar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Tuesday 27 January 1998.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electrical Goods
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what plans she has to implement the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's proposals for the retail of domestic electrical goods; [25729]

  (2) what representations she has received on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission proposals to abolish recommended retail prices within the domestic electrical goods market. [25730]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend announced her proposals for implementing remedies following the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on domestic electrical goods on 30 July 1997. These were subject to a public consultation.

  Many representations have been received and are under consideration. My right hon. Friend will announce her final decision as soon as possible.

  ESF and ERDF Budgets
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what instructions have been given to Regional Office North West on the need to underspend on ESF and ERDF budgets for the period 1994 to 1996. [24693]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: I have asked for this matter to be looked into and I am informed that no instructions were given.

  Internet
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her Department's policy on the recent policy statement from the European Commission relating to the principle of self-regulation of the Internet industry. [24003]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: The Government welcome the Commission's Communication "Action Plan on promoting safe use of the Internet" (COM(97)582 final). The fight against illegal content needs to be based on the effective action of industry, backed up by the full force of existing law.

  Bankruptcy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many discharged bankrupts have had their pensions seized as a result of the judgment in the Landau case. [25058]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The judgment in the Landau case provided judicial clarification of the provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 as to the rights of a trustee in bankruptcy and a bankrupt to the benefits arising from a retirement annuity contract, similar in nature to a personal pension, held by a bankrupt at the date of bankruptcy.

  The information as to the number of discharged bankrupts whose pensions have been seized by trustees in bankruptcy under the Insolvency Act 1986 is not held centrally.

  Press Releases
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the procedure for her Department issuing press releases following agreement being reached under a carecraft order for the disqualification of a director. [24105]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 20 January 1998]: The usual practice is to issue a press release in cases where a disqualification order is made against a director following a carecraft agreement.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Public Bills
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Council if she intends to make it the general practice of Government to publish the notes on clauses which accompany public bills; and if she will make a statement. [25489]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  Notes on clauses are already produced by departments for most Bills. In future, as the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House reported recently (Second Report 1997–98 HC 389), it is intended that notes on clauses will be combined with the existing explanatory memoranda and published as a single document with each Bill. It is hoped that draft Bills published this session and Bills introduced next session will be accompanied by the new style explanatory notes. This is in line with the suggestion the Government and First Parliamentary Counsel put to the Modernisation 254
  Committee and which was endorsed in their recent report on the proposed explanatory notes on Bills (Second Report 1997–98 HC 389).

  Legislation
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the President of the Council if Her Majesty's Government will in future, when drafting legislation, make use of purpose clauses making clear the intentions of Parliament. [25524]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  There are some circumstances when the use of purpose clauses is appropriate, but the Government share the views of the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation in 1975 that they should be used "selectively and with caution" and the Hansard Society Commission on the Legislative Process in 1992 that"they should not be used as a general practice".
  The Government intend, through the publication of better explanatory material on Bills, to make clearer the background to legislation at the time it is introduced into Parliament. The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has recently reported on the proposed explanatory notes on Bills (Second Report 1997–98 HC 389).

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Judicial Committee
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in relation to its role as final court of appeal for Commonwealth countries and UK dependencies. [25506]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council hears appeals and applications for leave to appeal from the final courts of appeal of those independent Commonwealth territories which have retained the appeal to the Privy Council upon attaining independence, and the dependent territories. The Committee also hears appeals from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the number of cases dealt with by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in each of the last 10 years; and if she will make a statement. [25577]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has heard the following number of appeals and applications for leave to appeal in each of the last 10 years:

  Year

  Appeals

  Petitions

  1998

  43

  50

  1989

  63

  47

  1990

  64

  47

  1991

  53

  54

  1992

  54

  65

  1993

  59

  63

  1994

  68

  55

  1995

  69

  69

  1996

  85

  99

  1997

  82

  82

  255
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in reviewing legislation from the parliaments of(a) UK dependencies, (b) the Isle of Man and (c) the Channel Islands. [25507]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has no jurisdiction to review the legislation of the Parliaments of UK dependencies, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands other than in its appellate capacity in particular cases.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Council if she notifies potential purchasers of obsolete information technology equipment sold by her Department that such equipment may not be millennium compliant. [25656]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  Sales of redundant information technology equipment by my department are infrequent, but any future potential purchaser of non-millennium compliant equipment would be warned accordingly.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Civil Service Staff
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Attorney-General what proportion of Civil Service staff of grade 5 and above within his Department(a) have spent their entire civil service career within his Department, (b) have had secondments to (i) the private sector and (ii) other departments and (c) have come from other departments. [26028]

  The Attorney-General
  My Departments comprise the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers (LSLO), the Treasury Solicitor's Department (TSD) and its agency the Government Property Lawyers (GPL), the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

  The information requested is given in percentages and is as follows:

  (a)

  (b)(i)

  (b)(ii)

  (c)

  LSLO

  0

  0

  0

  100

  TSD

  34

  0

  15

  51

  GPL

  60

  0

  0

  40

  SFO

  25

  12.5

  25

  75

  CPS

  84

  0

  5

  11

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Entitlement
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many individuals have had their benefit entitlements reviewed under the Benefit Integrity Project; and how many, as a result, have had their benefit(a) reduced and (b) stopped. [23521]
  256
  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is to re-build 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 Benefits Integrity Project.

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. James Plaskitt, dated 27 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding how many individuals have had their benefit entitlements reviewed under the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP); and how many, as a result, have had their benefit (a) reduced and (b) stopped.
  At 30 November, a total of 33,490 cases had been examined of which 6,953 have been changed. Of these changes, 2,232 have been disallowed, 3,880 reduced and 841 increased. Figures for the period to 31 December and subsequent months will be placed in the House of Commons library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Severe Hardship Claims Unit
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has for the future of the severe hardship claims unit; and if she will provide further funding when its budget ends in March 1998. [24011]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Social Security are currently considering the future location of the Severe Hardship Unit.

  The funding for the Severe Hardship Claims Unit for 1998–99 has been agreed.

  School Leaving Dates
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she plans to alter the child benefit extension period school leaving dates to bring these regulations into line with the Education (School Leaving Date) Order 1997; and if the existing rules will still apply in Scotland where there has been no change to school leaving dates; [24012]

  (2) how many school leaving dates there will be per year in future for the purposes of child benefit regulations in the case of young persons who leave relevant education after the terminal date based on their date of birth. [24014]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Education (School Leaving Date) Order 1997 relates only to children in England and Wales who are approaching the end of their compulsory full-time education. There is no necessity for any change to the regulations governing the Child Benefit Extension Period, which apply to school leavers aged 16 or 17 throughout Great Britain.

  From September 1997, children in England and Wales who reach age 16 during the academic year are required to remain in full-time education until the end of the summer term. Those who choose to remain in education beyond compulsory school leaving age may leave at any time.
  257
  Child Benefit Regulations prescribe three fixed dates on which Child Benefit may cease for a child leaving full time education. These are the first Monday in January, the Monday after Easter and the first Monday in September. When a child leaves school at the end of the summer term, Child Benefit may continue up to the first Monday in September, providing the child does not start work or youth training and the other conditions of entitlement are met.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how benefit entitlement will be affected in the case of a young person educated in Scotland who moves to England or Wales after being entitled to leave school under Scottish law, but who is still too young to have left in England or Wales. [24013]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The benefit entitlement of a person who has legally left school in Scotland will not be affected if they move to England or Wales before they would be able to legally leave school in that country. This is because the date that a person legally leaves school in Scotland will continue to be used to decide when young people cease being treated as a "child" for benefit purposes, regardless of which part of Great Britain they claim in.

  Civil Service Staff
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of Civil Service staff of grade 5 and above within her Department(a) have spent their entire civil service career within her Department, (b) have had secondments to (i) the private sector and (ii) other departments and (c) have come from other departments. [26035]

  London Borough

  Workshop owned by Local Authority

  Workshop owned by a voluntary body acting as a voluntary agent for a LA

  Workshop owned by a volunatary body

  Remploy factory

  Barking

  —

  —

  —

  Barking

  Brent

  Carlyon

  Royal London Society for the Blind

  —

  Cricklewood

  Croydon

  Crosfield

  —

  —

  —

  Ealing

  —

  —

  —

  Acton

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  Woolwich

  Haringey

  Haringey

  —

  —

  —

  Islington

  —

  General Welfare for the Blind

  Mencap Office Services

  Holloway

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  Brixton

  Newham

  Newco

  —

  —

  —

  Southwark

  —

  Action for Blind People Royal Society for the Blind

  Camberwell Rehabilitation Association

  —

  I hope this is helpful.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC (Religious Discrimination and Harassment)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the annual incident of religious discrimination within the RUC for the period 1991 to 1996 in respect of officers of(a) Catholic and (b) Protestant origin. [22350]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The estimated percentage, as taken from the recent Religious and Political Harassment and Discrimination Survey of
  258
  Mr. Field
  Of the total number of staff in the Senior Civil Service currently employed in the Department:19 per cent. have spent their entire Civil Service career within this Department. This includes people who joined the Department from the private sector;
  28 per cent. have had a secondment or loan to an organisation outside UK central government;
  27 per cent. have had a secondment or loan to another UK Government Department;
  28 per cent. have transferred to this Department from another Government Department.

  Notes:

  1. Information as at 28 January 1998.

  2. Percentages are subject to rounding.

  Disablement Workshops
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disablement workshops there are in each London borough authority area. [24534]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 28 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your question about the number of disabled workshops in each London Borough Authority area. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as the Employment Service Chief Executive.
  The Employment's Service's Supported Employment Programme provides employment for severely disabled people who would not otherwise be able to obtain or retain employment. The Programme provides funding for the following workshops for disabled people in the London Boroughs:

  the annual incidence of religious discrimination within the RUC for the period 1991–96 in respect of Catholic and Protestant origin is as follows:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Catholic

  13.2

  13.6

  13.0

  11.3

  10.5

  9.2

  Protestant

  2.5

  3.2

  3.4

  4.5

  4.8

  4.6

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the extent of under-reporting of incidents of religious discrimination
  259
  within the RUC; what assessment she has made of the causes of under-reporting; and what improvements to procedures she proposes. [22351]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: A total of 66 per cent. of the 4,357 respondents to the recent Religious and Political Harassment and Discrimination Survey indicated they ignored or did nothing as a result of being subjected to religious or political discrimination.

  The survey indicated the following reasons why respondents (4,357) did not report religious/political discrimination.

  Per cent.

  Didn't think anything would be done

  57

  Didn't want to damage career

  46

  No proof of discrimination

  45

  Didn't want to be victimised

  38

  Didn't know what to do

  12

  The RUC has introduced a number of measures to encourage officers to come forward. These include:

  (a) The installation of a Confidential Helpline in the Equal Opportunities Unit and an extensive poster campaign promoting the Helpline.

  (b) The introduction of Harassment Support Officers at local level.

  (c) Poster campaigns.

  (d) Increasing the accessibility of the Equal Opportunities Unit through Divisional and Sub-Divisional roadshows.

  (e) Continual input on Equal Opportunities matters in all recruit, probationer, further and divisional training courses.

  These measures are continually under review for their effectiveness.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will identify by rank those persons responsible for religious discrimination in respect of RUC officers of(a) Catholic and (b) Protestant origin since 1991. [22352]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: This information is not currently available.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the extent of under-reporting of incidents of religious harassment within the RUC; what assessment she has made of causes of under-reporting; and what improvements to procedures she proposes. [22662]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: Records are not available to estimate the extent of under-reporting of incidents of religious harassment within the RUC.

  The RUC has introduced a number of measures to encourage officers to come forward. These include:

  (a) The installation of a Confidential Helpline in the Equal Opportunities Unit. This was followed by an extensive poster campaign promoting the Helpline.

  (b) The introduction of Harassment Support Officers at local level.

  (c) Poster campaigns.

  (d) Increasing the accessibility of the Equal Opportunities Unit throughout Divisional and Sub-Divisional roadshows.

  260

  (e) Continual input on Equal Opportunities matters in all recruit, probationer, further and divisional training courses.

  These measures are continually under review for their effectiveness.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what definition of religious discrimination has been used by the RUC in its internal reports; and what estimate has been made of the extent to which officers of(a) Catholic and (b) Protestant origin perceive religious discrimination to be a problem. [22724]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The RUC defines religious discrimination as follows:
  Direct discrimination means treating a person less favourably on the grounds of religion or political opinion, than the person of another religion or political opinion is or would be treated in similar circumstances.
  Indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion and political opinion occurs when an unjustifiable requirement or condition is applied equally to all religious and political groups but has a disproportionately adverse effect on members of a particular group and it is to the complainant's detriment that the requirement or condition cannot be complied with.

  The table reveals the perceived extent of religious/political discrimination within the RUC as taken from the recent Religious and Political Harassment and Discrimination Survey (4,357 respondents).

  Perception of religious discrimination in the RUC

  Roman Catholic

  Protestant

  There is no religious discrimination within the RUC

  47 (11 per cent.)

  480 (14 per cent.)

  Religious discrimination is now more of a problem

  35 (8 per cent.)

  500 (15 per cent.)

  Religious discrimination is now less of a problem

  191 (43 per cent.)

  1,193 (36 per cent.)

  Religious discrimination has remained unchanged

  90 (20 per cent.)

  561 (17 per cent.)

  Don't know/no reply

  80 (18 per cent.)

  607 (18 per cent.)

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the annual incidence of religious harassment within the RUC for the period 1991 to 1996 in respect of officers of(a) Catholic and (b) Protestant origin. [22660]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The estimated percentage of the annual incidence of religious harassment within the RUC for the period 1991–96 in respect of Catholic and Protestant origin as taken from the recent Religious and Political Harassment and Discrimination Survey is as follows:

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Roman Catholic

  25.9

  29.1

  26.3

  24.6

  25.4

  27.9

  Protestant

  2.8

  3.1

  3.6

  4.0

  4.7

  5.2

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will define behaviour that would constitute religious harassment within the RUC. [22661]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The recent Religious/Political Harassment and Discrimination Survey referred to religious/political harassment as —'unwanted conduct' based on religious belief or political opinion affecting the rights of people at work. This

  261
  harassment may take the form of serious assaults, physical gestures, jokes, banter, offensive language, circulation of notes or letters, or visual displays of offensive materials.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will identify by rank those persons responsible for religious harassment experienced by RUC officers of(a) Catholic and (b) Protestant origin. [22663]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: This information is not readily available in the format requested and would incur disproportionate cost to provide.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate how many current RUC officers of(a) Catholic and (b) Protestant origin have been the subject of religious discrimination. [22349]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The recent Religious and Political Harassment and Discrimination Survey indicated that of those officers who responded, approx 12 per cent. of Roman Catholics and 3 per cent. of Protestants felt that they had experienced religious discrimination at some time in their careers.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate how many current RUC officers of(a) Catholic and (b) Protestant origin have been the subject of religious harassment during their careers. [22659]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The recent Religious and Political Harassment and Discrimination Survey indicated that of those officers who responded 29 per cent. of Roman Catholic and 3 per cent. of Protestants felt they had experienced religious harassment at some time in their careers.

  RUC (Sexual Discrimination and Harassment)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate how many current(a) female and (b) male RUC officers have been the subject of sexual harassment. [22422]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The 1996 Sexual Harassment Survey indicated that of those who responded, approximately 45 per cent. of female and 4 per cent. of male officers felt that they had experienced sexual harassment at some time in their careers.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the annual incidence of sexual harassment within the RUC for the period from 1991 to 1996 in respect of(a) female and (b) male RUC officers. [22423]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The estimated percentages of the annual incidence of sexual harassment, as taken from the 1996 Sexual Harassment Survey, within the RUC for the period 1991–95 in respect of male and female officers are as follows:

  Gender

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Female

  13.5

  13.9

  16.8

  16.8

  14.1

  Male

  0.7

  0.5

  1.0

  0.8

  0.9

  262
  The Survey covered only the 5-year period up to 1995.

  The number of complaints of sexual harassment received during 1996 were—male 1, female 27.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the extent of under-reporting of incidents of sexual harassment within the RUC; what assessment she has made of possible causes of under-reporting; and what improvements to procedures she proposes. [22425]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: Records are not currently available to estimate the extent of under-reporting of incidents of sexual harassment within the RUC.

  The RUC has introduced a number of measures to encourage officers to come forward. These include:

  (a) The installation of a Confidential Helpline in the Equal Opportunities Unit. This was followed by an extensive poster campaign promoting the Helpline.

  (b) The introduction of Harassment Support Officers at local level.

  (c) Poster campaigns.

  (d) Increasing the accessibility of the Equal Opportunities Unit throughout Divisional and Sub-Divisional roadshows.

  (e) Continual input on Equal Opportunities matters in all recruit, probationer, further and divisional training courses.

  These measures are continually under review for their effectiveness.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate how many(a) female and (b) male RUC officers have been the subject of sexual discrimination during their careers. [22427]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: It is not possible for the RUC to estimate how many officers perceive themselves to be the subject of sexual discrimination.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the annual incidence of sexual discrimination within the RUC for the period from 1991 to 1996 in respect of(a) female and (b) male officers. [22428]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: The following table illustrates the number of cases of sexual discrimination within the RUC reported to the Equal Opportunities Unit for the period 1991–96.

  Gender

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Female

  4

  9

  0

  6

  3

  4

  Male

  4

  4

  2

  8

  6

  7

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the extent of under-reporting of incidents of sexual discrimination within the RUC; what assessment she has made of the possible causes of under-reporting; and what improvements to procedures she proposes. [22429]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: It is not possible for the RUC to estimate the extent of under-reporting of incidents of sexual discrimination

  263
  within the RUC. However the RUC has introduced a number of measures to encourage officers to come forward. These include:

  (a) The installation of a Confidential Helpline in the Equal Opportunities Unit. This was followed by an extensive poster campaign promoting the Helpline.

  (b) The introduction of Harassment Support Officers at local level.

  (c) Poster campaigns.

  (d) Increasing the accessibility of the Equal Opportunities Unit throughout Divisional and Sub-Divisional roadshows.

  (e) Continual input on Equal Opportunities matters in all recruit, probationer, further and divisional training courses.

  These measures are continually under review for their effectiveness.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if she will identify by rank those persons responsible for sexual discrimination in respect of(a) female and of (b) male RUC officers since 1991; [22430]

  (2) if she will identify by rank those found responsible for sexual harassment within the RUC since 1991. [22426]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: This information is not readily available and would incur disproportionate cost to provide.

  RUC (Equal Opportunities Unit)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will set out the(a) terms of reference, (b) key objectives and (c) measures of gauging the effectiveness of the Equal Opportunities Unit within the RUC. [22353]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 January 1998]: (a) The terms of reference for the RUC Equal Opportunities Unit are as follows:

  To ensure equality of opportunity in all areas including:

  Application

  Selection

  Training

  Promotion

  Deployment and any other areas.

  (b) The objectives of the RUC Equal Opportunities Unit are as follows:

  (1) To emphasise the force's commitment to equality of opportunity.

  (2) To ensure that recruitment methods and selection procedures are fair and free from bias.

  (3) To provide equal access to opportunities for promotion.

  (4) To ensure equal treatment in deployment.

  (5) To provide equal access to opportunities for transfer.

  (6) To provide access to opportunities for transfer.

  (7) To promote equality of opportunity through the implementation of positive action measures.

  (8) To investigate all job requirements and remove those which are unjustifiable.

  (9) To ensure all conditions of service are non-discriminatory.

  (10) To examine all initiatives which facilitate members to combine domestic and work commitments.

  (11) To deal with complaints of discrimination promptly and fairly.

  264

  (12) To implement systems to monitor the provision of equality of opportunity in the force.

  (c) The nature of the work of the Equal Opportunities Unit makes it difficult to measure the effectiveness of the Unit however the Unit reports tri-annually to the Fair Employment Commission and is also subject to regular inspection from Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary

  IT Equipment
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is her Department's policy regarding the recycling of information technology equipment within her Department and relevant agencies and to other Government departments or agencies; and what arrangements have been made in this respect. [23279]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 21 January 1998]: The policy of Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office on the recycling of redundant, but serviceable, information technology equipment is to relocate the equipment within the Department concerned and its Agencies. If this is not possible the equipment is offered to other Northern Ireland Departments and their Agencies.

TREASURY

  EU Finance Ministers
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the council meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union held on 19 January. [24943]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I chaired the Economic and Finance Council—ECOFIN—of the European Union in Brussels on 19 January. The Economic Secretary represented the UK.

  I began by introducing my work programme to the Council, amplifying on the priorities I had previously indicated to them by letter (a copy of my letter to colleagues has been placed in the Library of the House). This session took the form of an open debate, and the Commission and other colleagues responded to my presentation, welcoming the Presidency's aims. During this discussion we touched on the financial situation in Asia, as well as my aims for economic reform in the Union, the preparations for Stage 3 of EMU, the economic and financial aspects of enlargement, and the need for budget discipline and increased vigilance against fraud and financial mismanagement in the context of the EC Budget.

  The Council considered the implementation of the Italian convergence programme, following up its conclusions in July of last year calling for a report to the Council once concrete budgetary measures had been defined in the 1998 Budget Law. Further Council Conclusions were agreed.

  The FISIM Regulation (Financial Intermediation Services Indirectly Measured) was agreed by simple majority.

  Oil and Gas Rigs
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on tax relief levels relating to oil and gas rig decommissioning; and what estimate he has made of the likely tax disbursements in respect of such decommissioning over the next 30 years. [24785]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Qualifying costs of decommissioning oil and gas installations are allowable for Petroleum Revenue Tax (PRT) purposes. They also attract a special 100 per cent. capital allowance for Corporation Tax (CT) purposes. The level of tax relief available for decommissioning the installations of a field therefore depends on the extent to which the field has paid PRT and the companies which own it pay CT.

  The Department of Trade and Industry currently estimates that the total costs of decommissioning existing offshore installations over the next 25 years could be in the region of £7 billion to £10 billion at today's prices. On average, about half those costs are expected to be met from the Exchequer by way of tax relief.

  Taxation
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many married couples would pay higher-rate tax if independent married women's tax was withdrawn and they were taxed jointly. [24957]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This would depend on what assumptions were made about the operation of joint taxation.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what receipts would be generated by(a) taxing child benefit at the basic rate, (b) taxing child benefit at the higher rate and (c) means-testing maternity benefits. [25007]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information on the taxation of child benefit for 1998–99 is given in the table.

  Yield in a full rear (£ million)

  Child benefit taxed as:

  Father's or lone mother's income at

  (a) basic rate1

  1,200

  (b) higher rate2

  1,400

  Mother's or lone father's income at

  (a) basic rate1

  675

  (b) higher rate2

  700

  1 Benefit taxed at 20 per cent for taxpayers only paying lower rate of tax and at 23 per cent. for all other taxpayers.

  2 Benefit taxed at taxpayer's marginal rate.

  The effect of means testing Statutory Maternity Pay and other maternity benefits would depend on the precise system of means testing. Statutory Maternity Pay is liable to tax in the same way as other earnings.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Inland Revenue classifies child benefit as a tax relief paid in cash. [24958]

  Mr. Darling
  Child Benefit is classified in the national accounts as General Government Expenditure.
  266
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated amount of tax forgone by the Treasury since the introduction of independent married women's taxation. [24955]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that such an analysis could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Self-Assessment
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Daventry of 1 July 1997,Official Report, column 112, what is his current estimate of the cost to the Inland Revenue of publicity in support of the move to self-assessment. [24739]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: Since the launch of the Self-Assessment public information programme in June 1995 about £19.5 million has been spent informing taxpayers of the changes.

  Banking Sector
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement concerning the banking sector, with particular reference to the status of the remaining building societies which have not converted to banks. [24987]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 23 January 1997]: The United Kingdom has a very successful banking sector, in which building societies continue to play an important part, providing mortgages and other financial services to millions of their members. The Government are aware how widespread the contribution of mutual is to the UK economy, through the competitive products offered by mutual insurers and friendly societies and through the competitive rates which building societies offer for savers and borrowers.

  Higher Personal Tax Allowance
  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how much additional taxation would have been raised in 1997–98 if the higher personal tax allowance for(a) people aged 65 to 74 years and (b) people aged 75 years and over had been abolished. [25746]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated full year yields at 1997–98 income levels from abolishing the age related personal allowance would be £470 million for those aged 65 to 74 years and £330 million for those aged 75 years and over. These figures represent the excess of the aged personal allowance over the non-aged personal allowance.

  VAT on Fuel
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total cost of reducing VAT on fuel to 5 per cent; and how much of this sum will accrue to each decile of the income distribution. [24683]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The cost of reducing VAT on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. is estimated to be £485 million in 1998–99. This is split between income deciles in the table together with the gain to households as a percentage of their net income.

  267

  Income decile

  Cost (£ million)

  Percentage of net household income

  Bottom

  45

  0.30

  2

  45

  0.20

  3

  45

  0.20

  4

  45

  0.15

  5

  45

  0.15

  6

  45

  0.10

  7

  50

  0.10

  8

  50

  0.10

  9

  55

  0.10

  Top

  60

  0.05

  Average

  485

  0.10

  The information is based on Family Expenditure Survey data. The cash in the table has been rounded to the nearest £5 million. The percentages have been rounded to the nearest 0.05 per cent.

  EU Programmes (Underspends)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a breakdown of each of the underspends on EU programmes which provided the £400 million distributed to pensioners in the July 1997 Budget. [25247]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: The saving on the UK's net contribution to the EC which my right hon. Friend announced in November reflected the difference between the forecast of net payments to EC Institutions in the previous Government's expenditure plans for 1997–98 and the actual net payments the Government now expects to make for 1997–98, which are based on more recent information. The saving was therefore not directly derived from specific items of underspending in the EC Budget; indeed the previous forecast published in November 1996 Financial Statement and Budget Report had assumed an element of underspending.

  That said, underspending in the main areas of the EC Budget in 1996 was as follows:

  Fund

  Mecu

  EAGGF

  2,284

  Structural Operations

  1,394

  Training etc., Energy etc., internal market and research

  722

  External action

  985

  Administration

  578

  Source:

  Diagram VIII of the European Court of Auditor's report on the 1996 Community Budget.

  The 1996 underspend was reflected in reductions in the contributions actually made by Member States in 1997.

  Duty Free
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), of 1 December 1997,Official Report, column 94, on duty-free trade, if he will list the steps which duty and tax free shops in UK airports with only limited non-European Union international flights can take to adapt to the removal of intra-European Union duty free; and if he will make a statement. [25210]
  268
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: The current extension of the intra-EU duty free regime to 30 June 1999 was agreed by the Council of Finance Ministers, in 1991, so as to allow duty free operators time to adjust and explore alternative ways of carrying on the business.

  Following abolition, operators currently engaged in intra-EU duty free trade who wish to carry on their business will have to adopt their operations to dealing in goods on a duty and tax paid basis.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the impact of the abolition of intra-European Union duty free on(a) the viability of European flights from Scottish and regional United Kingdom airports, (b) employment in Scottish and regional United Kingdom airports and (c) the cost of European flights from Scottish and regional United Kingdom airports. [25209]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: I have received a number of representations from various airport authorities within the United Kingdom including Scotland. These representations include, among other things, the viability and cost of European flights and the effect on employment.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to press for a continuation of duty-free sales within the European Union until there has been an equalisation of alcohol duties between the member states of the European Union; what plans he has to discuss this issue with European Treasury ministers in the course of the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [25208]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: The Government have no plans to use the UK Presidency to press for a continuation of duty free sales. However, the UK will not stand in the way of any proposal for a Commission study particularly if this were also to examine the nature of any successor regime to duty free. The equalisation of duties and taxes was not a factor in the decision taken by the Council of Finance Ministers towards the end of 1991 to allow duty-free shopping to continue after 1 January 1993 to 30 June 1999.

  Barristers and Solicitors (Taxation)
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research he has commissioned into the effect that the proposed removal of the cash basis income tax system for banisters and self-employed solicitors will have upon (i) the financial viability of the Bar and solicitors' profession, (ii) individuals in legal practice and (iii) the public's access to justice; and if he will publish it. [25763]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: The Inland Revenue issued a press release on 22 December 1997 inviting comments on the proposal to withdraw the cash basis practices available to professional businesses. The responses will enable the Government to identify those affected and allow them to explain the effect of the proposal. The responses received will then be considered as in any consultative exercise.
  269
  If anyone wishes to make representations and has not already done so, these should be sent not later than 14 February 1998 to: Crispin Taylor, Inland Revenue, Business Profits Division, Room 439, 22 Kingsway, London WC2B 6NR.

  Pre-paid Funerals
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that pre-paid funerals are subject to regulation by the new Financial Services Authority. [24800]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 21 January 1998]: The Government plan to ensure that consumers who purchased their funerals in advance are adequately protected. I am urgently considering how this can best be achieved.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  International Criminal Court
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on the establishment of an International Criminal Court, indicating whether Her Majesty's Government will provide financial support to help create such an institution. [25525]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The December 1997 session of the Preparatory Committee made good progress on negotiating a Statute for the International Criminal Court. However, many issues have yet to be resolved. At the next session in March and at the Diplomatic Conference in June-July we will work actively to advance the negotiations so that a Treaty can be signed at the end of the Conference. Through the EU we have contributed funds to assist Governments of Least Developed Countries to participate in the Conference.

  South Africa
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with South Africa. [25645]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The relationship thrives on many levels. The UK is South Africa's largest trading partner; there are close political links across a wide range of issues; we have a major development programme in South Africa; and cultural and sporting ties abound and have expanded since the 1994 changes. Recent highlights included President Mandela's two visits to the UK last year, the Prince of Wales's visit to South Africa in November, and Deputy President Mbeki's visit to London for the first meeting of the UK/South Africa Bilateral Forum.

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 469, what representations he has received from other Government Departments concerning the format and aims of a non-statutory agreement between his Department and the
  270
  Scottish Executive; if he will list the number of representations from each Department; and if he will make a statement; [25588]

  (2) in what areas the non-statutory agreement between his Department and the Scottish Executive will give the lead role in policy formation to his Department; to what extent it will include mechanisms to harmonise policy between Scotland and his Department on devolved matters; and if he will make a statement; [25587]

  (3) if he will publish the most recent drafts of non-statutory agreements with the Scottish Executive; when he proposes to publish the final document; and if the agreement will operate on a trial basis; [25586]

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1998, Official Report, column 469, when discussions began in his Department concerning the draft non-statutory agreement with the Scottish Executive; on what dates discussions took place; and who was present at such meetings. [25585]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: Discussions are being held between departments, both at official level and Ministerial level, on all matters relating to non-statutory agreements between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive. In most cases, these discussions are in their early stages in the light of the fact that such agreements cannot be finalised until the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive are established. Parliament will be kept informed of progress on these matters.

  Argentina (Arms Embargo)
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there have been any recent exceptions to the arms embargo on Argentina. [26529]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have recently granted an exception to the embargo relating to the sale of spare parts for the Argentine icebreaker, the Almirante Irizar. This represents an exception but not a change to the embargo.

  Geneva Conventions
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the ratification of the additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions. [26530]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I am pleased to be able to inform the House that the United Kingdom instruments of ratification of the two Additional Protocols of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the Protection of War Victims are today being deposited with the Swiss authorities in Berne.

  The necessary legislation, the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Act 1995, received the Royal Assent on 19 July 1995.

  A copy of the note accompanying the instrument of ratification has been placed in the Library of the House. The note contains the statements made by the United Kingdom on ratification of Additional Protocol I on International Conflicts. In most cases these reflect similar statements made by the United Kingdom on signing Protocol I in 1977.
  271
  I wish to draw the attention of the House in particular to the statement concerning nuclear weapons, which is in the following terms:
  "It continues to be the understanding of the United Kingdom that the rules introduced by the Protocol apply exclusively to conventional weapons without prejudice to any other rules of international law applicable to other types of weapons. In particular, the rules so introduced do not have any effect on, and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons."

  Statements to similar effect have been made by NATO partners and others when ratifying Protocol I. They reflect the basis upon which the Conference which drew up Additional Protocol I took place and statements made at the Conference by the United Kingdom delegation among others.

  I would also draw the attention of the House to statement (m) on Articles 51 to 55 and statement (n) on Articles 56 and 85, paragraph 3c. These statements reserve our right to threaten reprisals if attacks were launched against our own civilians or civilian targets and remove the virtual immunity under the Protocol for attacks on dams, dykes and certain nuclear facilities such as nuclear power stations, even when they are a significant part of the enemy's war effort. Both reservations have been drafted with great care to show that these would be measures of last resort, to be decided upon only if all else had failed, and requiring high level authorisation. Our actions would still be subject to the classic rule of proportionality.

  I would also draw the attention of the House to statement (d) concerned with Article 1, paragraph 4 and Article 96, paragraph 3, which extend the application of the protocol to armed conflicts
  "in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination."

  To guard against the possibility that terrorist organisations may seek to misuse these provisions the statement makes clear that the term "armed conflict" is understood as denoting something clearly beyond the commission of ordinary crimes including acts of terrorism, and that the United Kingdom will not be bound, in relation to any situation in which the United Kingdom itself is involved, unless it expressly recognises the adversary as genuinely an authority representing a people engaged in an armed conflict of the type referred to in these Articles.

  In accordance with the powers conferred in Section 7 of the 1957 Geneva Convention Act, as amended by Section 4 (7) of the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) act 1995, the Government will certify in an Order in Council the terms of the statements made on ratification.

  Article 90 of Additional Protocol I establishes an International Fact-finding Commission and provides that the High Contracting Parties may at the time of ratification or subsequently declare that they recognise, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the Commission to inquire into allegations by such other party of facts alleged to be a grave breach or serious violation of the Conventions or the Protocol. The Government intend to make a declaration of acceptance of the competence of the Fact-finding Commission. It will be necessary first
  272
  to bring before the House legislation to confer upon the members of the Commission and their staff the necessary privileges and immunities.

  Algeria
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have been held by his Department and British Embassy staff in Algiers with representatives of oil or gas companies operating in Algeria; and what was discussed at these meetings. [26016]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We hold regular discussions with British energy companies that operate in Algeria, as we do with many British companies who have major interests abroad. The agenda usually covers the political situation including security and human rights, and economic developments.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he and his Ministers have held with the French Government in respect of policy towards Algeria. [26013]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We hold regular discussions with the French Government on many aspects of foreign policy at all levels, both bilaterally and in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union. Algeria is one of the subjects discussed.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he and his ministers have held with the Organisation of African Unity concerning the situation in Algeria. [26020]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There have been no such recent discussions.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the proposals from the EU Troika to restore human rights in Algeria; and if he will make a statement. [26015]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Troika's proposals to the General Affairs Council concentrated on improving dialogue between the EU and Algeria, on encouraging greater transparency on the part of the Algerian authorities and on encouraging democratisation, including through parliamentary exchanges. These measures will help in improving the situation of the Algerian people. They were approved by the General Affairs Council on 26 January.

  Roma People
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings he had with representatives of human rights groups and Roma peoples during his visit to the Czech Republic. [26019]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary did not hold any meetings with representatives of human rights groups or Roma organisations during his visit to Prague in November. He discussed the situation of the Czech Roma minority in his meetings with President Havel and the Czech Foreign Minister as well as raising the issue in a speech at the Bohemia Foundation. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that the Czech Government needed to address those issues which led the Roma to believe they had no future in the Czech Republic.

  Arms Embargoes
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all arms embargoes currently implemented by the United Kingdom, indicating their scope; and if he will make a statement. [26140]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Kingdom currently enforces eighteen arms embargoes. Under the United Nations Charter, we have a legally binding obligation to enforce arms embargoes imposed by the Security Council under Article 41 of the Charter. Other embargoes are imposed on a national basis or following agreement within the European Union (EU) or the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (formerly CSCE).

  Under UK law, binding UN embargoes are implemented by prohibiting the export of goods and technology on the Military List which forms Part III to Schedule 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended. In addition, the supply of such items from the UK or supply abroad by UK registered companies and nationals is prohibited by Orders in Council under the United Nations Act 1946. From time to time, the contents of the Military List may change, for example, to reflect technological advances or continuing international efforts to counter the proliferations of weapons of mass destruction. Orders in Council extend such embargoes to the Crown Dependencies and the Dependent Territories. A licence is required for each export or supply from the UK or abroad by a UK registered company or national.

  National embargoes and those agreed in the EU and the OSCE prohibit only the export of goods covered by the embargo. With the exception of the embargoes on China and Iran, the UK interprets the scope of all such embargoes to cover goods and technology on the Military List as defined above.

  There are currently seven binding UN arms embargoes:
  Angola (a), Iraq (b), Liberia (c), Libya (d) Rwanda (e), Somalia (f) and Sierra Leone (g).

  There are currently seven EU embargoes:
  Afghanistan (h), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (i), Burma (j), China (k), Nigeria (1), Sudan (m) and Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire) (n).

  The UK currently implements two embargoes as a result of decisions by the OSCE:
  Armenia (o) and Azerbaijan (p).

  There are currently two national embargoes:
  Argentina (q) and Iran (r).

  I shall keep the House informed of current arms embargoes and their scope on a yearly basis. All new embargoes or any amendments to existing embargoes will be announced at the time. We shall also shortly be laying in the Library of the House a revised list of all UK policy commitments to control strategic exports, including embargoes. An updated version will be laid in the Library annually (or more frequently if policy change requires a revision). This statement will also be used to inform British industry.
  274
  Footnotes:

  (a) Implemented in the UK on 1 October 1993. Products covered by the scope of the embargo can be supplied through named points of entry on a list provided by the Government of Angola;

  (b) Implemented in the UK on 9 August 1990 as part of comprehensive trade sanctions;

  (c) Implemented in the UK on 22 July 1993;

  (d) Implemented in the UK on 15 April 1992 as part of a range of sanctions (following an EU arms embargo imposed on 14 April 1986);

  (e) Implemented in the UK on 24 June 1994. The embargo does not apply to the sale or supply of arms and related material if under licence to the Government of Rwanda. But it does cover the sale or supply of arms and material to persons in States neighbouring Rwanda (i.e., Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo) if that sale or supply is for the purpose of the use of such arms or material within Rwanda;

  (f) Implemented in the UK on 22 July 1993;

  (g) Implemented in the UK on 1 November 1997;

  (h) Implemented in the UK on 17 December 1996;

  (i) Implemented in the UK on 26 February 1996. This embargo does not extend to transfers of equipment need for demining activities;

  (j) Implemented in the UK on 29 July 1991;

  (k) Implemented in the UK on 26 June 1989 (although a national embargo was announced on 6 June 1989). In the absence of agreement amongst EU partners on its scope, interpretation of the embargo was left to national discretion. The UK interprets this embargo to include:

  lethal weapons such as machine guns, large calibre weapons, bombs, torpedoes, rockets and missiles;

  specially designed components of the above, an ammunition;

  military aircraft and helicopters, vessels of war, armoured fighting vehicles and other such weapons platforms; and

  any equipment which is likely to be used for internal repression

  (l) Implemented in the UK on 20 November 1995 (although a
  national embargo was announced on 11 November 1995);

  (m) Implemented in the UK on 15 March 1994;

  (n) Implemented in the UK on 7 April 1993;

  (o) Implemented in the UK on 28 February 1992;

  (p) Implemented in the UK on 28 February 1992;

  (q) Implemented on 3 April 1982;

  (r) Implemented on 1 March 1993. In addition to the Military List as defined above, the scope of this embargo also covers items entered in Group 0 in Annex 1 of European Council Decision 94/942/CFSP on the export of dual-use goods, as amended.

  There are two exceptions to this embargo:

  goods essential for the safety of civil aircraft and air traffic control systems;

  radioactive material in the form of sources for medical equipment and deuterium labelled compounds for medical use.

  Licences are not approved for any equipment where there is knowledge or reason to suspect that it would go to a military end-user or be used for military purposes. The exception is equipment which would not normally require an export licence but is deemed licensable under the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) end-use control and where WMD concerns are not subsequently substantiated.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Political Parties
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the funding and registration of political parties. [26514]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are committed to reforming the system of party funding. On 12 November 1997, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by Lord Neill, to review issues in relation to the funding of political parties and recommend any changes in present arrangements. At that time, it was the Government's intention to legislate in this Session to deliver our manifesto commitment to ban foreign funding of political parties and to demand disclosure of donations above £5,000.

  Since then, Lord Neill and the members of his Committee have reached the view that it would be preferable for the Government not to proceed with the funding aspects of proposed legislation at the same time. In a letter to me, dated 26 January, Lord Neill explained why he is particularly concerned about simultaneous consideration of these issues by Parliament and the Committee.

  In response, I have therefore decided not to introduce legislation on the funding of political parties in this Session of Parliament. I have placed in the Library a copy of Lord Neill's letter, together with a copy of my reply.

  Lord Neill has made it clear that the Committee is considering not whether the Government's two specific manifesto commitments should be fulfilled, but how best to do so. The Government remain firmly committed to legislate in this area and will bring forward proposals in the light of the recommendations of the Neill Committee. This will enable us to bring forward a comprehensive and effective package of measures.

  The registration of political parties is necessary to enable the electoral systems proposed for the European Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to function effectively and to deal with misleading descriptions on ballot papers. I intend to introduce the Bill on this subject later in this Session.

  Asylum Seekers (Algeria)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions he or his Ministers or officials have held with the UNHCR on the situation facing people seeking refuge from Algeria; and if he will make a statement; [26007]

  (2) what discussions he has held with the Refugee Council, the Refugee Legal Centre, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and others concerning the situation facing asylum seekers from Algeria; and if he will make a statement. [26006]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In the six-month period between 1 July and 31 December 1997, a total of 435 applications for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, were lodged by nationals of Algeria. During the same period, a total of 265 decisions, excluding dependants, were made on asylum applications lodged by Algerian nationals. Of these, 80 (30 per cent.) were to grant asylum,276
  five (2 per cent.) were to refuse asylum but grant exceptional leave and 180 (68 per cent.) were to refuse both asylum and exceptional leave.

  Provisional data indicate that, during the period 1 July to 31 December 1997, a total of 68 Algerian asylum seekers were removed or made voluntary departures from the United Kingdom. Of these, a total of 13 persons, who had been refused asylum in the United Kingdom, were removed to Algeria. During the same period, a further five asylum seekers were recorded as having made a voluntary departure to Algeria. Many of the others have been removed, or have made voluntary departures, to safe third countries. The available data exclude any in-country applicants who make a voluntary departure prior to the initiation of enforcement action.

  All asylum applications are considered in accordance with the United Kingdom's international obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, and the risk to the individual is assessed on its merits. In addition, if the granting of asylum is not appropriate, consideration is given to whether there are compelling humanitarian reasons to grant permission to remain in the United Kingdom exceptionally. In cases of applications from Algerian citizens, particular care is being taken in the light of the current situation in Algeria.

  Both Ministers and officials receive and take account of advice and information from the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on this. Information provided by non-governmental organisations is regularly reviewed by the Country Information and Policy Unit of the Asylum Directorate. Although no specific meetings have been held to discuss the situation in Algeria with members of the various refugee groups, such as the Refugee Council, they have expressed their concerns to Ministers in a wider context. In addition, we have invited a number of organisations closely connected with the asylum determination process to discuss country information issues.

  The cases of all rejected asylum seekers from Algeria will be reviewed individually just before removal, in the light of detailed advice from UNHCR, and to take account of the latest information and advice from other sources. No one will be returned to Algeria unless it is reasonable to believe that they could be so safely. A declaration of upheaval under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 will be made if the situation in Algeria is such as to constitute an upheaval throughout the country.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Algerian asylum seekers are currently held in detention under immigration law; and if he will make a statement on his policy in this respect. [26008]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A total of 53 Algerian nationals who had sought asylum at some stage were recorded as being detained solely under Immigration Act powers as at 5 January 1998 (port cases) and 6 January 1998 (after entry cases). Detention is used sparingly and only where there are good grounds for believing that a person will not comply with the terms of temporary admission, regardless of nationality.
  277
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1990(a) the number of asylum applications by Algerian nationals, (b) number granted asylum, (c) the number given exceptional leave to remain, (d) the number returned to Algeria and (e) the number removed to other countries. [26009]

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have had their applications refused and been returned to Algeria during the last six months. [24580]

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications have been received from Algerians over the past six months; and what percentage of these have been successful. [24842]

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will review the treatment of asylum seekers from Algeria; [25916]

  (2) what plans he has to declare Algeria a country of upheaval under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. [25917]

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom from nationals of Algeria, excluding dependants, initial decisions2,3, and removals/voluntary departures, for the years 1990 to 1997

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Asylum applications1

  25

  45

  150

  275

  995

  1,865

  715

  715

  Decisions2.3

  5

  5

  20

  140

  440

  745

  1,880

  765

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  *

  n/a

  *

  10

  20

  15

  30

  105

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain

  5

  *

  5

  10

  10

  10

  15

  5

  Total refused

  *

  5

  10

  115

  410

  720

  1,835

  655

  Removals

  n/a

  n/a

  25

  51

  90

  145

  198

  162

  port4.5

  n/a

  n/a

  14

  18

  37

  84

  101

  86

  in country6.7

  n/a

  n/a

  11

  33

  43

  61

  97

  76

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5 with "*"= 1 or 2 and n/a = not available.

  2 Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications made in same year.

  3 Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions

  4 Includes any voluntary departure up to and including notification of the decisionon the asylum application but excludes any subsequent departure.

  5 Data for 1995 to 1997 taken from December 1997 extract of the ALU system.

  6 Includes removals under enforcement powers and those departing voluntarily following enforcement action but excludes all other voluntary departures.

  7 Data for 1995 to 1997 taken from December 1997 extract of the HOMES system.

  Police Raids
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will institute an inquiry into the leak to a journalist of explicit details of some of the targets of police raids on 21 November 1997 initiated by the Paedophile Unit of the Metropolitan Police. [25776]

  Mr. Michael
  This is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. He tells me that a full investigation is going on. Wiltshire Constabulary tell me it has also conducted its own internal inquiry into this matter. As I understand it from the Commissioner, the role of the Metropolitan Police was to
  278
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is given in the table.

  I regret that comprehensive data on the final destination of those Algerian asylum seekers removed from the United Kingdom since 1990 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, a recent exercise indicated that, of the 68 Algerian asylum seekers who were removed (or departed voluntarily) between 1 July and 31 December 1997, 13 were removed to Algeria and a further five were recorded as having made a voluntary departure to that country. Many of the others have been removed, or have made voluntary departures, to safe third countries. These data are provisional and exclude any in-country applicants who make a voluntary departure prior to the initiation of enforcement action.

  Asylum Seekers (Roma People)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings there have been between representatives of Roma people from the Czech and Slovak republics and Ministers or officials from his Department during the past year. [26017]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None, but I have spoken to refugee groups who have dealings with the Roma people from the Czech and Slovak Republics.

  act as a facilitator in the co-ordination of intelligence in the raids. The raids involved staff from eight police forces.

  Civil Service Staff
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of Civil Service staff of grade 5 and above within his Department(a) have spent their entire civil service career within his Department, (b) have had secondments to (i) the private sector and (ii) other departments and (c) have come from other departments. [26029]
  279
  Mr. Straw
  There are 135 members of the Senior Civil Service (SCS) currently in post within my Department and its agencies. This includes eight SCS members who are currently on loan to the Home Office from other Departments.

  Of the 127 SCS members with a Home Office background:

  (a) 79 (62 per cent.)1 have spent their entire career within the Home Office, including the agencies. (Of these, 34 (27 per cent.)1 have spent their entire career within the Department, excluding the agencies);

  (b) 48 (38 per cent.)1 have, whilst in the senior grades, spent time away from the Department either on secondment to the private sector or on loan to other Departments.

  Currently there is:

  (i) one member of the SCS on secondment to the private sector; and

  (ii) 22 (17 per cent.)' on loan to other Departments.

  (c) 8 SCS members are currently on loan to the Home Office from other Departments.

  1 Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours training are given to prison officers and prison custody officers at each of the privately managed prisons prior to taking up their duties; and if he will make a statement. [25049]

  Ms Quin
  The number of hours of initial training received by prison officers at directly managed prisons and by prisoner custody officers (PCOs) at each of the privately managed prisons is:

  Prison officers at directly managed prisons

  312 hours training at the Prison Service College and 117 hours induction and familiarisation at the prison

  PCOs, Her Majusty's Prison (HMP) Altcourse

  347 hours initial training at the prison

  PCOs, Her Majesty's Prison (HMP) Blakenhurst

  320 hours initial training at the prison

  PCOs, Her Majesty's Prison (HMP) Buckley Hall

  309 hours initial training at the prison

  PCOs, Her Majesty's prison (HMP) Doncaster

  280 hours initial training at the prison

  PCO, Her Majesty's Prison (HMP) Parc

  350 hours initial training at the prison

  PCOs, Her Majesty's Prison (HMP) Wolds

  320 hours initial training at the prison

  In all cases at contractually managed prisons there is additional training reflecting the specific nature of the tasks to be undertaken by individual members of staff.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the salary maxima and minima for(a) prison officers, (b) prison custody officers working in the Greater London area and (c) prison custody officers in each of the privately managed prisons; and if he will make a statement. [25118]
  280
  Ms Quin
  The annual salary for prison officers is £14,863 minimum up to £20,499 maximum; in addition there are three rates of London Weighting and London Supplement as follows:

  London Weighting (£)

  London Supplement (£)

  Inner

  1,776

  508

  Intermediate

  1,015

  330

  Outer

  736

  264

  The annual salary for basic grade prisoner custody officers at privately managed prisons is as follows:

  £

  Prison

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Altcourse

  13,000 flat rate1

  Blakenhurst

  13,500

  15,370

  Buckley Hall

  13,000

  13,860

  Doncaster

  13,500

  15,312

  Parc

  14,000 flat rate1

  Wolds

  13,000

  16,807

  1 A single flat rate of pay is currently paid to prisoner custody officers at Her Majesty's Prison Altcourse and Her Majesty's Prison Parc because the prisons opened on 1 December 1997 and 17 November 1997 respectively.

  There are no privately managed prisons in the Greater London area, but the annual salary for basic grade prisoner custody officers employed on the court escort and custody service in the Metropolitan Police District is £11,501 minimum rising to £15,065 maximum.

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 513, what representations he has received from Government Departments concerning the format and aims of a non-statutory agreement between his Department and the Scottish Executive; how many representations were received from each department; and if he will make a statement. [25510]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have received no such representations. There can be no agreement between the Home Office and the Scottish Executive until the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive are established. Parliament will be kept informed of progress on these matters.

  Parc Prison, Bridgend
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs have been incurred by the Prison Service in respect of unoccupied prisoner places ordered from the managing contractor at Her Majesty's Prison Parc, Bridgend; when he expects the prison to be fully occupied; and if he will make a statement. [25048]
  281
  Ms Quin
  Her Majesty's Prison Parc, Bridgend, opened with the provision of 50 available prisoner places on 17 November 1997, four weeks ahead of programme.

  In the first four weeks of operation, the prisoner population at Parc increased in line with the contractual programme of 50 per week. During the four-week period commencing 15 December 1997, the number of prisoners sent to Parc by the courts dropped significantly as a result of the usual seasonal downturn over the Christmas/new year period, which resulted in an overall fall of about 2,400 in the number of prisoners held in England and Wales. Some prisoners were transferred to Parc from Cardiff and Swansea prisons but, because overcrowding had reduced nationally, it was decided on operational grounds not to disrupt prisoners by transferring them over long distances during December to prisons where there were vacancies or where population pressures were much lower, such as Her Majesty's Prison Parc.

  The prisoner population at Parc is now building up at a rate agreed between the Prison Service and the contractor, and full occupancy of 800 places is expected to be achieved no later than the week commencing 23 March 1998.

  The cost to the Prison Service of unused places at Parc, from opening date to 21 January 1998 inclusive, is £368,000.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were electronically tagged in 1997; and what was the total cost. [25434]

  Ms Quin
  During 1997, curfew orders enforced by electronic monitoring were imposed on 516 men and 49 women. Of these, 11 men and three women had two separate curfew orders imposed on them during the year.

  Because of considerations of commercial confidentiality, it would not be appropriate to publish details of the payments made to contractors which are the major part of the costs of curfew orders enforced by electronic monitoring.

  However, we estimate that the average cost of a curfew order enforced by electronic monitoring would be around £1,900, if the scheme were available throughout England and Wales.

  Television Licence (Fine Defaulters)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people served a prison sentence during 1997 for television licence fine default; and if he will make a statement. [25433]
  282
  Ms Quin
  Provisional information indicates that 234 people (173 males and 61 females) were received into prison during 1997 in default of payment of a fine for using a television without a licence.

  Security Service Files
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 520, on Security Service files, what central guidance on the preservation of records of likely historical interest is currently being given to the Director General of the Security Service in addition to the requirements of the Public Records Act 1958. [25438]

  Mr. Straw
  The Security Service seeks guidance from the Public Record Office (PRO) as it deems necessary. The PRO has recently approved the criteria used by the Service in identifying records of historical interest.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1998,Official Report, columns 519–20, whether individuals who were or later became hon. Members and/or Ministers will automatically have their Security Service files preserved in accordance with the criteria that they were individuals involved in important historical events. [25439]

  Mr. Straw
  As I made clear in my reply of 20 January 1998 Official Report, columns 519–20, each file reviewed by the Security Service is examined individually and considered on its merits against the criteria currently in force.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 December,Official Report, columns 548–50, on immigration cases, how many of the applications for leave to apply for judicial review made in 1996 and 1997, but recorded as having lapsed, were (a) refused on the papers and not renewed, (b) granted leave but no notice of motion was subsequently lodged and (c) withdrawn or otherwise not proceeded with. [24963]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that this information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how any applications for leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in respect of a refusal of asylum were made in 1997; how many such applications were determined in 1997; and how many such applications were(a) granted and (b) dismissed; [25124]

  (2) how many appeals to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in respect of a refusal of asylum were (a) made and (b) determined in 1997; and how many such appeals were (i) allowed, (ii) dismissed and (iii) withdrawn; [25126]

  (3) how many appeals against a refusal of asylum were made to and determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appeals Authority in 1997; and how many such appeals were (a) allowed, (b) dismissed, (c) withdrawn and (d) referred to the Secretary of State for further consideration. [25127]
  283
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Table 1: Asylum appeals made to and determined by the adjudicators of the Immigration Appeals Authority, 19971

  Number

  Appeals received in the Home Office

  20,950

  Appeals determined by the IAA2

  21,090

  of which:

  Allowed3

  1,135

  Dismissed3

  18,255

  Withdrawn3

  1,660

  Without foundation appeals referred to Secretary of State for further consideration3

  40

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2.

  2, Source: Lord Chancellor's Department.

  3 Breakdown based on Asylum Directorate data.

  Table 2: Applications for leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in respect of a refusal of asylum, 19971,2,3

  Number

  Applications for leave to appeal

  9,160

  Applications decided4

  8,470

  of which:

  Granted4

  1,560

  Refused4

  6,910

  Withdrawn4

  *

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2.

  2 Source: Lord Chancellor's Department.

  3 Excludes applications for leave to appeal made by the Secretary of State.

  4 Estimates based on LCD data and adjusted to excluded applications made by the Secretary of State.

  Table 3: Appeals to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in respect of a refusal of asylum, 19971,2,3

  Appeals received4

  1,570

  Total determined

  805

  of which:

  Allowed

  55

  Dismissed

  305

  Withdrawn

  —

  Remitted to adjudicators for further consideration

  445

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2.

  2 Source: Lord Chancellor's Department.

  3 Excludes appeals lodged by the Secretary of State.

  4 Estimate based on LCD data and adjusted to excluded appeals lodged by the Secretary of State.

  Fire Services (London)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the current provision of fireboat services on the River Thames; and what plans he has to review it; [25227]

  (2) what are the criteria for establishing at which emergencies it is appropriate to call on fireboat services. [25228]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Fireboat services form part of the pre-determined attendance for known riverside risks and large scale riverside incidents. This might include riverside fires or those in vessels, mid-stream collisions 284
  or assistance in pumping water from the River Thames for firefighting purposes. The provision of such services is a mater for the fire authority.

  Fireboat services in London are currently provided by a boat called the London Phoenix with another boat, the Fire Hawk, in reserve. The brigade has recently reviewed its arrangements with a view to improving the effectiveness of its response on the River Thames. In accordance with section 19(4) of the Fire Services Act 1947, the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority has sought my right hon. Friend's approval to change the way the service is provided in future. This would be based on the use of smaller, more flexible craft.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) pumping and (b) special appliances were on operational duty with the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority on 1 Janaury 1998. [25235]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I understand from the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority that 177 pumping appliances and 47 special appliances were operational in London on 1 January 1998. The number of special appliances has since been reduced by one as the fireboat tender has been damaged and is not currently in service.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new targets he proposes to set for the performance of the Probation Service. [24972]

  Ms Quin
  The probation service key performance indicators (KPIs) and the targets that have been set for them in 1998–99 are shown below. These KPIs will apply throughout 1998–99 but are subject to review following the Comprehensive Spending Review:

  KPI Definitions

  Targets

  KPI 1

  The actual reconviction rates for persons subject to community orders by type of order compared with the predicted rates

  To lower the actual reconviction rates for all types of order and achieve rates lower than those predicted

  KPI 2

  The proportion of supervision cases where the first contact with offenders is within national standards time limits

  80 per cent, for probation orders, 80 per cent, for Community Service orders, and 90 per cent, for licences

  KPI

  The proportion of relevant supervision cases in which breach action is taken in accordance with national standards requirements (on or before a third unacceptable failure)

  90 per cent.

  KPI 4

  The proportion of pre-sentence reports (PSRs) completed in the timescale set down by the commissioning court

  95 per cent.

  KPI 5

  The proportion of welfare reports completed within 10 weeks of receipt of papers by the service

  95 per cent.

  285

  KPI Definitions

  Targets

  KPI 6

  The proportion of magistrates satisfied with

  (a) 90 per cent.

  (a) the work of the service overall (a) and (b) the overall usefulness of PSRs

  (b) 90 per cent.

  KPI 7

  Unit costs:

  (a) unit cost per PSR

  £400

  (b) unit cost per welfare report

  £900

  (c) annual unit cost per community order: probation order

  £1,750

  Community Service order

  £1,300

  supervision order

  £1,200

  combination order

  £3,350

  (d) annual unit cost of Automatic Conditional Release licences

  £1,050

  KPI 8

  The proportion of bedspaces in approved hostels which are occupied

  83 per cent

  Casino Licences
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of casino licenses. [25005]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My right hon. Friend is responsible for regulations prescribing in which area casinos may operate: within those areas individual licence applications go to the local licensing authorities.

  We have been considering the previous Government's proposals for adding some 20 new permitted areas to the 53 existing ones. We expect to make our views known shortly.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the workings of the Data Protection Act 1984; and if he will make a statement. [25327]

  Mr. George Howarth
  A Data Protection Bill to give effect to the 1995 European Communities Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) was introduced in the House of Lords on 14 January. This Bill repeals and replaces the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Remand Prisoners (Self-Harm)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 January,Official Report, column 66, on incidents of self-harm among remanded 15 and 16-year-olds, in how many of the reported incidents of self-harming carried out by 15 and 16-year-olds on remand a F2052 SH self-harm at risk form had been opened prior to the incident of self-harm. [25929]

  Ms Quin
  Of the 17 reported incidents of deliberate self-harm among remanded 15 and 16-year-olds during the calendar year 1997, five had an F2052 SH self-harm at risk form opened prior to the incident of self-harm.

  Immigration Advisers
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the firms and advisers dealing with asylum and immigration cases who will be excluded from the official register of authorised immigration advisers. [25800]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We will consider whether or not to set up a register of authorised advisers when we have responses to the consultation paper which we published on 22 January.

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Records
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will open for public inspection at the Public Record Office files concerning the machinery of Government with the classmarks CAB 134/2024 and CAB 134/2025. [24506]

  The Prime Minister
  The files in question have been retained by the Cabinet Office on grounds of national security. They were last reviewed in 1995 to see if they could be released but that review confirmed the need to continue to withhold them. They will be reviewed again at regular intervals and when no longer sensitive will be released.

  Poor Countries
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he made to the Japanese Government to support the Chancellor's initiative to relieve the debt of highly indebted poor countries. [25409]

  The Prime Minister
  The Chancellor raised the issue in a meeting with Japanese Finance Ministry representatives prior to my visit to Tokyo. The subject has been also raised in a number of the other recent meetings between the British and Japanese Governments, most recently during the visit of the Secretary of State for International Development to Japan. My colleagues and I continue to press all members of the international community to support the objectives that my right hon. Friend outlined in Mauritius at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister what limits he has placed on the costs incurred by Ministers travelling with their spouses or partners to be borne by the Exchequer. [25424]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: All my Ministers are required to be cost-conscious when arranging their travel plans, irrespective of whether they are accompanied or not. Public funds may only be used when it is clearly in the public interest.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if he was informed of the details of the agreement reached by the Paymaster General with the power generators to ensure more British coal is burned in the second quarter of 1998. [25425]
  287
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: I am fully aware, as are interested colleagues, of the role played by the Paymaster General in facilitating discussions between the generators and coal companies and the outcome of those discussions.

  Ministers (Tax Affairs)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances he would remove from office a Minister whose tax affairs were under investigation. [25766]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: It is the longstanding practice that Ministers may only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 January. [24112]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. Later today I shall have further such meetings.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will assess the advantages and disadvantages of extending the national minimum wage to British-financed and British-managed aid projects overseas. [23867]

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will assess the advantages and disadvantages of applying the United Kingdom national minimum wage to foreign workers employed on projects funded with British aid. [23877]

  Mr. Foulkes
  There is obviously no plan to extend Britain's national minimum wage world-wide but we are working to promote respect for the International Labour Organisation's core labour standards throughout the world.

  Southern Africa
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures she is taking to strengthen the links between the European Community and the Southern Africa Development Community. [23868]

  Clare Short
  The UK Presidency will work to conclude the trade and co-operation agreement between South Africa and the European Union. We are also helping to prepare a joint seminar to help the Southern African Development Community (SADC) to benefit from globalisation and to increase the effectiveness of EU development assistance. There will be a SADC/EU Ministerial meeting later this year.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what are her priorities for aid to southern Africa. [23881]
  288
  Clare Short
  My priority across the region is to put the White Paper into practice. We will work with others to implement the international development targets through sustainable economic and social development, helping build and maintain efficient and accountable government and securing fair access to international markets for Southern African trade. Country programmes will be agreed with development partners and we will seek to co-ordinate our work more effectively with other donors.

  Students (Asia)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the impact on the financial circumstances of students from Asian countries studying at UK universities, of the recent economic difficulties in Asia. [23869]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Detailed information on the impact of the recent economic difficulties in Asia on the financial circumstances of students from these countries is not available. It is likely to vary depending on individual students, country of origin, and source of funding.

  However, students funded by UK Government scholarship schemes should not experience financial difficulty as their fees, stipends and allowances are paid here in the UK in Sterling. Any cases of hardship will be dealt with on an individual basis.

  La Francophonie
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with La Francophonie on international development issues. [23870]

  Clare Short
  I plan to meet Mr. Josselin, who is the French Development Minister, for the third time in February. French, Canadian and British officials will meet shortly to discuss closer co-operation with La Francophonie.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she plans to visit Bosnia and Herzegovina to discuss aid to that region; and if she will make a statement. [23872]

  Clare Short
  I plan to visit Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1–4 February to consider how best my Department can support reconstruction and strengthen our efforts to encourage refugee return and reconciliation.

  Child Poverty
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the Government's plans for tackling child poverty. [23874]

  Clare Short
  Every child has the right to enjoy basic health care, education, nutrition and shelter. Many millions of children in the world do not yet enjoy these rights. Support for the provision of these services for children, along with sustainable livelihoods for their parents, is a central part of my Department's work to meet the international poverty eradication targets. Enjoyment of these rights also means ensuring children are protected
  289
  from violence and abuse and participate in decisions which affect their lives. This includes support to the speedy eradication of intolerable forms of child labour.

  Sanctions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to her answer of 10 December 1997,Official Report, column 615, what progress she is making in her review of the impact of sanctions on poor people. [23878]

  Clare Short
  The initial findings of the Department for International Development's internal review are still under consideration. I will write to my hon. Friend when the review has been completed.

  Company Donations
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proposals she has to encourage private sector companies to make financial donations to help alleviate poverty or develop the economy in under-developed countries. [23879]

  Clare Short
  Many private sector companies already use part of their profits for community programmes as well as matching their employees contributions to charities. Companies with operations in developing countries often make direct contributions in addition to the benefits they bring through their business activities. Some outstanding examples were recently recognised through the WorldAware Business Awards.

  We are consulting with private sector representative on how we can identify the replicate best practise and how we can encourage more inward investment.

  We are working with businesses and NGOs to encourage respect for ethical and environmental standards. The growth in ethical investment and consumer movements has great development potential.

  Poverty
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department takes to encourage employers in developing countries to pay wage levels to their employees which would help eradicate poverty in those countries; and if she will make a statement. [23880]

  Clare Short
  We made clear in our White Paper that we are working for the world wide acceptance of core labour standards. This includes a commitment to the principle that workers must be suitably rewarded for their work. We are promoting this in several ways, including through the ILO where we have recently agreed to provide resources for their More and Better Jobs for Women Programme.

  In November I approved a contribution to help set up the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) which will bring together the private sector, development NGO's and unions to work on the codes of practice many companies have for the goods they import. The codes incorporate ILO core standards and, among other things, aim to ensure that workers making the goods we buy are properly paid whether they work for a UK firm or for an independent supplier.

  Fair Trade Initiatives
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support she is giving to fair trade initiatives. [23882]

  Clare Short
  Fair trade initiatives help reduce poverty by ensuring that small producers get fair prices for their goods and also allow consumers to make choices that support development. I strongly support these initiatives and am very pleased fairly traded coffee is now available in the House of Commons. I hope other workplaces will follow suit.

  I am ready to consider requests for support. However, to succeed, fairly traded goods must be marketable on their merits. The best known in UK, Café Direct, has achieved commercial success without financial support from my Department.

  Zambia
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about aid programmes to Zambia. [23883]

  Clare Short
  We are currently exploring whether we will be able to establish a partnership with the Government of Zambia, on the basis outlined in the White Paper on International Development.

  Debt Reduction
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with aid organisations relating to reduction of debts owed by developing countries. [23884]

  Clare Short
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer leads on debt policy, but my Department has a key interest in ensuring the rapid and flexible implementation of debt reduction measures for the poorest most-indebted countries. Debt relief, coupled with economic policies that benefit the poor, has an important part to play in creating the conditions for the sustained economic growth needed to eliminate poverty in poorer countries. We seek to work closely with other donors and creditors in order to achieve this objective. In recent weeks, I have had discussions with the development Ministries of most of our EU partners, the Japanese Foreign Ministry, and the President of the African Development Bank. Last month, the Chancellor and I met representatives of the churches and leading NGOs, to discuss how we would work together to make faster progress.

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the future of the EBRD. [23885]

  Clare Short
  Under the excellent leadership of Jacques de Larosiere, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has made a major contribution to promoting the transition to open market economies and to developing the private sector in central and eastern Europe and central Asia. M. Larosiere will retire as President on 31 January. We are actively seeking to have
  291
  a new President appointed as soon as possible and look forward to deepening still further the collaboration between the UK and EBRD on advancing an equitable and sustainable transition and thereby the living standards of the people in EBRD's region.

  Laos
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's plans to support mine-clearance work in Laos. [23886]

  Clare Short
  We have provided nearly £700,000 for the clearance of unexploded ordnance and towards national capacity building in Laos since 1995. We intend to continue to support clearance projects within the national clearance programme during 1998 and are discussing specific proposals with the United Nations Development Programme.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she proposes to take to oppose the confiscation by the Government of Zimbabwe of farms owned by white farmers. [23887]

  Clare Short
  I have informed the Government of Zimbabwe that we are prepared to support a land reform programme that is properly planned, transparent, and intended to benefit the poor, but we will not support the programme they have announced. Zimbabwean law requires the payment of compensation and is enforceable in the courts.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to introduce legislation to change the status of the Commonwealth development corporation. [23873]

  Clare Short
  We are seeking to bring forward legislation to enable the creation of a new Public/Private Partnership for CDC as soon as parliamentary time permits in the next session.

  Georgia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what new proposals she has to assist the people of Georgia. [23875]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We are providing a range of assistance through the Know How Fund to benefit the people of Georgia. During 1998 we intend to develop a project to help tackle Georgia's serious poverty problems. We will continue to provide emergency assistance, as required.

  We also provide help through our contributions to the multilateral agencies working in Georgia—including the European Commission and United Nations's agencies.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance is currently being given to the peopleof Sri Lanka. [23876]
  292
  Clare Short
  We provide around £6 million of bilateral Development assistance annually to Sri Lanka. The programme focuses on Poverty, Education, and the Environment.

  Our work in poverty reduction centres on relief and rehabilitation assistance to families displaced by the civil conflict in the North and East who are now either living in refugee camps or living with other families in cramped conditions with little or no government service provision.

  In Education, we are helping improve the quality of primary education on a national basis. The support includes a high level of collaboration with the World Bank and the Ministry of Education in order to ensure effective targeting of assistance and to maximise benefits.

  We are also assisting in a three year project to develop the Environment and Forestry Conservation Division (EFCD) of the Mahaweli Development Authority Sri Lanka as an environmental and development agency.

  We recently started to improve the efficiency of the existing sewerage system in Colombo and undertake reform of Water and Sewerage Management.

WALES

  New Deal
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what financial allocation for administration of the New Deal in Wales each area office of the Employment Agency receives. [25313]

  Mr. Hain
  The Employment Service agency is responsible for the administration of the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds in Wales and in the rest of Great Britain. The funding for the New Deal guarantees opportunities for all young people who are eligible to join the programme.

  The precise level of funding to be made available to each Employment Service District will depend on take-up; it is not possible to be more precise at this stage.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his budget for the operation of the New Deal. [25312]

  Mr. Hain
  The operational budget for the New Deal in Wales, as with all other parts of Great Britain, is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and will be administered through the Employment Service agency.

  However, we will ensure that the New Deal meets the needs of Wales. For this purpose we have established the Wales Advisory Task Force to advise on the development and operation of the programme throughout Wales.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary for Wales (1) how many long-tem unemployed there are in each constituency in Wales; [25314]
  293
  (2) how many long-term unemployed (a) men and (b) women there are in each constituency in Wales. [25316]

  Mr Hain
  The requested information on long-term unemployment is given in the table (it relates to all people who have been claiming unemployment-related benefits for 52 weeks or more). The data are also available from the NOMIS database, which can be accessed by the staff of the Library.

  Long-term unemployed (claimant count), October 19971

  Constituency

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Aberavon

  324

  45

  369

  Alyn and Deeside

  304

  45

  349

  Blaenau Gwent

  717

  94

  811

  Brecon and Radnorshire

  213

  58

  271

  Bridgend

  321

  70

  391

  Caernarfon

  659

  112

  771

  Caerphilly

  609

  111

  720

  Cardiff Central

  582

  129

  711

  Cardiff North

  218

  28

  246

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  784

  133

  917

  Cardiff West

  776

  105

  881

  Carmarthen East and Dinefwr

  307

  75

  382

  Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire

  573

  115

  688

  Ceredigion

  296

  60

  356

  Clwyd South

  246

  56

  302

  Clwyd West

  344

  66

  410

  Conwy

  588

  115

  703

  Cynon Valley

  378

  66

  444

  Delyn

  246

  38

  284

  Gower

  258

  41

  299

  Islwyn

  196

  43

  239

  Llanelli

  561

  91

  652

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  309

  77

  386

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  505

  78

  583

  Monmouth

  271

  53

  324

  Mongomeryshire

  98

  20

  118

  Neath

  331

  53

  384

  Newport East

  479

  96

  575

  Newport West

  588

  102

  690

  Ogmore

  306

  56

  362

  Pontypridd

  391

  57

  448

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  585

  125

  710

  Rhondda

  488

  71

  559

  Swansea East

  452

  44

  496

  Swansea West

  501

  92

  593

  Torfaen

  349

  56

  405

  Vale of Clwyd

  381

  69

  450

  Vale of Glamorgan

  439

  104

  543

  Wrexham

  303

  73

  376

  Ynys Mon

  816

  175

  991

  Total

  17,092

  3,097

  20,189

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Note:

  1 Claimant unemployed for 52 weeks or over. These figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many unemployed persons under the age of 25 years there are in each constituency of Wales. [25315]

  Mr. Hain
  The requested information on unemployment is given in the table (it relates to people under the age of 25 who are claiming unemployment-related benefits).294
  The data are also available from the NOMIS database, which can be accessed by the staff of the Library.

  Unemployed persons under the age of 25 (claimant count), October 1997 1

  Constituency

  Number

  Aberavon

  514

  Alyn and Deeside

  372

  Blaenau Gwent

  618

  Brecon and Radnorshire

  299

  Bridgend

  522

  Caernarfon

  553

  Caerphilly

  780

  Cardiff Central

  773

  Cardiff North

  295

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  813

  Cardiff West

  721

  Carmarthen East and Dinefwr

  366

  Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire

  606

  Ceredigion

  414

  Clwyd South

  382

  Clwyd West

  364

  Conwy

  606

  Cynon Valley

  567

  Delyn

  347

  Gower

  457

  Islwyn

  367

  Llanelli

  665

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  294

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  737

  Monmouth

  356

  Montgomeryshire

  198

  Neath

  560

  Newport East

  567

  Newport West

  655

  Ogmore

  527

  Pontypridd

  612

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  645

  Rhondda

  691

  Swansea East

  680

  Swansea West

  678

  Torfaen

  555

  Vale of Clwyd

  509

  Vale of Glamorgan

  656

  Wrexham

  419

  Ynys Mon

  618

  Total

  21,358

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Note:

  1 These figures are not seasonally adjusted.

  Additional Education Funding Guidance
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has given local education authorities on spending the extra moneys allocated to them; and if he will make a statement. [25318]

  Mr. Hain
  Copies of Welsh Office letters dated 11 and 19 December to local authority Chief Executives setting out the arrangements for the £50,267 million additional revenue funding for schools have been placed in the Library of the House. The advice follows discussions with the Welsh Local Government Association. We expect to see the bulk of the funding included in delegated school budgets, and I will be monitoring the outcome.

  Civil Service Staff
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of Civil Service staff of grade 5 and above within his Department(a) have spent their entire civil service career within his Department, (b) have had secondments to (i) the private sector and (ii) other Departments and (c) have come from other departments. [26022]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The information regarding staff in the Senior Civil Service grades within my Department is as follows:

  (a) proportion who have spent entire civil service in Welsh Office—49.3 per cent.

  (b) proportion who have had secondments:-

  (i) in private sector—7.5 per cent.

  (ii) in other Government Departments—2.9 per cent.

  (c) proportion who have come from other Government Departments—50.7 per cent.

  64.2 per cent. of staff in Senior Civil Service grades have experience of work in other public sector organisations or the private sector prior to their joining the Civil Service.

CABINET OFFICE

  EU Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list those occasions since 1 May when he has met Ministers from other European Union countries and who these Ministers were. [25943]

  Mr. Mandelson
  In June 1997, I met Mr. Per Nuder, State Secretary in the office of the Swedish Prime Minster.

  I met the French Minister for European Affairs, M Pierre Moscovici, on separate occasions in July, September, and November 1997. Also in July in Paris I met M Daniel Vaillant, French Minister for Relations with Parliament, and Mme Catherine Trautmann, Minister for Culture.

  In September in Bonn I met the German Minister of State Herr Friedrich Bohl of the Bundeskanzleramt.

  In Rome in October I met Onorevole Walter Veltroni, Deputy Prime Minister, Onorevole Giorgio Napolitano, Minister of the Interior, and Onorevole Pierol Fassino, Minister of State at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

  I also met several Italian Ministers at a dinner given by the British Ambassador in Rome; and a number of senior Spanish Ministers attended the British-Spanish Tertulias in Cambridge in November, which I also attended.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list for 4 December(a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and
  296
  (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [21287]

  (2) if he will list for 5 December (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [21286]

  (3) if he will list for 8 December (a) which organisations he met; (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [21284]

  (4) if he will list for 11 December (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [21281]

  (5) if he will list for 3 December (a) which organisations he met; (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [21288]

  (6) if he will list for 10 December (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [21282]

  (7) if he will list for 6 December (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [21285]

  (8) if he will list for 12 December (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [21280]
  297
  (9) if he will list for 2 December (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers; [21289]

  (10) if he will list for 9 December (a) which organisations he met, (b) which organisations and companies he visited and where they are located, (c) what regional visits have been made and whom he saw and (d) which Council of Ministers meetings were attended; which individuals had meetings with Ministers and officials; and if he will provide this information for each of his Ministers. [21283]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: Set out below are relevant details from my diary and those of my ministerial team for the days requested. This does not include purely internal MAFF meetings.

  MINISTER

  Ministerial Meetings

    1 DECEMBER 1997 TO 12 DECEMBER 1997
    Tuesday 2 December 1997

    16.00 Meeting: Professor Anderson

    17.30 Pre-Presidency bilateral and dinner with Mr. Henrik Dam Kristensen, Danish Agriculture Minister

    Wednesday 3 December 1997

    09.00 Meeting: Weekly Team Meeting

    09.30 Meeting: Donald Dewar, Lord Sewel, Lord Dubs: Fisheries

    11.00 Pre-Presidency bilateral and lunch with Mr. Stephanos Tzoumakas, Greek Agriculture Minister

    16.30 House of Commons Statement on Dorsal Root Ganglion

    18.00 Press Briefing with Professor Pattison

    19.30 Meal: Leaders of the Food Industry

    Thursday 4 December 1997

    15.30 Meeting: Mr. Joe Walsh, Irish Agriculture Minister

    Monday 8 December 1997

    12.00 Meeting: Ann Davison, Secundo Tarditi (ESC)

    15.00 Meeting: Peter Davis, RSPCA

    16.00 Meeting: Paul Tyler MP and the All Party Group Organophosphates

    17.30 Meeting: Agricultural Press

    Tuesday 9 December 1997

    08.00 Meeting: Chief Secretary

    10.00 Meeting: Seminar and lunch at St. James's Palace CAP reform

    14.30 Meeting: Pre-Presidency bilateral with Commissioner Fischler

    Wednesday 10 December 1997

    08.30 Meeting: Chief Secretary

    09.30 Meeting: Weekly Team Meeting

    16.30 Meeting: MPs on hill farming issues

    20.00 Private dinner

    Thursday 11 December 1997

    09.30 Meeting: Don Curry and Colin Maclean (Meat and Livestock Commission)

    10.10 Meet FAC with Jeff Rooker.

    MINISTER OF STATE 1 DECEMBER TO 12 DECEMBER 1997
    Wednesday 3 December 1997

    09.00 Meeting: Weekly Team Meeting

    12.30 Adjournment Debate: MBM storage

    17.00 Reception with Milk Marque

    Thursday 4 December 1997

    18.10 TV Interview with Richard Bath of West Country: SEAC advice on bone-in beef

    Monday 8 December 1997

    16.00 Ministers Meeting: Paul Tyler's All-Party OP Group

    Tuesday 9 December 1997

    15.00 Meeting with Abattoir owners

    Wednesday 10 December 1997

    09.30 Meeting: Weekly Team Meeting

    10.30 Debate: Agenda 2000—Reform of the CAP

    Thursday 11 December 1997

    10.10 Look into FAC meeting with Jack Cunningham

    14.30 Meeting with Robin Turner and Roger Derryman, National Milk Records: Cattle Traceability System

    16.30 Meeting with BMMA

    MINISTER FOR FISHERIES AND THE COUNTRYSIDE

      1 DECEMBER TO 12 DECEMBER 1997
      Tuesday 2 December 1997

      16.00 Meeting: British Poultry Breeders: BPBHA Awards Ceremony

      Wednesday 3 December 1997

      09.00 Weekly Team Meeting

      09.30 Meeting with Secretary of State for Scotland, Lord Sewel, Lord Dubs

      11.30 Meeting with Stephanos Tzoumakas

      14.00 Meeting with Ministerial Committee on Economic Affairs: Improving the regulation of Utility Industries

      15.00 Meeting with Bob Blizzard, Lowestoft FPO, John Robbs, Dr. Horwood: TACs and Quotas

      17.00 Reception with Milk Marque

      Thursday 4 December 1997

      07.00 Visit (UK): Tour and Breakfast

      10.00 RNMDSF: Fish and Chip Shop Award

      11.00 Meeting with British Trust for Ornithology, Jeremy on Greenwood: Conservation Issues

      16.00 Meeting with Patrick Gordon-Duff-Pennington: Deer Management

      Monday 8 December 1997

      12.00 Lunch with Regional Flood Defence Chairmen

      on 15.00 Meeting with Peter Davies, RSPCA

      Tuesday 9 December 1997

      11.00 Meeting with Farming Collaboration: Hill Farming

      17.00 Meeting with David Bowles, RSPCA and DG and Peter Davies, RSPCA: Eurogroup

      Wednesday 10 December 1997

      09.30 Weekly Team Meeting

      10.30 Meeting with Rare Breeds Survival Trust

      11.30 Meeting with PLP Agriculture Committee

      Thursday 11 December 1997

      09.30 Meeting with David Bowles (RSPCA) and Peter Stevenson, Andrew Turnbull: Vehicle Standards

      11.00 Meeting with East Midlands NFU.

  MINISTER FOR FARMING AND THE FOOD INDUSTRY

    1 DECEMBER TO 12 DECEMBER 1997
    Tuesday 2 December 1997

    Visit: Crops Conference [Speech]

    Wednesday 3 December 1997

    09.00 Weekly Team Meeting

    10.30 Pre-Presidency bilateral and lunch with Stephanos Tzoumakas (Greek Minister)

    13.15 Meeting with Robin Hanbury Tennison—Countryside Alliance

    15.00 Meeting with young farmers

    17.00 Milk Marque reception

    Monday 8 December 1997

    16.00 Meeting with Minister and Paul Tyler's All Party Group on OPs

    Tuesday 9 December 1997

    10.00 Meeting: Genetically Modified Crops

    11.00 Meeting: Horticulture Export Bureau

    14.30 Pre-Presidency bilateral with Commissioner Fischler

    Wednesday 10 December 1997

    09.30 Weekly Team Meeting

    15.15 Meeting with Tesco—Export Promotion, Terry Leahy (Chief Executive)

    16.00 Introductory meeting with Jim Reed (UKASTA).

  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total cost to the industry of the Meat and Livestock Commission in the last year for which figures are available. [23705]

  Mr. Rooker
  Financial information on the Meat and Livestock Commission is contained in its Annual Report and Accounts 1997 which were laid before the House on 17 November 1997. Copies are available in the Library.

  Cattle Herd
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated number of cattle in England and Wales aged over 30 months. [24874]

  Mr. Rooker
  The 1997 June Agricultural Census showed 3.8 million cattle aged over two years in England and Wales. Separate information on the number of cattle aged over 30 months was not collected.

  Coastal Defences
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give a regional breakdown of resources expended on shoreline management and coastal defence work in England in each of the last five years. [24812]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department provides grant aid in response to proposals from the Environment Agency and local authorities for capital sea defence and coast protection works, and studies leading to the preparation of shoreline management plans, provided they meet technical, economic and environmental criteria. The breakdown of the amount of grant expended on such works in each of the last five financial years, by reference to regions of the Environment Agency, is in the table.300

  £ million

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  North East

  0.5

  2.7

  0.8

  6.1

  6.1

  North West

  1.2

  2.1

  2.2

  0.8

  7.1

  Anglia

  10.2

  11.5

  16.6

  21.0

  22.9

  Southern

  11.1

  9.9

  15.8

  20.2

  22.9

  South West

  4.8

  3.8

  5.4

  6.3

  3.7

  Total

  27.8

  30.0

  40.8

  54.4

  62.7

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the current work on compiling shoreline management plans will be completed for England; and how this work will relate to the disbursement of funds for shoreline management and coastal defence works. [24813]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department has encouraged coastal defence groups to develop shoreline management plans to cover the whole coastline of England. The jointly agreed target is for plans to be completed by the end of 1998. Where shoreline management plans are in place it is expected that proposed works will be consistent with them. The disbursement of Ministry funding for flood and coastal defence works, and related studies, is made on the basis of the priority score arrangements, which take account of Ministerial priority, urgency and benefit cost ratio.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the current exchange rate on United Kingdom agriculture. [25117]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government recognise the impact of currency movements on agriculture, but it is difficult to assess these effects precisely. UK farmers received a substantial degree of protection from the impact of currency movements for their receipts under the CAP through the EU agri-monetary system.

  Seaweed
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the amounts of seaweed used as a fertiliser in the United Kingdom; what assessment his Department has made of the extent to which there has been bio-accumulation of toxic and radiotoxic materials in the seaweed feedstock. [25064]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have no information on the amount of seaweed used as a fertiliser in the United Kingdom. The Ministry does not have information on the bio-accumulation of toxic materials in seaweed. Radioactivity concentrations in seaweed sampled from around the coasts of the British Isles are given in the annual Radioactivity in Food and the Environment report published by the Ministry. The bio-accumulation or concentration factors for various radionuclides in seaweed have been published by the International Atomic Energy Authority in Technical Report No. 247 (1985).

  Relative Stability Principle
  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will define the method of application of the principle of relative stability(a) from 1983 to 2002 and (b) from 2003 onwards. [24983]

  Mr. Morley
  The purpose of relative stability is to maintain the percentage share of total allowable catches which each Member State receives although, in the case of stocks covered by Hague Preference, the percentage shares can be adjusted when total allowable catches fall below predetermined levels. Relative stability has taken this form since 1983. It will continue in this way from 2003 unless the Council of Ministers decides otherwise.

  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the principle of relative stability was established; and by which Article in which Regulation and under which Article in which Regulation the principle is presently established. [24984]

  Mr. Morley
  The principle of relative stability in the allocation of fishing quotas under the Common Fisheries Policy was given effect in 1983 by Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83. Relative stability is currently applied by virtue of Article 8 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3760/92.

  Quarantine Regulations
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the proposals contained in the Reform of Quarantine Regulations Bill. [25264]

  Mr. Rooker
  The proposal contained in the Reform of Quarantine Regulations Bill is similar to one of the alternatives to quarantine currently being assessed by the Advisory Group on Quarantine under the chairmanship of Professor Kennedy. It would be premature to alter the present system until Professor Kennedy has reported on whether alternative arrangements would give equal or better protection against the importation of rabies.

  BSE
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he estimates BSE will be eliminated from the national herd. [25268]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 6 November 1997,Official Report, column 331.

  Anglo-Indonesian Agreement
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on new developments in the Anglo-Indonesian Agriculture Co-operation agreement following recent economic developments in the region. [25593]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: The hon. Member will be pleased to hear of some of the positive developments under the UK-Indonesian Memorandum of Understanding on Agricultural Co-operation.
  302
  My noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary held useful talks with the Indonesian Minister of Agriculture last autumn and reaffirmed our willingness to continue to explore ways to co-operate. Three working groups set up under the Memorandum of Understanding met and looked at ways of advancing projects. A seminar looked at new areas for co-operation.

  We recognise that the region is currently experiencing extreme economic difficulties; but we believe that we should take the long-term view. There remain opportunities for the UK agri-business sector, and it is now that we should seek to strengthen our ties, continue co-operation, and encourage Indonesia on the road to recovery.

  The Memorandum of Understanding is one means of maintaining that contact and its programme will continue.

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with representatives of small-scale dairy farmers; and if he will make a statement. [25858]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministers in the Department regularly meet representatives of agriculture, including those organisations whose members include small-scale dairy farmers.

  Raw Milk
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ban the sale of raw sheep and goat's milk. [25860]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have no such plans at present. However, the public health risks associated with drinking such milk are likely to be similar to those associated with drinking raw cows' milk. With this in mind, the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food has recommended that surveillance on the microbiological status of raw sheep and goats' drinking milk be undertaken, and this is currently being taken forward.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost to farmers of(a) a ban on the sale of raw cows' milk and (b) the cost of enforcement of a ban. [25838]

  Mr. Rooker
  I recognise the importance of assessing the likely costs and savings. If we do proceed to legislate in this area, assessments would accompany the consultation document on the proposals for draft Regulations, as part of the regulatory appraisal process.

  Food Labelling
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on proposed European food labelling legislation. [25668]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: Food labelling must be clear, accurate and informative, giving consumers the opportunity to make informed choices about the food they buy, without being unduly prescriptive or costly. Wherever possible, we prefer to have general rules which are applicable to all types of

  303
  food rather than special provisions for specific types of product. Commission proposals to meet this end will be considered favourably.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investment his Department plans for the development of an effective vaccine to protect herds against outbreaks of bovine TB; and within what time scale he estimates a vaccine will be developed. [25665]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: The report, published in December, by Professor Krebs and the Independent Scientific Review Group estimates that a vaccine for field trials could be available within 10 years. It recommends that research towards the development of a cattle vaccine should be a high priority for MAFF. The Government have indicated that they are disposed to accept the report's recommendations subject to further consideration of public expenditure, legal and practical implications. We are currently reviewing bovine TB research expenditure, including work towards a cattle vaccine, in the light of the Krebs report. Public consultation on how the report's recommendations should be implemented ends on 27 February.

  Animal Welfare (European Union)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measure he intends to take to improve animal welfare in the European Union under the British presidency. [26012]

  Mr. Morley
  Improving farm animal welfare is a priority for our presidency. We have already restarted negotiations on proposals for a general Directive concerning welfare of livestock on farms, stalled since 1994. We have also obtained an undertaking from Commissioner Fischler that he will urgently bring the long overdue proposals to update the EU rules on the welfare of laying hens and the welfare of animals at slaughter. We intend to start negotiations on these two proposals as soon as possible.

  Civil Service Staff
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of Civil service staff of grade 5 and above within his Department(a) have spent their entire civil service career within his Department, (b) have had secondments to (i) the private sector and (ii) other departments and (c) have come from other departments. [26021]

  Mr. Morley
  Of the Senior Civil Service staff in this Department and its Agencies:

  (a) 54 have spent their entire civil service career in this department;

  (b)(i) 3 have had secondments (of over 3 months) to the private sector,

  (ii) 36 have had secondments to other departments; and

  (c) 21 have come from other departments.

  In addition, 15 staff including some from each of the above categories have had private sector experience prior to joining the department.

  Non-organophosphorus Sheep Dips
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the outcome of the review of non-organophosphorus sheep dips carried out by the Veterinary Products Committee; and if he will make a statement. [26466]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Committee's report to the Licensing Authority (Agriculture and Health Ministers) is today being placed in the Library.

  Following its review last year of the effectiveness of the Certificate of Competence Scheme for the purchase of organophosphorus (OP) sheep dips, the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) has reviewed the use of non-OP sheep dips. The Committee has advised that the Certificate of Competence Scheme should be extended to all sheep dips and we are already consulting on the necessary changes to the legislation to bring this into effect as quickly as possible.

  The Committee reaffirmed its earlier advice that the Scheme should apply to the use of sheep dips as well as to their purchase and, as for OP dips, this will be achieved by strengthening measures to secure compliance with existing statutory duties. New guidance is being prepared by the Health and Safety Executive about the duties of farmers under the Health and Safety at Work Act and related legislation. The guidance will also emphasise the importance of the Certificate of Competence Scheme operated by the National Proficiency Tests Council (NPTC).

  The Committee was very concerned about reports of the environmental effects of synthetic pyrethroid (SP) sheep dips. We endorse this concern and are pleased to note that the NPTC has already completed a revision of the Certificate of Competence Scheme. In future, the Scheme will include practical training in the proper use and disposal of dips. The questions in the test for the Certificate will be arranged in specific sections relating to, for example, environmental issues and operator safety, and a certain level of knowledge will be required in each section to achieve a pass mark. In addition, questions will relate to all forms of sheep dip and will include reference to the dangers to aquatic life from use and disposal of SP dips.

  We endorse the Committee's advice that those who have already obtained Certificates of Competence should be encouraged to take a further test on new areas of the Certificate not previously covered.

  The Committee has recommended that product literature warnings about toxicity to aquatic life should be based on risk not hazard; that advice about the protection of the environment should be simple, concise, clearly set out and cross-referenced; that there should be reference to specific problems that may arise such as spillage, contamination from sheep to water, and improper disposal; and that product labels should be amended to refer to the Environment Agency (EA), the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), and the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland (DOENI). We accept these recommendations and will pursue them with marketing authorisation holders, in the light of the Committee's further consideration of the labelling of sheep dips.
  305
  We accept the Committee's advice that there should be a mechanism for informing water regulators about dipping and for consulting them about proposed methods of disposal. Proposed new Groundwater Regulations recently issued for consultation by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office include provisions which would address these issues.

  The Committee has advised that the sheep dipping leaflet (AS29) should be revised to include comprehensive and up to date advice on the proper use and disposal of sheep dips to prevent contamination of water and this is being done.
  306
  We accept the Committee's advice that there should be new requirements for toxicity data for SP dips. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) has been asked to ensure these changes are made and that data on flumethrin are obtained as quickly as possible.

  Finally, the Committee has asked for an up to date data base on the use of sheep dips. It has previously been found difficult to obtain accurate information on this but officials of the VMD will pursue the question further with marketing authorisation holders.

  I should like to thank Professor Aitken and the Committee for the thoroughness of their review and for their clear and helpful advice.

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.

Spring Fish Stocks: Conservation Policy
Earl Haig Earl Haig: asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of concern about stocks of spring fish and the action being taken by the Dee, Tay, Tweed and other river boards to reduce the exploitation of spring fish, whether they will take immediate action to delay the start of the drift net season in England and Wales and to speed up the phasing out of these fisheries.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Environment Agency which is responsible for managing salmon fisheries in England and Wales, has been examining the possibility of delaying the start of the north-east coast salmon drift net fishery until 1st May. It has concluded that it would be difficult to justify such a delay under existing salmon fisheries legislation as there is no firm evidence of a decline in spring salmon in rivers in north-east England. The Government accept this view, but they will continue to explore possible ways of improving the conservation of spring salmon.
Earl Haig: My Lords, first, I declare an interest as a riparian owner on the River Tweed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his reply. Is there truth in the allegation, notice of which I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that fish are being caught in drift nets and sold unrecorded to trawlers outside the three-mile limit? If that is so, does it not heighten the need for a total ban?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Environment Agency, collects and monitors the catch information to ensure that netsmen's returns are as accurate as reasonably possible. Neither the agency nor the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate has heard any reports of salmon caught by drift net fishermen being sold to foreign vessels rather than beinglanded in UK ports. However, if the noble Earl has any evidence to the contrary, we shall be pleased to receive it.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the Minister enlighten me as regards our position on non-sea drift netting? First, can we alone ban the North Sea drift netting practice? If not, why not? Alternatively, are we becoming bogged down in discussions with other European net fisheries and consequently having to await a European Union directive?
Secondly, what consideration has been given by the Government to negotiating with the north-east drift netters a buy-out of the practice?
Lord Carter: My Lords, EU legislation effectively prohibits fishing for salmon and sea trout outside
224
12 miles from base line. Regulation of coastal and fresh water salmon fisheries within 12 miles of base line is subject to UK legislation. In effect, fishing for salmon and sea trout in England and Wales is allowed only within a six-mile limit.
On buy-out, the Government would welcome any agreement between private individuals or groups and the netsmen which would accelerate the phase-out of the drift net fishery. It would have to be a voluntary agreement and privately funded. The cost of such a buy-out would be a matter for negotiation between the various interests concerned. No public funds are available for such a buy-out or to compensate netsmen for surrendering their licences.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House why he confines the issue to England and Wales? Does the noble Lord not know that salmon swim up past the Border to the Scottish rivers, which are affected by drift netting? Aside from the shifting of the start date, phasing out has been promised for many years, although not by this Government.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Environment Agency does not have the legal power to make a by-law solely to protect stocks outside its jurisdiction. In the absence of a threat to English stocks, it cannot make a by-law to protect stocks in Scotland. As regards the impact of the north-east coast fishery on spring salmon, the fishery takes on average some 425 salmon before 1st May.
Lord Moran: My Lords, in view of the overwhelming evidence of the decline of multi-sea winter early running fish, of which I am sure the Minister is aware, is there not a strong case for looking at the problem not merely in relation to the North-East drift nets but at drift netting round all our shores? Is other legislation available which the Ministry could use in order to bring in a ban on fishing in the early months—that is, before the end of May?
Lord Carter: My Lords, there are no immediate plans to allow a delay of the start of the season. However, the Government will continue to keep the situation under review. Most of the public fisheries in England and Wales are already subject to net limitation orders which restrict the number of licences issued. In addition, the Environment Agency has by-law making powers which may be used to control exploitation, including the delay of the start of the season. The Government endorse the advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, which is now the policy of the Environment Agency. It is to phase out those coastal fisheries as opposed to estuarine drift net fisheries which exploit stocks from more than one river. However, there is no new evidence to support the acceleration of that process.
The existing salmon fisheries legislation cannot be used in the way that the noble Lord suggests. The agency has to take account of the interests of all those involved. It is not satisfied that it will be able to protect the position legally at a public inquiry.
Lord Nickson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that only last week, on 20th January, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food published a consultation paper seeking to exploit our presidency of the EU for the removal of drift netting for a variety of fish, but specifically excluded the Atlantic salmon? Does the Minister not consider that approach both anomalous—in view of the Government's announced intention to phase out the north-east drift net fishery—and the loss of a huge opportunity to bring pressure to bear on the Irish drift net fishery, which takes an enormous amount of British salmon?
Lord Carter: My Lords, if I may deal with the Irish question first—
A noble Lord: That is a problem!
Lord Carter: My Lords, this is a little easier than some Irish questions. Both we and the Irish Government recognise that the Irish drift net fishery takes salmon returning to rivers in England and Wales. We welcome the package of measures announced last year to improve the management and regulation of that fishery. We shall continue to participate in monitoring the exploitation of English and Welsh stocks. The measures that were taken included delaying the start of the netting season; restricting the netting to the six-mile limit; extending the weekly closed period to three days; and the banning of fishing at night.
As I said earlier, regarding the other part of the noble Lord's question, it is a matter of impact. The north-east coast fishery takes very few spring salmon—on average, some 425—before 1st May. There is not the evidence at the moment to introduce the changes that the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the fishing communities along the north-east coast of England depend very heavily on drift net fishing? These are real fishermen who work for a living. They are not the posh, weekend fishermen who fish in Scottish rivers.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in 1996, the latest year for which information is available, there were 165 drift net fishermen operating in the whole of England and Wales, of whom 81 were in the North East.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in Scotland, the use of drift netting and the carriage of nylon monofilament netting were banned by law more than a decade ago? I myself introduced the ban on carriage when I was Minister. It has always seemed amazing to me—and perhaps the noble Lord will help me as to why—that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, under both the previous government and this one, stands out determined to protect the drift net fishing in the North East. It forms only a small portion of the annual fishing of those fishermen who do it. The majority of the salmon caught are bound for Scottish rivers, where their value is hugely greater in terms of the employment created in relation to rivers and the tourist industry in Scotland.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the Environment Agency does not have the legal power to make a by-law solely to protect stocks outside its jurisdiction. In the absence of a threat to English stocks, it cannot make a by-law to protect stocks in Scotland.

Serbrenica: Mass Graves Investigation
2.46 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy concerning the full investigation of the alleged mass graves at Srebrenica, where the majority of the Moslem population disappeared between 10th and 19th July 1995, after the capture of the town by Serb forces; and what means they propose for implementing their policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we support full and proper investigation of mass graves, including around Srebrenica, and call on the local Bosnian authorities to meet their responsibilities in this area, as required under the Dayton peace agreement and reinforced by the Bonn peace implementation council last December. We have contributed £3 million in 1997 to the International Committee of the Red Cross's programme for the former Yugoslavia, which includes tracing and exhumation work. We also support the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague, which investigates grave sites.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply on this most serious matter. Is this not the worst example of genocide in Europe since 1945? Will the Government demand a full inquiry to establish the truth of what happened in 1995? Meanwhile, even before that inquiry starts, will they ask the United States forces stationed nearby to supervise the exhumation of the graves?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I turn first to the noble Lord's final point regarding the role that American troops might have in exhumation work. Such a role is not in the SFOR mandate. The mandate is to secure an environment against which the exhumations can take place. British troops are not engaged in the Srebrenica area. However, we understand that the American troops and others have indeed helped with escort duties in relation to the exhumation teams.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is quite right. The massacre at Srebrenica was a tragedy. Her Majesty's Government believe that the way to prevent a recurrence lies in the full implementation of the Dayton peace agreement, to which Her Majesty's Government are firmly committed. We are supporting all the work of the International Red Cross and trying to establish what happened to the missing people, and to provide useful evidence in bringing the perpetrators of these dreadful war crimes to justice.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister say whether Ms. Louise Arbour, the prosecutor, has resolved the difficulties that she had with the French authorities in getting French servicemen to give evidence before the tribunal?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I regret to say that I do not have detailed information about the French servicemen giving evidence before the tribunal. It is, of course, an important question. I regret that I am unable to answer in detail. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that no inquiry into this matter is complete without an answer to the question regarding the Dutch troops on site, who appealed for an air strike but never got it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sorry, I did not quite catch what the noble Earl said. Would he mind repeating it?
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that any inquiries into the matter must involve specifically what happened when the Dutch troops on the spot appealed for an air strike and never got it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that all aspects must be fully investigated. It is our intention during the period of our EU presidency to do everything we can to find out what happened in order to ensure that such dreadful events do not happen again. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, we wish to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice as quickly as possible.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Resolution 827, which was embodied in the Dayton accord, has not been fully carried out? It concerned the apprehension and arrest of war criminals. Does she recognise that, in particular, in view of the recent election in the Republika Srpska of Mr. Dodik as prime minister, there is now a real chance of getting strong help and support from that part of Republika Srpska which he represents, and to which Mrs. Plavsic appointed him, to achieve a successful effort to find and arrest war criminals? Without that, Bosnia's peace will always be much in doubt.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, all parties must agree that peace in Bosnia will depend ultimately on the full implementation of the Dayton peace agreement, as the noble Baroness implied. She is quite right, Her Majesty's Government welcome the recent appointment of the new Republika Srpska government led by Mr. Milorad Dodik. We welcome his stated commitment to the Dayton agreement. On 26th January, the GAC agreed to provide an initial 6 million ecu in financial assistance to the new moderate and pro-Dayton Republika Srpska Government.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, will the Government confirm whether the additional aid which has been requested by the International Criminal Tribunal for the exhumation of the mass graves at Srebrenica will be provided?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have these matters under constant review. At the moment, there are four sites which are being excavated and I understand that the International Red Cross has said that there are a number of other sites, another six to eight further sites around Srebrenica, that it wishes to investigate over the course of this year. Through the EU we have already this week committed a further 6 million ecu. I am sure that if more money is needed for this important work it will be considered during the course of the presidency.

Scottish Parliament Building
2.52 p.m
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will hold an architectural competition for the new Scottish parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has invited architect-led design teams to register their interest and is looking for architects with proven ability. As part of the selection process, a short list of three or four will be invited to produce indicative design approaches which will be put on public display. The successful design team will then be selected.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for confirming my understanding of the matter. Can he confirm that, while it is important that the parliament building fully respects the place where it will be sited, there is no particular guidance as to style for any of the architects who might wish to bring forward proposals?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, that is correct. We wish to ensure that a sensitive and high prestige site is developed in an appropriate and dignified way.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will my noble friend be good enough to persuade his noble friend the Secretary of State for Wales to follow the same course?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I got into trouble with the Secretary of State for Wales the other day for referring to his area as "the Principality". He told me that I should refer to it as "Wales". So I do not think I am in a strong position to influence the Secretary of State for Wales at the moment.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to tell us what role, if any, the Prince of Wales will have in the architectural competition?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, Holyrood Palace is virtually next door to the site for the parliament. It is important

229
that Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales are kept in touch as progress is made and decisions are taken. But they have no formal role in the selection process.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, how long does the Minister estimate the exercise will take?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I will go through the timetable. The closing date for submissions will be 2nd March 1988—I am sorry, 1998. Funny things happen to you when you come into this House! Initial applicants will be sifted by the middle to end of March, 12 panel interviews will be held, which will produce a short list of three or four by mid-April. Those three or four will be invited to produce designs to brief by the end of May. There will be the public exhibition of designs by early June and design teams will be re-interviewed and the winner selected by the end of June.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sure we are all agreed that a building of some distinction should be erected on this prominent site. I encourage the Minister to pursue that. Can he tell us whether there are any financial limitations in place on the architects and designers of this important building? If so, what are those financial limitations?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it is estimated that the construction costs, excluding fees and VAT, will be in the order of £50 million. That is the effective limit to which people will work.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, does the Minister accept that those of us who wanted to see the parliament built on the Calton Hill site none the less accept that if there is to be a new building, the Holyrood site is excellent? But the building must be sensitive because of Holyrood Palace and because of the incorporation of Queensberry House. Therefore, will the Minister ensure that guidelines to the architects state that they should look at the excellent example of Richmond House in Whitehall, where modern architecture has been combined with sensitivity to the adjacent buildings?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord makes a valuable point. I shall bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who will, no doubt, bring it to the attention of those competing.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, first, does the Minister share my concern and that of many Scottish architects that they will not be able to enter the competition because of lack of a substantial design team? Secondly, can he assure me that adequate provision will be made for car parking for members, officials and visitors, without in any way encroaching on Holyrood Park?
Lord Sewel: Yes, my Lords. I wish to encourage architects from Scotland, the United Kingdom, Europe
230
and elsewhere to take part in what is effectively a competition to ensure that we get a very high quality and prestigious building for the Scottish parliament. I wish to encourage everyone to see whether they can make a contribution.
As to the car parking, provision will be made for an internal car park for MSPs but I do not have details with me on the public car parking provision so I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the council of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland is meeting to consider the issue this afternoon? Is he further aware that many architects in Scotland would like temporary accommodation to be used in order that the best solution can be obtained?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the question is no; and no, I was not so aware. I am now, and I thank the noble Lord for informing me. The main point is that temporary accommodation will have to be used for perhaps the first year or so of the life of the Scottish parliament because the building will not be able to be constructed by the time the parliament begins functioning in the year 2000.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, is it correct that applications will be short-listed by a specially appointed advisory panel? Can the Minister say who will make the final decision as to which project will be built? I assume that the winning entry will be built.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the final decision will be made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the competition will be held under the rules of the RIBA?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, on this occasion I prefer to write to the noble Lord in reply.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, will there be a more democratic process—at least of consultation—in the choice of design than was shown in the choice of the site?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, how ungenerous of the noble Lord. Of course there will be a democratic process of consultation. Everybody will be invited to make their views known, including political parties.

Middle East Peace Process
3 p.m.
Viscount Waverley Viscount Waverley asked Her Majesty's Government:
As president of the European Union, what is their reaction to the recent Washington round and what steps they intend to take to advance the Middle East peace process.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we welcome the recent talks in Washington on the Middle East peace process. The EU reiterated its support for US efforts to restore momentum and its intention of playing an active role in support of the negotiations. Full and unconditional implementation of commitments made by the parties remains essential to restore mutual confidence in the peace process and provide a firm basis for a full resumption of negotiations on the Palestinian track. The Prime Minister discussed that with President Arafat when they met in London on Monday.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, has not the lack of progress and the current adversarial climate in the Middle East, together with the effective neutering of the President of the United States, undermined the peace process for far too long and, sadly, seems set to remain so? Will the European presidency support a unanimous call by the Commission, which I understand was supported unconditionally by Chairman Arafat, for Europe to participate in all bilateral and trilateral negotiations and so enable us to exercise our experience and high investment in peace?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot possibly comment on the neutering of the President of the United States. We hope that President Clinton's meetings with Mr. Netanyahu on 20th January and with President Arafat on 22nd January will lead to early progress on the implementation of existing agreements, including the incredible offer of further redeployments of Israeli troops from the West Bank. President Clinton's meetings demonstrate the United States' commitment to making progress on the peace process, and we fully support his efforts to reinject momentum into this important process.
The noble Viscount asked specifically about the Commission paper. At the moment that is an internal discussion document and does not represent the determined views of the European Union. We will have to wait to see how that paper progresses within the European Union.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in view of the European Union's singular lack of success—to put it politely—in advancing the peace process in Algeria, Cyprus, Gibraltar, the Transcaucasus and the former Yugoslavia, can the Minister enlighten the House as to why it should be more successful in the Middle East?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord's view that there has been a lack of progress in the areas he suggests. The UK now holds the presidency of the European Union. It is our duty to do everything we can to further the peace process. The Prime Minister met President Arafat on Monday and reaffirmed our view in relation to redeployment needs, which have to be timely and unconditional. I hope that President Arafat will take note of the Prime Minister's view and that we shall see progress during the course of our presidency.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend assure me that the unique and excellent contribution that the British Government and the British people can make towards a settlement in the Middle East will not be muted by the differences of opinion that exist within the European Union in relation to the settlement of this problem?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that the United Kingdom Government's strong views on these matters will influence our European colleagues and that the two will be mutually reinforcing. We favour a strong EU role supporting the peace process, commensurate with the scale of European Union interests and economic support in that part of the world. We should remember that the EU remains the largest aid donor to the Palestinians. During the course of our presidency we must work to reinject momentum into the peace process, which will be one of our most important foreign policy priorities.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, given that the Israeli Cabinet's communiqué on retention of the land on the West Bank was announced at the time the Minister for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs recently visited the region, can the Minister tell the House what practical success that visit had in launching the Government's commitment to reinjecting momentum into the peace process? When is the Foreign Secretary going to make his long overdue visit to the region?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord has obviously not yet had the opportunity of reading our recent evening debate when I told the House that the Foreign Secretary hopes to visit that part of the world in the spring of this year. Mr. Fatchett. on his visit, made our views clear to the Israeli Government. Those views have been unequivocal and were clearly stated in your Lordships' House during the course of the debate, which I suggest the noble Lord reads.
Lord IsIwyn: My Lords, can the Minister say what specific representations the Government are making concerning proliferation of illegal settlements on the West Bank, some of which are in extremely sensitive areas?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I have had occasion to tell the House before, the United Kingdom Government have been clear with the Israeli Government about our views on the illegality of those settlements.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Wright of Richmond set down for today shall be limited to six hours.—(Lord Richard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
3.7 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond Lord Wright of Richmond: rose to call attention to foreign and Commonwealth affairs in the context of the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first, I welcome the long and distinguished list of noble Lords who have decided to take part in this debate. This is the first full debate on a foreign affairs subject since the debate on the Queen's speech in May last year. I am honoured to be allowed to open the debate at a particularly appropriate time; that is, towards the end of the first month of our presidency when we have an opportunity to take stock in the light of the Government's first four weeks in that role.
I add a particular welcome to the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, to make his maiden speech in this debate. Having had the honour to serve under his ministerial supervision, both during his time as Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and later as Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, I look forward with keen anticipation, as I am sure does the whole House, to what he has to say this afternoon. I look forward also to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
These six months of our presidency are likely to cover not only some crucial economic decisions in the European Council—for instance, on the future of economic and monetary union, the start of negotiations on reform of the common agricultural and regional policies and launching the next phase of enlargement—they are also likely to face us with some exceptionally difficult and dangerous challenges in foreign affairs.
This afternoon I propose to concentrate on an area of the world to which I devoted much of my professional life; namely, the Middle East, where developments in Iraq, Iran, Algeria, Turkey and Palestine are raising some fundamental questions and challenges for British and European foreign and defence policies, and indeed for Europe's relationship with our American allies.
First, I want to speak briefly about the opportunities with which our presidency presents us in building and maintaining our influence in Europe, and in achieving greater co-ordination in Europe's global policies, to ensure that the European Union responds quickly and effectively to world events and crises.
My personal experience of the process of European political co-operation has convinced me of the increased influence which our diplomacy can exert if it is practised on a European, rather than on a strictly national, basis. I believe that European political co-operation gives added credibility to our diplomacy worldwide, both bilaterally and in international fora, including of course the United Nations. Our influence and credibility with our partners in the European Union come not only from the attitude which we adopt towards European questions or the extent to which we play, and are seen to play, as leading members of a team; they also come from our long history and experience in dealing with problems worldwide. We can only exploit
234
that experience and expertise if we maintain a Diplomatic Service of high calibre and with global coverage.
I have spoken before in this House of my admiration for the way in which my successors in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been able, within a budget that has fallen in real terms by 12 per cent. over the past five years, to meet the increasing demands on the service. Twenty-nine new posts have been opened since 1990 to protect and promote our interests in the new countries formed by the break-up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. But the cloth is stretched very thin. I am told that, of the 221 posts with which the Diplomatic Service now covers 189 countries, 101 posts have four or fewer UK-based staff; 23 have only one and 25 are staffed solely by local staff.
While I acknowledge the outstanding contribution which locally engaged staff in the Diplomatic Service make to our commercial and consular interests, I would question whether this extent of reliance on non-UK-based staff any longer represents a truly global political presence. The figures certainly fall far short of what our French and German partners maintain around the world. I hope that the Minister will agree that a global presence is not only a vital ingredient in protecting and promoting our national interests, whether political, commercial, economic or consular, but that it is essential, if we are to maintain our credibility with our partners as a serious global player, and if we are to fulfil our current presidency responsibilities with conviction.
But resources are needed not just to staff diplomatic and consular posts, or indeed to staff new posts as and when required. There are the challenges of peacekeeping operations, as sudden crises arise: the need to take part in United Nations observer teams; the increasing need for what is now known as preventive diplomacy to ward off unforeseen and unforeseeable crises. In short, there is a need to maintain and to fund a truly global foreign policy. All these require a degree of financial flexibility on the part of the Government as a whole and not just from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
I understand that the Foreign and Commonwealth budget now represents no more than one-third of 1 per cent. of total government expenditure, even including the BBC World Service and the grant-in-aid to the British Council. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has adequate access to the Treasury reserve for unforeseen peacekeeping operations and that we now have sound and flexible structures in place to provide for the funding of preventive diplomacy, and that these are considered in terms of our comprehensive international interests rather than sunder the narrow concept of departmental budgets.
I have sometimes heard noble Lords speak of our Commonwealth connections, and indeed of our so-called special relationship with the United States, as though they were in some way a preferable alternative to our membership of, and commitment to, the European Union. As someone who believes that our role as a leading member of the European Union is now, and

235
must remain, the central pillar of Britain's foreign policy, I nevertheless believe that our Commonwealth relationships and our relationship with our United States allies can be an essential element in maintaining our influence and credibility as a global player in the eyes of our European partners.
Our relationship with the United States has sometimes been depicted by our French friends as an Anglo-Saxon "Trojan horse" within the walls of Europe. I firmly reject any such picture. But it is important, if our relationship with the United States is to add substance and value to our membership of the European Union and vice versa, that we do not give the impression—as I fear has too often been the case in the past—that we are prepared to give uncritical support to all American policies. Nor is that the way in which we can hope to influence the United States Administration or Congress.
Nowhere is this so true as in the Middle East where Britain has longer experience than possibly any other country outside the area and where the belief that we are the "poodles" of Washington is having a damaging effect on both our political and economic interests in the region.
In addressing the Middle East today I do not want to concentrate narrowly on the Arab-Israel dispute, even though the present stalemate in pursuing the Oslo accords is possibly the most dangerous crisis facing Europe and the world at this juncture. I was sorry not to be able to take part in the debate in this House on 15th January. But I have noted with pleasure the statement of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, on that occasion, that Her Majesty's Government are fully and actively committed to the search for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, a peace with justice and a peace with security. I have also noted her reply to the Question of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, this afternoon.
Earlier comments by myself in this House on Arab-Israel issues, including Israeli settlements and Jerusalem, have provoked claims that I am "anti-Israel". I hope that I have no need to assure the House that that is simply not true. Part of my deep concern about the policies and actions of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Government is precisely that I believe they will cause—no, they are already causing—grievous harm to Israeli interests. It is not a question of being pro or anti-Israel, or indeed of being pro or anti-Arab. The policies of Mr. Netanyahu seem to me to pose serious threats to the security of Arabs, Israelis and indeed of all of us. I know that many Israelis, and indeed members of the Jewish community in this country, share that view.
Nevertheless, my own contacts with the Middle East have convinced me that there is a dangerous degree of resentment and despair in the Arab world, not only at the actions and policies of Mr. Netanyahu's Government, but also at what many Arabs see as the double standards which the West in general, and the United States Congress in particular, adopt towards the problems of the region.
The remarks of Mr. Netanyahu on leaving Israel for Washington last week, as reported in the press, show the extent to which he knows that he can rely on the support
236
of Congress and indeed of the American media, in snubbing such pressures as the Administration tries to bring to bear on him. I fear that the Middle East has become a matter more of United States domestic policy than of foreign and defence policy. In the present turmoil of American domestic politics and with the prospect of military action in the Gulf, that is potentially a very dangerous situation indeed.
Even those Arabs—and there are many of them—who fear and deplore the behaviour of President Saddam Hussein, nevertheless ask why the West concentrates its attacks on Iraqi failure to observe Security Council resolutions when they hear no criticism of Israel for her failure to observe repeated Security Council resolutions demanding her withdrawal from Southern Lebanon. The Arabs hear frequent references, as they will have done from those noble Lords who spoke in the debate on 15th January, about the threat to Israel from her neighbours. But I have heard many Arabs, including those most critical of Saddam Hussein, complain at what they regard as the double standards adopted in the West towards a country which is at present in illegal occupation of territory in Lebanon, in the West Bank and in Jerusalem, and which is applying settlement policies which British Ministers have repeatedly condemned as illegal—a description which I do not think any recent United States spokesman has been prepared to apply to them.
Of course we must continue to be tough on terrorism, wherever it happens. But given the degree of resentment which exists in the Arab world—and to some extent in the wider Islamic world, which is still smarting from the treatment of Moslems in Serbia and Bosnia—I believe that we must be equally tough on the causes of terrorism.
At this point, I should like to pay tribute to the way in which the British presidency was able to lead the recent troika mission to Algeria, thereby at least getting a foot in a door which has hitherto been kept firmly closed to outsiders. I am glad to hear that the Algerian Foreign Minister is to visit London. I hope that we can continue, as the presidency, to press the Algerian Government to take more effective action to bring the terrible massacres to an end.
One of my reasons for concern about the degree of resentment in the Arab world is not to make an anti-Israeli point, but to emphasise the extent to which it has eroded support in the United Nations Security Council for our policies towards Iraq. One of the lessons of the Gulf War, as I remember very clearly, was the need for a concerted and sustained diplomatic effort, both in capitals and in the United Nations, to maintain support for the coalition's military and political action—and that was a crisis in which there was international consensus over a very clear objective; namely, to expel the Iraqi armed forces from Kuwait.
That support is just as necessary today in our attempts to get Saddam Hussein to comply with United Nations resolutions and weapons inspections. Congress has called for unilateral military action, if necessary, in the Gulf. I believe that any military action without very

237
clear objectives, and without either the support of the Security Council or the practical assistance of the Gulf states, could be both politically and militarily disastrous.
I have noted the remarks of the noble Baroness the Minister in response to Questions in this House two days ago about the military objectives of such action, but I am bound to say that I am still unconvinced. Have either the objectives or the consequences of a military attack been clearly thought through? Have colleagues on the Security Council been consulted on either? Have the implications of a successful, or partly successful, military attack against installations containing lethal materials such as anthrax—if that is indeed one of the objectives—been fully assessed?
To return to the Arab-Israel peace process, of course we all hope that the Americans will succeed in their attempts to revive it. Certainly, no attempt can be successful without the sustained efforts of the United States Administration. But the Arabs know that behind the Administration is a deeply biased Congress, and I do not believe that we shall be serving our national or European interests if we give our Arab friends, or, indeed, our Israeli friends, the impression that we are prepared merely to give the Americans uncritical support from the sidelines. I therefore share the hope, expressed by some noble Lords in the debate on 15th January, that we shall now, in our current presidency capacity, take steps to involve the European Union more directly in the peace process.
As your Lordships know, the European Union is already by far the largest provider of aid to Palestinians. I believe that only with the direct political involvement of Europe, and a determined attempt by the European presidency to persuade all parties to stick with the process outlined at Oslo, can there be any hope of reviving the peace process or, indeed, the Euro-Mediterranean process.
The Middle East is only one area where I believe that Europe could and should be more actively engaged, and where I hope that the British presidency can give a firm and even-handed lead in exploiting the very considerable economic and diplomatic potential of the European Union.
However, I do not want to talk about the Middle East solely as an area of conflict. It is, of course, an area of vital economic and commercial interest to the United Kingdom and to Europe—to a far greater extent than to the United States. Noble Lords will have seen that there are some grounds for optimism in the recent speeches and interviews by President Khatami of Iran, to which I hope that the European Union, under our presidency, will give a suitably measured and positive response. I am glad to note from ministerial statements that we continue to oppose the extra-territorial legislation of the D'Amato-Gilman Bill.
The Middle East is, of course, one of the parts of the world—although only one—where Islam is the dominant religion. I am sure that other noble Lords will share my apprehension that the tragic events in Algeria, Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan will encourage the myth—and I profoundly believe it to be a myth—that
238
Islam represents the threat of the future and that Moslems have somehow filled the "threat vacuum" left by the break-up of the Soviet Empire.
That myth was propagated by a much-publicised article five years ago by Professor Huntington and later repeated in a misguided public statement from Mr. Willi Claes, then Secretary-General of NATO. By contrast, I have myself witnessed the extraordinarily favourable reactions in the Moslem world to attempts by. for instance, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, to correct these myths.
I believe that that misrepresentation of one of the great monotheistic religions of the world is having not only a damaging effect on our interests, and on the interests of the West, among countries which have traditionally been our friends and where we are credited with having a close understanding of their culture and society; it could also have a damaging effect on the attitudes of our own rapidly growing Moslem communities in this country. I commend to the House an authoritative and deeply disturbing report produced at the end of last year by the Runnymede Trust, entitled Islamophobia—a Challenge for us All. Copies of that report are available in the Library of the House.
Our imperial history has given us, or should have given us, ample experience of dealing with inter-faith differences and misunderstandings. To talk of an Islamic threat to the West is as offensive to the Moslem world as would be their claim that sectarian killings in Northern Ireland illustrated a threat from Christianity to the civilised world. We are not alone in the European Union in having a rapidly expanding Moslem population. North Africans in France; Turks in Germany; and the influx of Albanians and Kurds into Italy, all argue for a rational and balanced approach to the problems set out in the Runnymede report.
That report deals primarily with Islamophobia as a domestic British problem. I believe that it should be seen as a potential, or rather actual, European problem which could have dramatic implications for Europe's political and economic relationships with much of the Third World. I hope that, here again, we can begin to tackle what is essentially an ethical problem as a challenge to our presidency of the European Union, a challenge on which I believe we are uniquely qualified to give a lead. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Healey: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord. Lord Wright of Richmond, for raising this matter today; and not, if I may say so, a day too soon. I thank him also for what he said particularly about the Middle East and the Moslem world.
At the moment the whole world is moving towards the Millennium with the outlook steadily darkening. There are lame duck presidents in both Washington and Moscow. Russia is sliding into anarchy, dominated by criminal mafias. The United States has an impotent administration, but still a very robust economy. On the other hand, the recent Asian crisis increases the probability of a crash on Wall Street. because the financial systems of the United States are far weaker

239
than its real economy. I am glad that the Foreign Office is taking advantage of the meeting in April to bring European and Asian countries together to discuss these problems.
On top of all these dangers is the growing risk of another war in the Middle East and/or Near East. That war could bring revolution in the Gulf states and have a tremendous impact on both the supply and price of oil. I believe that this provides Europe with both an opportunity and a responsibility that it cannot afford to ignore. The most interesting aspect of recent changes in the Middle East is the very substantial increase in the influence of Turkey, which is now an important player in the Balkans and south central Asia as well as the Middle East, and revives memories of the Ottoman Empire of the past. Turkey is now a major influence in Bosnia. Its influence there will increase if the Americans, as seems all too possible, finally withdraw their troops in June this year.
There is growing tension over Cyprus with the threat of military action by Turkey if Russia provides missiles to the Greek Cypriots. In a speech this week Mr. Primakov reasserted Russia's intention to do so. There is a real risk of conflict with the Albanians in Kosovo and Macedonia, which is another possible front in which Turkey may intervene. Turkey has already invaded north west Syria in pursuit of the Kurds in the PKK. It is developing steadily closer relations with Netanyahu's Israel. I have nothing to add to what the noble Lord said about recent worrying developments in Israel, save that the activities of Mossad deserve to be watched very carefully. Within the last week Mossad has spread false stories about arms in Iraq which the CIA has had publicly to deny, and recently it has tried to assassinate a Palestinian leader in the neighbouring Arab country of Jordan.
It is surprising to me that the United States has chosen this moment to emphasise its military links with both Israel and Turkey by joint naval exercises in the East Mediterranean. There is no question but that these exercises create immense embarrassment to the West's friends in the Arab world, particularly Egypt and the Gulf states. All of this takes place at a time when the most urgent problem facing us is posed by Saddam Hussein's refusal to co-operate with the United Nations team charged with ensuring the destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Like the noble Lord, I had a good many misgivings about the British Government's assertion that they would take military action against Saddam in the next few weeks if Saddam did not give in to UNSCOM. Such action, if not endorsed by NATO and the United Nations, would be highly dangerous to all our friends in the Arab world. It is by no means certain that any such action would be effective. During the Gulf War the West and its allies spent 45 days bombing military facilities in Iraq, but they destroyed fewer Iraqi weapons than have been destroyed by UNSCOM since the end of that war.
Economic sanctions against Iraq or any dictatorship are ineffective because a dictator can always blame the foreigner for the sufferings inflicted upon his people.
240
Democracies are the only countries against which economic sanctions are effective, as Britain proved very clearly when it gave into American sanctions over the Suez War in 1956.
At the moment there is no real prospect of changing Iraqi policy unless somehow or other Russian diplomacy, allied with the threat but not the execution of military sanctions, produces a shift in Iraqi policy. The one certain matter is that if Britain is not prepared to exercise its own judgment in this matter and defers in advance to anything that the United States decides to do, disaster will follow.
There is one area in which I believe hopeful developments are under way in the Middle East. It now looks as if the United States is beginning to recognise that it cannot afford to treat both Iraq and Iran as enemies. I am delighted to see that Europe. led by Britain, is trying to re-establish reasonable relations with the Khatami regime in Iran. Turkey has already established relations by accepting a pipeline through Iran from central Asia into Turkey and the sea. I believe that there is now an opportunity, if we take seriously the words uttered by Mr. Khatami over several months, to explore every possibility of doing this. Undoubtedly in the short run this will cause us some embarrassment with the United States, but I believe that the time has come when a determined initiative by Europe and Britain, acting together, can shift American policy for the better. I hope that when my noble friend replies she will be able to confirm my optimism in this regard.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I am grateful, although a little nervous, for the opportunity to address your Lordships for the first time. I am particularly glad to do so under the auspices of the noble Lord who opened this debate with whom I worked closely and congenially on these matters for many years during which I came to rely greatly on his calmness, his experience and his wisdom.
We live in a world of nation states none of whom can by themselves ensure the prosperity and security of their citizens. That is why success in foreign policy depends on success in building and making a success of partnerships. Britain belongs to more partnerships because of the scope of its trade and historical friendships than any other country. Although we are far from being a superpower, we remain a world power. I believe that the key partnership for us among many is that between Europe and the United States. That partnership is strong and successful in the NATO area. I do not believe that it is yet skilful enough in handling crises that arise in the world outside the NATO area.
The United States is the only superpower and is likely to remain so. We are lucky in our superpower. Occasionally Americans overstep the mark. In particular, occasionally Congress must be resisted if it tries to foist laws and policies on us with which we disagree. But that does not seem to me to be the real danger of having America as the only real superpower. The real danger is not overweening ambition but occasional loss of interest by American attention

241
wandering away from the problems of the outside world because of the fascination and success of that remarkable country or distractions such as the present ones that make us anxious about the scene in Washington.
But Europeans are in no position to reproach the United States in these respects. We are not yet a valid partner of the United States in these efforts. We as Europeans are not coherent and therefore not persuasive. Following the example set by the noble Lord, I should like to refer to the three linked problems in the Middle East. With regard to the Arab-Israel dispute, for several years the United States has taken the lead. When I had responsibility for these matters, I always discouraged those at home or in Europe who tended to criticise from the sidelines the peace process under way. I was not in favour of the European Union duplicating, or complicating, what the United States attempted to do; nor do I do so now.
As the noble Lords, Lord Wright of Richmond and Lord Healey, have reminded us, the energy of the United States in the peace process has been faltering recently when confronted with the stubbornness of the present Prime Minister and Government of Israel. The peace process has begun to slide downhill, week by week, towards violence and chaos on the West Bank, with the danger of renewed war. The European Union pays a good deal towards the peace process but plays little political part in it. I hope the noble Baroness will amplify what she said the other evening and again this afternoon about her intentions.
The second problem is Iraq. The aims of the United States policy are right, but are weakened by its policy on the Palestinian question. Her Majesty's Government are right to support those aims, but they would be more effective if they were part of a coherent European response, with Europe acting as a valid partner.
We are not engaged in some vendetta against Saddam Hussein, tyrannical and cruel though he is. We are engaged in an enterprise to prevent the spread of desperately dangerous weapons of mass destruction into his hands. There is no doubt about his ambitions or his record, and there should be no doubt about the resolution of the international community to maintain the process of monitoring, inspection and destruction which the Security Council has authorised.
On the third, linked, question it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Healey, is right, that there has been a softening of attitudes under President Khatami and the Government of Iran. We need to probe cautiously their attitudes towards terrorism; towards the Gulf; towards the Arab-Israel process; towards their own acquisition of nuclear weapons; and their attitude towards the unacceptable forms of Islamic fundamentalism—for example, the fatwa against the British writer Salman Rushdie.
These matters need to be probed, but probed by the United States and Europe acting in tandem. If we try to set about this separately, then each of us will be confounded because the Iranians will divide us and profit from the division.
242
These are three linked dangers. They shift shape, like the kaleidoscope, day-by-day. They will not wait to be managed while there is some leisurely investigation of the private life of the President of the United States. Nor will they wait for the endless pontificating about procedure upon which so much time is spent in the European Union.
I hope the Government will use the presidency to change gear in Europe, away from discussing procedure towards confronting substance. It is not easy to get agreement on these matters; but your Lordships will know from your own experience that if you discuss small matters all the time you are sometimes condemned to indefinite disagreement and nit-picking. However, if you set yourself to tackle the fundamental problems under the pressure of evident danger you can produce agreement where you did not necessarily expect it.
Her Majesty's Government have that opportunity in the European presidency and during the Prime Minister's forthcoming visit to Washington.
Finally, a word about the Security Council of the United Nations. It is an essential organisation—not because it always carries out every enterprise, but because, under international law, it is the authoriser, the legitimiser.
Here too there is something of a power failure. I draw the attention of your Lordships and the Government to the report written by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, Words to Deeds, about strengthening the United Nations enforcement capabilities. As would be expected from that author, it is an unpretentious report, full of practical wisdom and suggestions. I hope that the noble Baroness will say something about the Government's intention to carry these ideas forward in Europe and New York.
There are many matters, including foreign affairs, on which we should joust between parties, in this House and in another place, but this essential problem is not one of them. I hope that we on these Benches, as we have done, can sustain Her Majesty's Government in these efforts provided that they sustain the partnership between Europe and the United States, on which depends not only our security but the success of any efforts we may make towards a safer and more decent world.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to rise immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, and to congratulate him on his maiden speech. I first met him when he was the political secretary to Sir Edward Heath; I then learned to appreciate him, as I am sure many other noble Lords did, as a first-class novelist. I hope that he will have a little time, now that he is in the House, to return to the excellent novels which he used to write. He then became a holder of many of the great offices of state, the last being that of Foreign Secretary. We look forward to hearing much more from him in the House.
I have listened to three speeches which all emphasised the importance of greater European co-operation as a context for British foreign policy. That is what the debate is about. I agree with almost the whole of the

243
speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, although I was not entirely sure that his commitment to founding a truly global foreign policy for Britain had the underlying rationale of what a truly global foreign policy for Britain is about.
For my sins, I have to lecture to 20 year-olds about British foreign policy from time to time. Most of them think that the idea of an independent British global foreign policy is something which is more suited to discussion in your Lordships' House than with students of the younger generation. We have to explain to them what British foreign policy is now founded upon.
As the defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, I am doing my best to follow the strategic defence review and I look forward to it emerging. We have been told that it is going to be foreign policy led, but it is not entirely clear where the foreign policy is leading it. There have been conversations about extending power across the Indian Ocean, but a remarkable absence in recent statements about the strategic defence review of weapons to the European framework or the European dimension of British defence. That does seem a little worrying.
We are talking in the context of the UK's European presidency. We have been in the European Union now for 25 years during which time there have been a succession of British Foreign Secretaries. The noble Lords, Lord Callaghan, Lord Carrington and Lord Howe of Aberavon, were among the great enthusiasts for what they saw as the practical co-operation which European political co-operation provided. In almost all cases they held back from further institutional development, afraid of being tied down by treaties and greater institutionalisation and afraid of admitting to Westminster and the British press how far in reality we were engaged in multilateral co-operation with our neighbours.
The same has also been true of defence. Co-operation between the British and Dutch is one of the closest defence relationships we have, and yet it is almost entirely unknown in this country.
Some years ago in Paris I heard from a French Minister that the Franco-British defence dialogue was going extremely well. I came back to London and asked a friend in the Foreign Office "What is happening? What is this thing about a French-British defence dialogue?" I was told, "Yes, it is going very well but, whatever you do, do not tell Sir Nicholas Bonsor", who was then the chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee.
It has been an underlying problem of British foreign and defence policy over the past 20 years that our governments have been reluctant to admit how European, how multilateral, British foreign policy has become.
Now, after the Treaty of Amsterdam, we are discussing the strengthening of the machinery of common, foreign and security policy. I understand that as regards the proposal to set up a policy planning unit, the British are suggesting that it should be small with preferably no more than half a dozen staff, and only long term, while most of our partners are asking for a
244
larger central unit. Perhaps the Minister will say something about our attitude to strengthening the CFSP when she replies. The same applies to the whole concept of the European pillar within NATO and the strengthening of the WEU.
The other long-term characteristic of British foreign policy has been our commitment to a special relationship with the US. In his Guildhall speech last November the Prime Minister—if I remember correctly—remarked that if the French and the US stand together, there is little we cannot achieve. That was in the context of talking about the problem of Iraq.
I take it from the three previous speakers that there is a general consensus in the House that if Britain, the USA and the other west European states stand together we can achieve a great deal more. Furthermore, the British voice in Washington is heard a great deal more clearly if it is part of a coherent European perspective. There are limits to how far Britain should allow itself to be seen to be the USA's most loyal follower, or, perhaps, as, on the occasion of the bombing of Libya, the USA's only loyal follower.
A number of us are worried that as regards Iraq it again looks as though it is the Anglo-Saxons standing firm for their perception of world order even if no one else is behind them. I was a little worried when I saw the Written Answer to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, the other day that one of the UNSCOM teams had 16 members of whom no fewer than 14 were British or American. Given the American ambivalence towards the UN, that seems, to say the least, tactless. It feeds Arab paranoia about western values. We would do much better to place that within a broader multilateral context.
I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, said about American domestic policies, and the perceptions of the Middle East to which they give rise—the linkage which is made in the American press and in Congress between Israel, Iraq and Iran, and the perception of Turkey as a friend of Israel against the Islamic world, which again is an example of how the Americans now see the politics of that important region differently from how we see it. The loss of support for the West in the rest of the Arab world, to which that has led, is something about which we should be worried.
We need a concerted European approach to American opinion. As an adviser to the Transatlantic Policy Network, I have met a number of congressmen and senators in the past few months. I am struck by how many of them are new to Congress; how little they know about Europe or the Middle East; and how far their perceptions of fair burden-sharing and multilateral co-operation are different from ours. We need a concerted European effort to redefine the transatlantic relationship if we are to hold that vital relationship together. We need the Americans, and we should therefore be working together to manage our unavoidably different interests and to strengthen our common interests.
Common foreign and security policy is not an easy row to hoe. In many ways the French are extraordinarily incoherent about what they want out of the European

245
security and defence identity—either their re-integration into NATO or a common foreign policy when it does not always suit immediate French perceptions. The German Government were confused about the defence dimension, although the presence now in Bosnia of 2,000 German soldiers suggests that the German Government are now pulling their full weight. We, too, have contributed to that confusion over the years. I hope that we will use our presidency to strengthen European common policies, and even to support European common actions rather than, as we have so often done in the past, drag our feet.
3.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for initiating this debate, and, in particular, for drawing attention to the role of relations between faith communities, and within faith communities, in internationalaffairs. If the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, is nervous when addressing this subject, your Lordships can imagine what my feelings must be when speaking to such a gathering. Without posing as an authority on international relations, perhaps I may draw attention to the importance of oneof the few non-governmental networks which has a Europe-wide significance and a considerable popular base and potential.
Last year, as the leader of the Church of England delegation, I attended the second Europe-wide Christian Oecumenical Assembly, which met for the first time in Basel in 1989. In that year, with events in the East rapidly unfolding, the atmosphere was euphoric, but as an echo of the comments made by noble Lords this afternoon, the atmosphere at the conference last year, which was held in Graz in Austria, was much more sober.
Participants from all over Europe—from Sicily to the Urals, including no fewer than1,200 young Romanians—made for an exciting week. At the same time, the tensions between different ethnic and linguistic groups, which have surfaced since the Marxist-Leninist tidereceded, were obvious and frankly expressed. In the event, it was not even possible for the Russian Patriarch to meet the Pope as had been planned as a prelude to the assembly.
The theme of the assembly:
"Reconciliation—Gift of God and Source of New Life",
was in those circumstances clearly timely. It confronted the Christian Churches in Europe with their own responsibilities and gave them an opportunity, particularly courtesy of the German media, to address others.
In a small attempt to translate that theme into concrete terms here in Britain, a partnershipinvolving myself, Cardinal Hume, and a moderator of the United Reformed Church is currently at work converting the church of St. Ethelburga in the City of London, which was reduced to rubble by the Bishopsgate bomb, into an international centre for reconciliation and peace. It is intended that that centre should have close working relations with other similar ventures in Europe, and we
246
are already in touch with institutions such as the Peace Centre in Maputo in Mozambique—one of the newest members of the Commonwealth. The centre has a fascinating specialty: it fashions cast-off weapons from the civil war into furniture.
In addition to those concrete initiatives. I, like so many other noble Lords, welcome the emphases of the British presidency, identified by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in a recent speech:
"employability, flexibility, entrepreneurship and equal opportunities".
I hope that Ministers will be much alive during the period of the British presidency to the potential of the faith communities as active social partners within the EU and as vital potential bridge builders between the two hemispheres of Europe, East and West.
The Foreign Secretary has commented also on the justifiable concern felt by many people world-wide about the environment, and that up to 14 million people in Europe alone are suffering from the effects of ambient air pollution. Here again, faith communities have a contribution to make. Last October, I was a participant in a symposium on the problems of the Black Sea region, which brought together scientists and religious leaders under the joint patronage of the Patriarch of Constantinople and Mr. Jacques Santer. After an inauspicious start, when we were stoned by Turkish Grey Wolves in Trebizond, a dialogue was opened up that included not just some of the most distinguished marine scientists in the world but Jewish, Moslem, Christian and leaders of other world faith communities. Here was an event which drew the faith communities together in common action on a common challenge. We are now in the process of trying to translate that symposium into terms which will have an impact on community attitudes in countries where there is often a well-founded tradition of distrust for the initiatives of authority.
I hope that the Church of England itself will be an active rather than a grumbling participant in that process. I remember vividly a visit I made to a rather dilapidated church and a church warden observing rather sadly to me, "You know, Bish, I think it's inertia that keeps us going".
I do not think that that is a wise policy in the face of the challenges that confront us in a Europe where tensions are resurfacing. While secular institutions are developing rapidly in Europe there is also a parallel process of institution building between the Churches. There is the Conference of European Churches with its headquarters in Geneva. That is a meeting place for the Churches, East and West, providing a forum where the Russians can put their case and, for example. listen to their critics. That conference has just been strengthened by amalgamation with a Brussels-based organisation which relates specifically to the institutions of the EU. There is a parallel Roman Catholic structure bringing together the episcopal conferences under the presidency of the Cardinal of Prague.
Churches should be equipped to make a contribution to fertilising the moral imagination in a continent which has been partly shaped by Christian ideals and

247
institutions. We are all faced with the challenge of how to convert the moral imagination of many individuals into energy for change and hope. and, unfashionable as it is, careful institution building, not least to make further inroads into the East-West divide in Europe, is part of the answer. I believe the re-invigorated Commonwealth is a hopeful example of what can be achieved.
4.3 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to be the first to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London on behalf of the whole House on his maiden speech. We have long looked forward to hearing from him. His theme of faith communities, reconciliation and peace and institution building between the Churches was one which we all found most interesting. We shall look forward to hearing him on many occasions in the future.
He indicated, unlike my noble friend Lord Hurd, who I would also like to congratulate, that he was not perhaps an expert on foreign affairs but I believe that he is an expert on art and literature, at any rate of the Mediterranean world, having been a Swan Hellenic lecturer for many years past. He has been a regular visitor to Russia and is also very knowledgeable about French and Russian culture and language. One thing about him, if I may say so, is that he does not suffer from inertia.
I too would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for introducing this debate today, and to say how much I valued his wise advice when I was a Foreign Office Minister. He has touched on many of the great issues which confront us in the world, particularly in the context of the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union. I was most interested in his comments on the Middle East and in particular about the Moslem faith.
This afternoon, in my capacity as President of the West India Committee, I would like to raise the whole issue of the European Union and the Caribbean. This is, I recognise, a relatively small part of the world in the context of the big issues that have been raised and there is, of course, a danger that it can be marginalised. Yet the countries of Spain. France, and the Netherlands all have a direct interest in the Caribbean. We ourselves have longstanding links through the Commonwealth.
I was pleased to hear Lord Wright's recognition of the importance of Commonwealth links. Of course, we have direct responsibility for the dependent territories in that part of the world. As I say, there is a danger that the Caribbean can be marginalised. I have noticed that small islands can easily be forgotten but can cause a quite disproportionate amount of difficulty if something goes wrong. One needs only to look at the Falklands; this last summer the tragic situation in Montserrat, a tragedy which continues; the situation in Grenada, and I hardly think we need say anything to the Americans about their relations with Cuba.
This afternoon I should like to touch briefly upon three specific issues where Britain's interest and the future development of EU policy should. I believe,
248
better coincide. The three concerns relate first to those islands in the Caribbean which are dependent upon bananas, to Cuba and to the dependent territories. In each case I believe that a more sympathetic approach taken during the British presidency will not only materially assist the Caribbean region but will also make clear the positive role the Government can play in helping to develop the EU's Caribbean policy, thereby enhancing Britain's position in the region.
Two weeks ago the European Commission put forward proposals for changing the single European market for bananas in the light of the 1997 WTO appellate ruling that the existing regime discriminated in favour of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. As your Lordships would expect, the ideas that the Commission have developed to resolve this issue are complex. You will be relieved to hear that I have no intention of going into them this afternoon. But what I would like to say is that there is a very great danger that the EU's approach is a compromise that will neither please those who want further trade liberalisation or those who argue for the need to protect small. vulnerable economies in developing regions such as the Caribbean. The real danger for us all is that if this one staple crop in a number of islands disappears, farmers will take to growing crops such as drugs, for which, of course, there is a ready market.
Unfortunately, bananas have become an issue around which important aspects of the new global trade order are being resolved. The EU solution has been to try to please all parties by proposing a system that may work, but only as a transitory mechanism to a new liberalised global market early in the next millennium which will be based on quotas and a programme of technical support.
The problem is that this compromise takes little account of the realities on the ground. Farmers in the Caribbean operate on a cash basis. They need to know where their income is coming from if they are to invest. We need to find the longest possible life for some kind of transitional new regime and encourage a much more sympathetic approach to enlarging the funding available. In other words, we need a period of certainty during which there is a gradual and stable transition with bananas to more diversified economies.
May I now just touch on Cuba. Europe here has a common position in its approach to Cuba. But despite that, I sometimes feel that our partners understand better than we the importance of a flexible dialogue with the Cuban Government. I believe that Britain now has a unique opportunity to take forward proposals which would place the United Kingdom at the forefront of the European debate about Cuba, about its place in the Caribbean region and its relations with Europe.
May I suggest to the Minister that we could respond favourably to the new proposals that are being put forward by the Cuban Government that would link new credits from ECGD with the gradual settling of commercial debt. Britain could lift its declining trade with Cuba and at the same time couple this with ministerial visits from the Foreign Office, the DTI, and the DFID. We could talk in detail about the matters of

249
concern to ourselves and the European Union. We could extend invitations particularly to the future leadership and to the reform-minded younger Ministers. We could cement a long-term relationship which would benefit not only ourselves but the Cuban people. We really want to find a sound basis for moving on to matters of concern with regard to civil and human rights.
I conclude by saying very briefly a few words about the dependent territories. As I understand it, the Foreign Secretary is to make a statement on a policy review in the very near future. In the European context, it is far from clear whether Britain has undertaken the consultations necessary with elected leaders in our overseas territories about what they require from the post-Lome arrangement. We sometimes forget that it is the British overseas territories which make Britain a Caribbean nation. Together with the Dutch and French overseas territories and DOM, it is those micro-states which continue to link Europe with the Caribbean. I believe that for far too long we have treated matters of concern in those areas as matters to be managed rather than as an issue of partnership in which elected governments have as much at stake as we do.
It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate what plans the Government have to consult with the governments of our overseas territories on their post-Lome requirements and an indication of the way in which, during the British presidency, those views will be incorporated into both an EU negotiating mandate and the development of an ACP position.
Time does not permit me to go into any more detail on those issues. However, I hope that I have indicated clearly that Britain. bilaterally and in the context of the European Union, has a continuing and important role to play in the Caribbean in at least three ways during its presidency. I hope that it will show the leadership in the Union which is expected of it quite particularly by the leaders in the Caribbean itself.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London on his wide-ranging maiden speech. I congratulate also my noble friend Lord Hurd on his eloquent maiden speech. It seems to me curiously appropriate that I should be in a position of being able to congratulate my noble friend Lord Hurd on his speech since. 45 years' ago, I made my own maiden speech in another place—I refer to the Cambridge Union and not to the House of Commons—in his presence.
In this ninth winter after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War and the emergence of the United States as the one super power, a variety of issues will occur to your Lordships as the most important. Some noble Lords will discuss whether it is possible, and if so how, to restore the great alliance which defeated Iraq in 1991. Others will wonder whether perhaps, following the speech of my noble friend Lady Young, we should adopt a different policy towards Cuba; or whether we should perhaps give further support to the European Commission represented by
250
Sir Leon Brittan or, indeed, His Holiness the Pope in recent statements criticising the foolish American policies towards economic relations with Cuba.
I myself like to see the British presidency of the European Union being marked by a solution to the Gibraltar problem along the lines of the proposals made by the Spanish Foreign Minister that we should make a move towards joint sovereignty of the peninsula in the manner of Andorra.
However, those are detailed although important matters. There is one critical question which we should consider, especially if the Prime Minister is really aspiring to lead Europe in the long term. That is a matter which haunts most of the other questions that are likely to be raised and, indeed, have been raised in this debate.
That ghost is a ghost of the future. Some noble Lords may feel that it is inappropriate to speak of a ghost if it is not related to the past. But 150 years' ago Karl Marx described how the spectre of communism was haunting Europe. A spectre is undoubtedly haunting British attitudes towards the European Union in 1998; that is, in my submission, the growing realisation that, if we really wish to be taken seriously in Europe, and certainly if we wish to lead Europe, we must, sooner or later, reconsider both publicly and privately, intellectually and militarily, our relations with the United States. We should neither expect nor desire the special relationship, which has certainly served us well up until 1989 or 1991, to survive in its present form in the future.
I listened very carefully to the eloquent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, and I was not comforted. I did not feel that the special relationship and our relations with Europe are so perfectly balanced as they should be. For a long time, I have thought that in this country we have sought to get the best of both worlds in relation to our friendship with the United States and our association with the European Union. The consequence has been that we have failed to find an appropriate identity in our post-imperial age.
I have no doubt that I shall be assured by ex-Ministers with great experience, and perhaps by present Ministers, that nothing should ever occur which would alter our important military and security arrangements with the United States. All the same, I cannot believe that, in the long term, we should be forever resigned never to take any interest in or collaborate in the defence arrangements within the European Continent, which have so interested France, which country has initiated a great deal, as was remarked by my noble friend Lord Wallace, and which are bound to have a long-term future. My noble friend Lord Hurd suggested that some kind of European dimension would be the best hope of reviving the alliance against Saddam Hussein.
In another context, I cannot help feeling that we might wish at some stage—the idea may seem extravagant but it is possible—to invite a contemporary continental European statesman to take the chair of an Irish peace-seeking committee in place of an ex-American senator.
Those are all details, even if important details. I should like to insist before your Lordships that we should wish to see a sea change in our attitudes towards

251
Europe and towards the United States. As noble Lords will recall, there was a famous exchangein 1944 when Churchill told de Gaulle that if he ever had to choose between the open sea and the continent, he would always choose the ocean; and if he had to choose between America and Europe, he would always choose the first. I submit that our generation of Europhiles—that is what we are called and I do not mind that expression at all—should seek to reverse the direction explicit in that great story.
That is not to argue that we should oppose America, nor that we should be anti-American, or reject America. But I suggest a new priority. In relation to the Europe of the future, we are witnesses to, and participants in, momentous intellectual and moral processes. We cannot fully see the combined effects of them at this time, but we should not judge their benefits by recalling what worked in the past during the Cold War, during the Second World War, the memory of which is still so remarkably warm in our culture, or during the days when Britain had an empire on which the sun never set.
4.20 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, during the course of his remarkable and perceptive speech, my noble friend Lord Wright devoted a section to the relationship with Islam. It is on that subject that I should like to concentrate for the next few minutes in strongly supporting the ideas and the views that my noble friend put forward. Indeed, as the Government develop their role as president of the European Union, I hope that the Foreign Secretary and his advisers might have time to study some of the aspects of the eastern question in Europe in the 19th century, especially in so far as they are relevant to this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Healey, referred to the Ottoman empire, which, as he implied, was at the heart of the eastern question. However, as my noble friend clearly suggested, the current contemporary dialogue between the Islamic and the non-Islamic world, and more especially between Islam and the Judaeo-Christian cultures of Europe and the West, is now becoming a matter of increasing importance and urgency.
At present, this is largely a dialogue of the deaf, characterised on both sides by a failure of tolerance and understanding. That arises in the West from such misconceptions as the failure to recognise that revolutionary movements like the Black Moslems in the United States have nothing much to do with Islam, apart from the borrowing of a few bits of selective rhetoric from the Quran. There is also a tendency, especially in our media, to use the phrase, "Islamic fundamentalism", as a synonym for terrorism or extremism whereas, of course, a fundamental belief in Islam is no more sinister or threatening than a fundamental belief in Christianity. On the other hand, misunderstanding in Islam arises from a perception of democracy among some followers of Islam as being in conflict with the sovereignty of God, separating the faithful from the "ungodly" western society.
So far as concerns the West, there is no excuse for ignorance. There are more than 10 million Moslems living in western countries; there are about a million in Britain. and the number is growing. The British Islamic
252
community has been growing and flourishing, especially in thelast 30 to 40 years. There are nearly 500 mosques in Britain and, as His Royal Highness Prince Charles said recently in a speech to the Oxford Centre of Islamic Studies, popular interest in Islamic culture is growing in this country. Thousands of UK citizens live and work in Moslem countries, but, as the Prince of Wales remarked, distrust between the cultures, and even fear of each other, persist.
However, that does not apply only to Britain. It is a feature of life in several European countries; indeed, we have already had mention of the terrible sufferings of the Moslems in former Yugoslavia. We need not be reminded that fear, prejudice and bigotry are still poisoning international relations. With the end of the Cold War, it might have been supposed that the chances of global peace and stability had substantially increased. For a time, events in the Middle East provided further cause for optimism—perhaps, as we have already heard today, too much optimism.
Yet, the dangers have not disappeared. Indeed, as my noble friend mentioned in his speech,there are people both in the Islamic world and in the West who advance the proposition that,with the end of the central struggle of the 20th century between capitalism and communism, thegreat conflict of the 21st century will be that between Islam and the West. That seems to me to be a dangerous over-simplification. As a military historian, I have made a long study of the causes and origins of conflict. They are complicated and many-sided. They include the ambitions of unscrupulous and dictatorial leaders; economic rivalries; the collapse of established societies; and so on. However, the most persistent underlying causes of conflict aredistrust and fear, based often upon a failure to understand the aspirations of other societies and the sensitivities of other cultures. That is especially significant today in the relations between Islam and the West. These, of course, date back centuries to the days of the Byzantine empire and were exacerbated in the time of the Crusades. They are now mainly characterised by a sharply different approach to the concept of theocracy. Islam does not recognise the exclusive jurisdiction of any lay authority in the conduct of worldly affairs whereas, in the West, although we do sometimes recognise moral imperatives in the conduct of worldly affairs, many decisions are taken outside and independent of religious precepts and principles. That is an important difference which is not always fully understood.
In Britain, which is a multi-cultural society, there is often still misunderstanding of that difference, which occasionally, I fear, leads to an apparent lack of respect for the dailypractices of the Islamic faith, and to actions and words which may seem unremarkable within our own culture but which cause deep offence to Moslems. At the same time, it must be said that we have the right to expect those of the Islamic faith who come to live in our society to respect our history, our culture, our religious traditions and our way of life. While Moslems have a right to be themselves within their own religious faith, they also have an obligation to integrate themselves into the community in which they live.

253
Medieval Islam was a religion of remarkable tolerance for its time. It was an example to the rest of the world. However, it is a matter of great regret that today we in the West do not perceive tolerance as one of the outstanding virtues of Islam. That view is not confined to the West. Recently, in my presence, a distinguished Islamic diplomat quoted from an article he had contributed to a French political journal in which he wrote that the cherished Islamic traditions of courtesy, tolerance and hospitality were temporarily in eclipse. That was an Islamic diplomat speaking.
Another fruitful source of misunderstanding and frustration is the ignorance on the part of many of the extent to which there is much common historical experience shared between Islam and the West. As Prince Charles said in his speech at Oxford, the West should recognise the great contribution of medieval Islam to the making of modern Europe—something which is not often recognised by modern historians. Further, not just in the political and cultural fields, without the work of many Moslem scholars the development of western science would have been seriously impaired. On the other hand, sometimes in the Islamic world—and I have had personal experience of this—there is a reluctance to accept that the West has also made serious contributions to the human condition. There is a tendency among some Moslems to concentrate on those aspects of western behaviour and culture which are at best inexplicable and at worst offensive to Islamic sensibilities.
Relations between Islam and the West are at a crossroads. In my view, it would be tragic if, as my noble friend suggested, we were now to accept that they are set on some kind of collision course. We need now to consider seriously ways of stimulating and encouraging a serious dialogue. The West will have to get rid of some of its stereotypical prejudices. Above all, western commentators and journalists must learn not to extrapolate the utterances of extremists into some false perception of Islam as a whole.
There is much that we can now do, in co-operation with the countries of Islam, to solve some of the really serious besetting problems of poverty, hunger and disease in the developing world. For over half a century those problems were largely overshadowed by the confrontation between the Soviet Union and the West. It would be a tragedy if they were now to be overshadowed by a failure of comprehension and communication between two great religious and cultural traditions.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for what he has just said. I agree with every word. As a Jewish leader, it has been part of my life over the past few years to try to promote precisely what he has said. I call in aid what the noble Lord, Lord Wright, said about Islamophobia. I have been on two occasions to Jordan as part of a parliamentary delegation to help them to set up an
254
inter-parliamentary council against islamophobi a to match the Inter-Parliamentary Council Against Anti-Semitism, over which I preside.
I have also educated myself since Oslo. In the world in which I grew up as a Zionist leader we had no contact with Arabs and very little with Muslims. But since Oslo I have made it my business to try to find out how people live and how they think. I have been extremely kindly and courteously received. I have travelled to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, the Yemen, Oman, Qatar and even to Saudi Arabia. I find that I have a great deal in common with people there. Part of our common bond lies in the past, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. has said. The golden age of the Jewish people did not occur in a Christian land nor indeed in a Jewish one; it occurred in Spain at a time when it was ruled by Muslims. Those three great religions have a great deal in common, as they do with others. I believe that one great contribution that Britain can make during its presidency of the European Union is to try to look for what we have in common and to search for the common ground and not to attack each other for what we perceive to be our differences. We should try to find ways in which we can work together and help others for whom the peace process is even more essential than for ourselves to achieve that end.
Recently I spent a week in an Israeli Arab town. Sakhnin, in Lower Galilee, where I tried somewhat unsuccessfully to master the Arabic tongue. I know that in all these Arab places the vast majority want peace. They want it as much as the people of Israel want and need peace. The problem lies often with the systems of government and with the people who rule them.
In most of the countries in that region, rulers are not elected. In Israel, they are elected. One of the problems the Israelis have is that they have elected people for whom most of us would never vote, just as we in Britain elected people for 18 years for whom I did not vote and whom I desperately tried to get rid of.
As the noble Lord, Lord Healey, said, we have to recognise that in many places we are dealing with dictatorships and that is not the same as dealing with democracies. As the noble Lord, Lord Healey, also said, we have to recognise that when you are dealing with democracies you have to deal with the people whom the voters in those democracies have seen fit to elect to office. Whether you like them or not, whether you would vote for them or not, you have to deal with them.
I would not have dreamed of voting for Netanyahu as I deplore many of his policies. But the fact is he is there and he has been elected. If we want to take part in the peace process, it is no good just attacking him, or indeed those Americans who support him, or people in this country who support him. We have to try to find a way to help him to achieve peace while keeping his own cabinet together as long as his government lasts.
As I said, most people in all these countries want peace. The people want security; certainly that is the major concern of people who live in Israel. Family and friends of mine are afraid to go on buses or go to supermarkets. They do not know when the next bomb will go off. But that is not a result or a creation of

255
Netanyahu's government; it existed in the time of Peres. The suicide bombs led to the election of Netanyahu's government; otherwise, Peres would have been Israel's prime minister today.
This is a complex and difficult problem. It is one which we cannot just get rid of by saying, "If we give the Palestinians whatever they seek, this will go away". That is not the case, and that is their problem too.
I was a convert to the concept of a Palestinian state, after Oslo. I now believe firmly that unless and until there is a Palestinian state there will be no full peace in the region. That is the view of the Israel Labour Party and it is my view. But you cannot have a Palestinian state except under conditions in which their Israeli neighbours are able to live in peace with them; where Israelis are satisfied that their lives and those of their children will not be even more endangered than at present; and where they do not feel that by giving up territory they are merely providing ground from which their enemies can leap more easily into their towns and villages to cause more havoc, harm and death. In my respectful view, we must find ways through our EU presidency to assist this process and to work with both sides.
We must try to get rid of some of the stereotypes referred to so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I am president of an organisation called the Maimonides Foundation, which seeks to establish and foster relations between Muslims and Jews, here and abroad, because if we do not understand each other we shall get nowhere. We must start with individuals. In my belief the problem of peace lies not so much with the people because they cannot have it even if they want it—but with those who lead them and rule their countries and with the relations that they establish.
I learned this in an odd way. Many years ago, I was invited to visit President Sadat in his villa on the Nile. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, will have visited that place often. President Sadat was at that time making vigorous verbal attacks on Menachem Begin with whom he was seeking to make peace. When I asked him why he was doing that, he said, "You do not understand, but my friend Menachem Begin understands. He has his constituency and I have mine. We have to bring our constituencies behind us. He and I will make peace".
The sadness of Washington to me was that Netanyahu met Clinton and Arafat met Clinton but Netanyahu did not meet Arafat. They were together in the same city but they were not brought together to talk. The talks were conducted through intermediaries. The minds did not come together. They helped towards a condition of trust. Our Prime Minister has an outstanding talent. People identify with him and they like him. He has a way with people. I hope that we can get results precisely through the good will that he could create and which he is so good at creating.
I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Wright. I have worked with him in other spheres for many years. I know that he thinks there are double standards in the US Congress. He knows that they think that he has double standards. That will not get us very
256
far. I sometimes wonder whether if he were made a United States senator there would be a balance in Congress. But of course he would have to sit for Arkansas. He would not get elected in New York or California. But wherever he sat. I am sure he could do a great deal of good and bring light and some laughter to the United Sates Congress.
I say, with respect, that it does not help to slam the US Congress. It is much more helpful to do what the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, has done and stress the importance of our partnership. I pay tribute to him and to his maiden speech. He was president of the Cambridge Union the term after I was and we have been sparring partners for many years. I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, is to speak after me. I am sandwiched between two people whom I have held at political arm's length right through my political life. They are both my friends. I am pleased to have the opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, on his maiden speech.
The Middle East was the focus of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wright. I turn to other speeches. With respect I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, as regards giving up the rights of Gibraltarian citizens to their sovereignty without their consent. In my view the situation in Gibraltar is the same as that in the Falklands. I even ventured to suggest in my maiden speech that Gibraltar might send delegates to our Parliament, with no voting rights, in the way that the dependencies of the United States send non-voting delegates to the US Congress.
Europe is a great family of peoples. If we can in some way as a family act as catalysts and bring people together, our presidency will be worthwhile. We can bring peace to parts of the world where there is none. If we can act as catalysts, if we can get rid of some of the stereotypes, then, when our presidency is over, we will look back on it with pride.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, as another member of this all-party Cambridge mafia. perhaps I may say how pleased I am to be taking part in the debate in which we have heard notable maiden speeches from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and my noble friend Lord Hurd. The noble Lord will remember that he and I, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, spoke together for the first time from the front bench in the Cambridge Union exactly 49 years ago. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, was lurking on the other side.
I wish also to join with others who welcome the debate so well and effectively introduced by the noble Lord—perhaps I might say my noble friend—Lord Wright of Richmond on whose guidance and support I depended throughout my time in the Foreign Office, and not least when he was Permanent Under-Secretary. I am glad that he widened the scope of the debate and even so left it realistically placed in the perspective of the European Union and the British presidency. He was right to point out that the world in

257
which we live is much more hazardous than it might have seemed at the end of the Cold War or when Francis Fukuyama pronounced the "end of history".
The noble Lord, Lord Healey, drew attention to the hazards to be found in the former Soviet Union. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and I have for some years been in a partnership together in the Republic of Ukraine. I fear that our attempts to offer economic advice in that quarter leave it still finding it very hard to establish confident foundations for the future, much to our regret.
As the noble Lord, Lord Healey, pointed out, in Russia there is a continuing and uneasy balance between the struggle for economic reform and sheer lawlessness. The noble Lord, Lord Wright, made plain that throughout the broad areas of the Middle East there is trouble to be found around almost every corner.
I endorse what has been said by several speakers about the need for us to try to re-establish an effective relationship with Iran. One of the happier moments of my life when I was Foreign Secretary was to achieve just that with the Iranian Foreign Minister, only to have it blown out of the water within three weeks by the pronouncement of the fatwa which has hovered over us ever since. We shall need together to work patiently to make progress in that direction.
In the Asia/Pacific region—it has not been mentioned—the problems that loom most large at present are economic. In a sense it is reassuring to see the increasingly important and engaged role of the People's Republic of China upon whom we depend not only in that region but in the United Nations.
I hope that I may be allowed to digress for one moment to say a word about Hong Kong. I know that what I say in this respect has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, because we discussed it recently. It is important to praise the remarkable stability in that territory despite all the recent economic difficulties. Credit for that is due undoubtedly to the Chinese Government who have been following the spirit as well as the letter of the Joint Declaration and have given real substance to the concept of autonomy for Hong Kong. Credit is due also to the Chief Executive, Tung Chee Hwa, for his steadiness and calm in a challenging situation, plagued by avian flu as well as an economic crisis. Finally, a tribute is rightly due, I think, to the Hong Kong Civil Service, under Anson Chan and Donald Tsang in particular, for their remarkable demonstration of how to move from loyal service to one government to equally loyal service to their successor. Long may they all continue as they have so well begun.
If one turns to look at the broader picture, it is true, as others have pointed out, that only one superpower remains: the United States. But our partnership—Britain and Europe alike—with the United States is of huge importance. When Raymond Seitz was ambassador—he wisely refrained from using the words "special relationship"—he described the relationship of the nations concerned as an intercontinental one, which is why the link between Europe and the United States is
258
so important. But it would be unwise as well as unfair to lean too exclusively upon the leadership of the United States.
The Financial Times yesterday referred, remarkably, to,
"the obvious reluctance of the US body politic either to assume the burdens of world leadership or to accept the constraints of a consensual world order".
One should realise that such an anxious state of affairs is far from abnormal. Europe is not the only continent where competing national or factional views make it difficult to achieve and sustain a common foreign and security policy. Only a few months ago, in the autumn edition of the National Interest James Schlesinger, an experienced former servant of the United States Government, said that in his country,
"ethnic groups"—
he cited Armenian, Cuban, Greek, Irish and Zionists—
"have acquired an excessive influence over foreign policy—
to the extent that—
"it can scarcely be said that we have a foreign policy at all".
That is serious commentary. No doubt it goes too far. But driven by that fragmented background the United States response all too often takes, or threatens to take, the form of sanctions, frequently extraterritorial and unilateral. James Schlesinger points out that during President Clinton's first term the United States imposed or threatened unilateral economic sanctions 60 times against 35 countries that, taken together, make up 42 per cent. of world population.
There is no room for doubt against that background that we European nations need to get our foreign policy act together. Public opinion in all our countries, and in the United States, wants to see a collective determination by European Governments to speak and act more decisively, more urgently and, above all, more coherently on the world stage.
In last week's Economist the noble Lord, Lord Owen, said that Britain should "champion that cause"; and he was quite right to do so. As regards what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, I do not think that we need to become embroiled, as my noble friend Lord Hurd said, with any further discussion of procedural change. Effective European foreign policy needs neither treaty amendment nor extension of majority voting, but. above all, political leadership. The United Kingdom has unique diplomatic and military strength to bring to that cause, if we do so in practical partnership with our French and German allies. And nowhere, if I may say so, is that more necessary than in the Middle East. If we were to achieve that, it would not undermine but strengthen the Atlantic alliance.
Moreover, it is a field in which British talk of leadership in Europe is reasonably credible and convincing so long as it is asserted, as it should be. reasonably modestly. It would lend conviction to our management of the rest of the presidency agenda: to establish a credible route map for enlargement; to sustain the pressure for institutional change in that area to make enlargement possible; and to reform the CAP. But, above all, the biggest challenge to our convincing role in Europe is in our handling of economic and

259
monetary union. I commend the analyses of that—there have been two already from the noble Lord, Lord Currie: and a second one due shortly from my noble friend Lord Kingsdown. Their message is this: it is going to happen. In the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Currie, it is,
"a crucial but uncertain venture [in which] nothing is inevitable".
The range of possible outcomes could be between triumph and disaster. On any view it is outstandingly in the British interest that it should succeed.
On all sides, therefore, a growing number of people in this country want us to achieve that. They echo the phrase again used by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who is sceptical enough about the whole exercise that,
"our task as a country is to keep genuinely open all our options on the Euro for the years ahead"
on the basis that,
"five years or more is an eternity".
The struggle to keep that option open, for which my right honourable friends John Major and Kenneth Clarke fought so hard, has been well worth fighting for. It is important that that option should be real. It is important that the Government and the country should prepare themselves to be able to join, and to promote public acceptance of that objective.
In the context of the United Kingdom presidency the key challenge now to Her Majesty's Government is to spread agreement among our partners on the urgent and continuing need for supply side reforms and flexibility, above all, but not only, in labour markets. That is why the United Kingdom presidency in that context is so crucial, because we are there at the beginning, not the end, of an important journey. If Her Majesty's Government show courage in exploiting their own more positive attitude to press (on other governments as well as upon themselves) the essential reform agenda if EMU is to succeed, then they will indeed be able to count on the support of all those who are committed not to the flamboyant rhetoric but to the modest reality of British leadership in Europe.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I cannot speak with the same knowledge or wide experience of foreign affairs as former Secretaries of State or the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, to whom we are indebted for this debate. I rise to draw attention to the plight of Tibet. In doing so, I must declare an interest as patron of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Tibet and of the Tibet Society.
We are rightly proud of our parliamentary tradition of settling our disputes by "parley" rather than by the sword—indeed, we constantly seek to persuade other nations to follow our example.
When the Dalai Lama received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, it was because of,
"His consistent resistance to the use of violence in his people's struggle to regain their independence".
Since 1959, His Holiness, together with some 100,000 of his countrymen and women and children have lived in exile in India—and all honour goes to India for taking them in.
260
In September, I visited Dharamsala, and during my discussions with the Dalai Lama he told me that one of his great problems was to restrain young Tibetans in exile from taking up arms in their struggle to return to their homeland. They say that unless and until they do so, the world will continue to turn a blind eye to their plight. I am sure your Lordships will agree that we who preach and practise the same non-violent approach as the Dalai Lama have a moral obligation to give him our positive and practical support.
Four weeks ago, the International Commission of Jurists published a long report (some 370 pages) drawing attention to the continued repression and the gross abuse of human rights in Tibet. It is the latest of several reports. To its credit, the European Parliament has long supported the Dalai Lama's approach of reasoned negotiations with the Chinese Government and his policy of non-violence. As recently as 15th January, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling upon the Council and the Commission to appoint a special representative for Tibet,
"responsible for doing everything possible to carry out the European Union's demands as regards civil and political rights in Tibet with a remit to monitor developments there".
The United States Government recently appointed Mr. Gregory Craig as special co-ordinator for Tibet with a remit to promote substantive negotiations between the Dalai Lama and the Government of the People's Republic of China.
The All Party Group on Tibet, as the Minister will know, has had several meetings with the Minister of State in her department, Mr. Derek Fatchett, and we have been greatly encouraged by his robust approach to the problems of Tibetans in exile.
The United Kingdom's presidency of the European Union provides an ideal opportunity positively to promote the appointment of a European special representative for Tibet to carry out the resolution of the European Parliament in full.
My diary contains at the start of each week a quotation. This week, it was by Francis Bacon. It read:
"He who deemeth small things beneath his state will he too small for what is truly great".
It may be true that in relation to the other problems and dangers to which other noble Lords have drawn attention the plight of Tibet is a small matter and not therefore a particularly high priority. But it is not a small matter for the people of Tibet and those in exile.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that for our country it is a moral duty that we should practise what we preach. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give us that assurance today. For the people of Tibet, it would be a truly great thing.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, there are many important issues for the British presidency. They have been outlined in a number of notable previous speeches. I listened with particular fascination to the immensely authoritative speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, in introducing the debate.

261
I wish to advert to what must still be the central issue of our presidency; namely, the attitude of the Government to monetary union. It is our attitude to monetary union which will determine the influence we have over the policy of the European Union, over our relations with the United States and indeed events in the Middle East.
I wish to examine three different problems that confront us at the present time. The first is that we are not, and will not be, members of the crucially important so-called Euro X committee, which will almost certainly evolve into a very powerful committee, the kernel, as it were, of the European Union and will have an influence that goes far beyond fiscal matters. We shall be excluded from key decisions on fiscal policy; we shall be faced with decisions taken by that kernel.
But our influence and the effects of exclusion will be mitigated if it is clear what our intentions are, and if we are more ready to commit ourselves to monetary union than we have been so far. In a sense it raises what is perhaps the most fundamental objection to our moving in that direction. The gut objection of the opponents of monetary union in this country is that a move in that direction would inevitably be a move to political union, and that the Euro X committee is a first step in that direction. It is argued that we cannot have a single currency without a political union and without a single government—that we cannot have one without a European superstate.
Factually, that is not so. We have had the example of Ireland, which was a member of a monetary union with Britain and which could remain neutral. However, I leave that point aside. I wish to examine two more basic answers to that first problem.
The European Union is in itself a unique and unprecedented institution. The single market in its present form is a unique phenomenon. Never before has there been a single market with institutions to support it, such as the European Commission and a whole network of regulations to enforce and control competition within that single market, without there having to be a single government.
Similarly, the move towards a single currency is unique, with a strong co-ordination of fiscal policy which need not by any means lead to a single government. There is no reason why an effective co-ordination through the Euro X committee could not be sufficient to co-ordinate fiscal policy to support the policy of the central European bank.
But there is an even more fundamental objection to the argument that this move is inevitable, based on the attitude of member states. There clearly cannot be a European superstate without the consent of all the members in it. France has very much the same objections as we do to the idea of a federal superstate. The French are just as jealous of their national history and independence as we are. If we were members of a monetary union, we, too, would have a power of veto over any further moves towards a superstate.
But perhaps the most interesting objection is the attitude of Germany itself. Of course, one can quote
262
Chancellor Kohl and his many statements that he wishes to see a political union and a federal Europe. One can quote speeches by Herr Tietmeyer. But what many of the opponents have not noticed is how German attitudes have changed.
What happened at Amsterdam? One cannot move to a European superstate if the right of veto is retained. What happened at Amsterdam is that the Germans voted against the extension of qualified majority voting on some issues and we supported it—a rather ironic state of affairs. The Germans voted against it because of the pressure of the Länder. In effect, Herr Kohl admitted that the Germans have had to modify their aim of a federal Europe because there was not sufficient support for it.
Let me look at the second obstacle. The obstacle that has been raised particularly by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is the question of convergence. Our present lack of convergence, the difference in the British economy, should not be overstated, although there is a lot in it. If our aim is clear, if our aim is to join and is declared to be such, we will see the same kind of convergence in this country as has happened in other European states. For example, why do short-term interest rates matter much more in this country than they do elsewhere in the European Union? Because we have had a much higher rate of inflation. Those who have mortgages will sensibly choose variable mortgages, if there is a risk of inflation. Those on the Continent who have seen a record of much lower inflation have gone for long-term fixed mortgages.
We should remember the experience of the Netherlands and Ireland, two countries whose economic cycle has been completely out of whack with those of the rest of Europe. The Netherlands has had a boom for a number of years; Ireland has had an extended boom and a very fast rate of growth. They see no difficulty about linking themselves to a single currency. Indeed. the Netherlands has had 10 years' experience of a fixed currency in relation to the deutschmark and has prospered considerably over the past 10 years.
Let me turn to the third and most serious obstacle, which is the exchange rate. In a way it is odd that this was not mentioned by the Chancellor when he made his Statement on 27th October. My understanding is that we cannot join a monetary union unless for at least two years our exchange rate has been stable in relation to the Euro. The prospect could well be that with our being excluded and our future being uncertain, there will be even more speculation affecting the pound than we have seen so far. It may be possible that we do not technically need to join the ERM. However, my view is that we should join the European exchange rate mechanism as the best form of showing our commitment to the European monetary union, and the best way of reducing the value of the pound and promoting its stability. Preferably we should do so, if we can negotiate it, at the central value of the pound of around 2.60 deutschmarks.
Of course there would be outrage at such a suggestion. Is it not true that our membership of the ERM was a disaster? It is important to slay the myths in our relations with the ERM. The main cause of our

263
discomfort is that we joined the ERM at an unsustainably high rate of exchange. Our partners sought to dissuade us, we broke the rules, we disregarded their advice and we paid the penalty.
The second myth is that it was only because we left the ERM that our recovery started. In fact, it had started before we left the ERM.
The third point which needs to be made is that the ERM was always a rather unsatisfactory halfway house without rates being fixed, which made it potentially a paradise for speculators if a currency's level was unsustainable. With the much wider band, it is now a much safer one and it is much more viable now that the final fixing of the currencies has come so close.
If it was clear that we too would join a monetary union and that the level of the pound was sustainable, then joining the ERM would probably be the best way of avoiding the instability of the pound which would be a real threat in the coming years while we were outside the monetary union.
Our influence in the European Union has recovered since the Government changed Britain's stand from what was basically hostility to constructive co-operation. But in the end our influence during the course of our presidency will depend on our attitude to the EMU. For once, I somewhat differ from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, who stressed the fact that we should keep our options open. If we create uncertainty, if we are seen to dither and not to make up our minds, then eventually Mr. Blair will end up in exactly the same position as Mr. Major.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield: My Lords, I hope I shall be forgiven for committing what I understand to be a minor breach of convention at this stage in the debate and say what an immense pleasure it has been for me to listen to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell. It was a distinguished and typically perceptive speech and I am pleased to be taking part in the debate with him.
It is also for me something of a novelty. In my previous incarnation our discussions took place in somewhat more private circumstances and on more public occasions my role, as I understood it, was perhaps to be seen but extremely rarely to be heard.
The United Kingdom presidency comes at a critical moment for the future of the Union. For years ahead, economic and monetary union, its institutional underpinning and its practical consequences, including its impact on the vitally important plans for enlargement of the union, will dominate the debate in Europe. Many of our European partners have already demonstrated that. by immense efforts of political will and a readiness to face tough decisions, radical reform is possible. But this process is far from finished. The necessary reform of Europe's labour and product markets, the transformation of the common agricultural policy and of the Union's regional and structural funds, will continue to create economic and, above all, social stresses which will test the fabric of member states.
264
But although they are well known, they are not the only dangers. There is in this process of adaptation a risk that the Union will become self-absorbed, wrapped in the complexities and strains of its own internal restructuring. It is here that the United Kingdom has a significant role to play; a role for which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, pointed out, it is well equipped. The task is to ensure that self-absorption does not become endemic but that the Union remains open and outward looking and plays its full part in the world. Like the noble Lord, Lord Healey, I therefore also particularly welcome the fact that the second ASEM conference, bringing together the countries of Asia and the Union, will take place during our presidency and under our chairmanship.
It is on that relationship between Europe and Asia that I wish to concentrate for a few moments. There is, I believe, a direct linkage between the Union's developing dialogue with Asia and the process of the Union's own internal reforms. The present crisis in most of Asia's financial markets highlights a range of problems that Asia is far from alone in struggling with.
Much has been written in recent years on the process known as "globalisation", a newish word in the lexicon of international debate. It is undeniable that the integration of capital markets across the world has developed at an astonishing pace. To quote one example, a little over 10 years ago 190 billion US dollars a day passed through the hands of the world's currency traders. By 1995 that figure had risen to 1.2 trillion US dollars. Yet for all the dramatic changes, the integration of capital markets throughout the world has not yet reached the levels that we achieved early in the 20th century. In short, the process is far from completion and the certainty must be that it will continue.
The European Union cannot simply opt out of the management of this secular change. To pick up the words used in the elegant and thoughtful maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. inertia will not keep us going. As a matter of enlightened self-interest, the Union must learn to cope and adjust. So too must all of the industrial and financial centres of the world, not least in the countries of Asia. We all face a steep and dangerous curve of learning and adjustment. That process will be extremely painful. There are no simple answers and no right models. It is not a question of there being a European, an American or an Asian solution, let alone one based on European, American or Asian values.
For all their differences, Asia and Europe can learn from each other. There is little doubt, as Asia's crisis has shown, that domestic economic management is all important and that one country's domestic economic management is everybody else's international interest and occasionally everybody else's international nightmare. Transparency, political openness, sound and credible regulation, accountability, integrity and freedom from corruption are the crucial elements. Thus, the good governance of the financial institutions of the state and their sound and efficient regulation is vital.

265
What has that to do with the European Union? One of the lessons of GATT—and now the World Trade Organisation—is that free trade and open markets are part of a paradox. Just as deregulation led to the creation of a whole panoply of semi-autonomous regulators, so free trade, for all that it is free, requires a comprehensive body of rules. As a recent article by the chairman of Unilever said,
"these rules will have to be rigorously invigilated and energetically enforced and, to the distaste of some, this process requires supranational institutions to enforce those rules".
The Union must play its part in the formulation of a sensible and enforceable rules-based system. None of those issues is likely to reach a solution during the presidency of the United Kingdom, but I hope that the Minister will confirm tonight that Her Majesty's Government will seek to use the ASEM conference to place them firmly on the agenda and at the forefront of the Union's preoccupations.
In spite of the fact that the United Kingdom will regrettably not be able to take part in the first wave of economic and monetary union, during their presidency Her Majesty's Government can set a tone and, to some extent, lead the way towards a Union which avoids inward-looking incestuousness and seeks to play its proper role in the world. It is not a question of teaching lessons. Europe has many to learn and much to do to stimulate the openness and transparency of its own financial and product markets. The coining dialogue with its Asian partners offers an important point of departure.
5.14 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, in wishing to speak briefly in this debate I am greatly embarrassed that I must ask the House to forgive my absence in the latter stages of the debate and the winding-up speeches. The Worshipful Company of Engineers, whose invitation as reply speaker I accepted many months' ago, is my only reason for not remaining here tonight.
Despite that difficulty, it seemed about time—according to many of my colleagues—that I made my second maiden speech. This is my first ever from the Back Benches of your Lordships' House and I must admit that, like the right reverend Prelate who made such a notable maiden speech and my very good noble friend Lord Hurd, I, too, am nervous tonight. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for initiating the debate.
Many of your Lordships will speak about the United Kingdom and its leadership of Europe at the moment, particularly in relation to the difficult but essential questions of our membership of the European Union and monetary union. I remain convinced that we were right to join the Common Market in 1973 and I was proud to be Britain's Europe Minister for three-and-a-half years in the late 1980s. I also know well from the last two presidencies what exertions have to be undertaken to get the European ideal to work in the best interests of our people. I hope, therefore, that the Minister, in
266
responding tonight, will outline how the Government intend to take every opportunity to pursue a co-ordinated and thoughtful policy in their six-month leadership of the European Union.
We all know that the European Union is far from perfect as an organisation. But the same can be said of almost every international body. However, it is the duty of every member government, and particularly of the presidency, to monitor every action from Brussels and to ensure that we get the best value for money from our joint actions. I for one—keen and passionate European though I may be—know the shortcomings and know that there is a long way to go to achieve that best value for money. We must give more attention to acting together to make sound policy decisions within the Council of Ministers than perhaps we have done in the past. I hold myself to blame for that. But we must also be sure that we look into the future, as many noble Lords have said tonight. We only have a chance to make Europe our Europe by being fully engaged and I have no doubt that that must be done for the sake of the British economy, for trade, for employment and the environment and particularly for the sake of future generations.
I am not an economist. I shall not go into the sort of detail that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, mentioned in relation to economic and monetary union. But I have no doubt, not only for Britain's industry but also for Britain's people, that there will be a certain disadvantage if we remain permanently outside monetary union and some disadvantage in remaining outside until the second wave of entrants, which we now know to be the case. The Government are cautious in their approach. I hope that they will not be too cautious. We need to remain engaged in this debate and to have a hand in the rules by which economic and monetary union is decided, even though that looks difficult being outside the X Committee.
My purpose in speaking tonight is to turn the attention of the House to the Commonwealth and Africa; to the opportunities and particularly the dilemmas faced by Africa, my adopted continent. Far too little is being done by the European Union to open up the real trading opportunities for African nations. Most Africans wish to see the basis of their development as trade. They want to make sure that the agreements following Lome actually work to give them entry into the European markets. They want to see a successful conclusion to the free trade agreement with South Africa in the light of the WTO. This is a first class chance for the British presidency to play a much greater role than we are seeing at the present time in opening up trade for African nations with the European Community.
I must declare my interest as an independent consultant to the World Bank. It is in that context that I have spent a number of weeks in southern Africa since May, discussing how African countries can realise their potential through all types of training for both the public and private sectors. Most Africans are, by instinct, entrepreneurial. But few of the overall population have had the opportunity of even the educational training that we take for granted. The women particularly gain tremendous dividends from investment in their industry in Africa. Our European Union is not doing sufficient.

267
I hope that during their presidency the British Government will stimulate even greater European assistance to Women in Development in the Commonwealth and particularly in Africa. All my expertise tells me that that will bring greater dividends and faster development.
I am well aware that this is not a development debate. But it is an essential part of foreign policy. I realise that the Government have split the two departments. I say to the Minister and to the Prime Minister, with whom I discussed this almost a year ago, that I hope the two departments will work much more closely together than seems to have been evident in the past few months.
What is essential, if international bodies are not to spend an increasing amount of their time and our budgets in conflict prevention and resolution, is that those developing countries must be helped to have a greater capacity to run their own countries peacefully, democratically, more efficiently and profitably for their nation. That is only going to be achieved by closer working relations between the developed nations and their European friends.
Last night we debated the situation in Zimbabwe. Perhaps I may say a word in that context. For many years after independence, President Mugabe did a good job in reconciling the diverse interests of the country. If the British presidency of the European Union does anything in the next few months, I hope that it will he to work for a speedy, courageous decision, which will take account of the problems and concerns of all the people of Zimbabwe. This situation can be resolved, but it needs a good deal of effort by friends of Zimbabwe to do so.
I wish to just touch on two other troubled areas tonight. Information in this House has been one of the greatest values I have placed on our debates here. Efforts are now being made in Rwanda by President Bizimungu and Vice-President Kagame to resolve the problems. There is far too much alarmist and foolish talk about that country. After four hours of talks last Saturday, I do not believe that there is another genocide in the making. The problems are great, but they are not insoluble. Again, the European Community under our presidency can do much to help the leaders of that country.
In Sierra Leone the people are suffering not only the trauma of past conflict but the human rights abuses of the current junta which ousted the democratically-elected president. I welcome the Government's appointment of a former British Ambassador to help bring about the resolution of this tragic situation. In that most difficult task I hope that we shall have the fullest support of all our European partners.
In conclusion, the task of foreign affairs is always complex: it is one that I have much enjoyed. But it is in our best interests that the European Community and Britain pay greater attention to the Commonwealth and to Africa. I hope to be able to continue to do so in a private capacity. I wish the Minister well in her efforts in doing that.
5.23 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey. I particularly appreciated her earlier points about Britain's role in Europe. I understood her to say that she regretted some of the unfortunate acts that happened during the period of office of the last government whereby our European partners saw us as a penny farthing to a Rolls-Royce. I thank very much the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for his masterly introduction. I hope that I do not misquote him. He said that our diplomacy can be enhanced through the European Union.
I believe that, as a nation and as an offshore island of a great continent of 14 members of the Union, not only will Europe be enhanced, but we shall also be enhanced by the process of transforming the European Union through enlargement. The noble Lord, Lord Wright, sounded a warning bell. I now declare an interest. I have lived for two-and-a-half years in Estonia. Our embassy there consisted for two-and-a-half to three years of one ambassador, one consul and one-third of a defence attaché who served all three Baltic states. About a year after he had been appointed, the ambassador came to me one day and said, "I have wonderful news. No longer do I have one-third of a defence attaché in my embassy, I have one-half of a defence attaché." What happened was that Helsinki and Tallinn shared: and Riga and Vilnius shared.
If we starve the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of funds it will not be able to do the job as well as Ministers and the nation want. I believe that we have reached a bedrock in cuts to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council and the ODA. Although the British Council is an independent body, I believe that it is still a projection of how this country is seen by the rest of the world as well as Europe. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give us an assurance at the end of the debate that there will be no further cuts to the Foreign and Commonwealth budget. Perhaps she will also tell us in what ways Ministers in the Foreign Office require to see greater funds put into our embassy work abroad.
I commend the maiden speakers. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. In April 1995 I was standing in Tallinn town hall—Tallinn is the capital of Estonia—surrounded by the president and members of his cabinet. There were also present six ambassadors to Estonia. I was hosting a small reception which I gave as regards the British contribution to the United Nations' peacekeeping battalion, the Estonian company. Over the fax machine had come the text of one of the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. I shall probably misquote, but the gist of it was this: who could ever consider Britain or the United States chucking a nuclear bomb on Russia to save, let us say, Estonia? I believe that that demonstrates that all Ministers must be very careful how they handle the eastern and central European nations at this very sensitive moment when they seek to come into our Community.
I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his admirable maiden speech. I suspect that time did not permit him to mention the Porvoo declaration. In the

269
summer of 1996 the most reverend Primate, who is not in his place today, led a group of bishops from all the Anglican communities to Tallinn to take part in a service where the noble Lord, Lord Eames, preached the sermon.
The Porvoo declaration laid the foundations for the Lutheran and Anglican communities to share worship. It led the way over the European Union, NATO and other organisations. Long may the Anglican Church continue to lead from the front. We look forward to hearing from the right reverend Prelate very often on many different subjects.
I declare an interest. I am secretary of the British-Estonian Parliamentary Group. I speak after one of its members and before another; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, whose speech I am very much looking forward to hearing as he is highly regarded in eastern and central Europe. In order to put this group of all-party politicians from both Houses together, in conjunction with the committee, I had to put forward a statement of purpose. I suggested—this was accepted—that our aims should be to enhance Anglo-Estonian relations, to assist in the process of bringing Estonia into western European institutions, and to facilitate the exchange of information between both groups.
Could not that simple project be extended to the Government in their dealings with the European Union during their presidency? We are 28 days into our presidency. I am a rotten mathematician, but I think that that means that we have 152 days to go. But where is the statement of purpose? I hope that at the end of the debate we will hear a statement of purpose from the Minister. Perhaps it is in that burgeoning folder I see. We all greatly respect the noble Baroness for her work representing the Foreign Office in this House for the past eight months.
If we do not hear a statement of purpose from the Minster, perhaps I may assist her by presenting one now. First, I wish to see us enhance our relations with our European Union partners which were, I am very sad to say, seriously dislocated during the past 18 years. Secondly, I wish to see us do all in our power over the next five months—and, indeed, beyond—to bring the hundreds of millions of people who are our European cousins, brothers and sisters into the European Union. I should like that to happen as quickly as possible. Some are talking about decades; some are talking about years. I hope that it will be only a few years before the first five-plus-one are admitted as full members. Thirdly, I wish to see us attempt to build bridges with the Russian Federation. I believe that all of those processes must take place concurrently. It must be in the interests of the Russian Federation to have a strong eastern and central Europe. If we can achieve that and enhance also the security of those 10 nations, we shall, I hope, have established something for future generations.
Of course, our presidency of the European Union can enable us to help to eliminate poverty, hunger, international crime and the persecution of minorities, but until our European house is in order—I go back to
270
the beginning—we cannot, in the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, count for much in the world.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords. I welcome the debate not only because it has brought us the treat of the very wise opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, who rightly reminded us that we must have a foreign policy machine which is effectively resourced—that is essential; not only because the debate has also brought us the excellent maiden speeches of my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell and of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the Back-Bench maiden speech of my noble and very good friend, and sponsor, Lady Chalker of Wallasey; and not even because the debate is timely because of our presidency of the European Union, but particularly because I believe that Europe, and particularly those parts of Europe that comprise the Union, is about to confront a series of huge, new challenges for which it is totally unprepared and about which there has been very little debate. I refer in particular to the financial and economic turmoil in South East Asia—from which I have just returned this morning, so I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I sound a bit bleary—which is of an immensely serious nature, but which is not yet fully understood here, in the West, to judge by some of the rather airy-fairy and cavalier comments about what has been going on there.
I shall return to the subject of Asia in a moment, but I should like first to say something about the European question generally. I have always regarded myself as strongly pro-European. I have a dream of a greater Europe which stretches from the Atlantic to the River Bug and which embraces the brave Baltic states, about which we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Carlisle. I have never found any difficulty in combining that pro-European stance with an economist's caution—perhaps "scepticism" is too strong a word—about the whole euro project and the attempt to impose on this area, this non-optimal zone, a single currency when there is no real convergence of economies—and that is quite aside from the British position. Whatever the Maastricht formulae say—even they have had to be fudged—the reality is that they are still very different economies. It worries me that, far from being able to be a good European and support the euro, one could find oneself in the contrary position. The euro could end up being a divisive force and not at all in line with the kind of Europe that I have always wanted to see.
The real need in Europe is for a very strong strategy of liberalisation and of deregulation, pushing the expansion of the new membership very hard indeed, with flexibility in the labour markets and CAP reform. If, as I understand it, that is the content of the Government's policy and if that is what Mr. Blair means by taking the leadership in Europe, I totally support it—that is entirely the right way forward for a strong and positive European policy—just as I supported it when it was put forward by the previous government when I urged it on those of my friends who would listen.

271
Above all, what Europe, particularly continental Europe, now needs is some economic growth. Continental Europe needs that right now in 1998 if it is to get the water lifting and the great boat of the euro afloat and off the slipway on 1st January 1999, which is certainly what is planned and what is coming. The countries of continental Europe need more growth. They need that if they are to escape the enormous levels of unemployment in their economies. In Germany, unemployment is now much higher than it ever was under Hitler. Unemployment is very high in France, leading to colossal social tensions. They need growth if they are to get away from that. As I have said, they also need growth if they are to launch the euro. They now need growth to meet a new challenge: the backwash of the turmoil in Asia. It is coming and it will inevitably dominate our presidency and the ASEAN meeting in April.
Perhaps I may share with your Lordships my impressions of the area after my brief visit to South East and East Asia. Many of the leaders to whom I spoke regarded the whole situation as a nightmare. They spoke of holding their breath during the Chinese New Year to see whether the situation will resume its full awfulness as soon as the New Year break is over. It seems to me that the question of whether it is just a regional crisis, which will still have some effects, or a global crisis, is a very narrow call.
Four conditions have to be met—they are by no means certain to be met—if we are to avoid the effects of what is happening in that part of the world (which, after all, accounts for 30 per cent. of the entire GNP of the globe) driving into all our western economic affairs. First, the huge Japanese economy has somehow to start moving again. I do not think that it will do so for some time. Even now, the reforms that they are trying to push through are beginning to be talked down by whispering Japanese politicians who are saying that it is too difficult. However, it is essential that Japan at the very least rolls forward at a modest pace rather than stagnates or moves down into real contraction and deflation. That is possible. I hope that it will not happen, but it is possible.
Secondly, there is the Hong Kong peg. If that goes—I am sure that Tung Chee-hwa, his excellent team and his very effective monetary authority are absolutely determined that it should not—the pressure will be colossal. I know that they say that Hong Kong is a service economy and that it is not therefore so much a question of manufacturing prices, but the prices of similar goods all around Hong Kong have fallen dramatically. The pressure will be very difficult to resist.
Thirdly, there is also the question of China. Zhu Rongji is a very able man who understands the markets. He says, "We are not going to be pushed off our position. We are not going for another devaluation of the Renminbi and the Yuan, as we did before", but the Chinese have the Koreans on their backs. The Koreans have similar exports and they are very tough. Once the Koreans have got some of their debts under control again, they will cut or halve salaries and have much tighter living standards in order to compete. The Won
272
is now worth half its former value and that will knock similar Chinese exports very hard indeed. The pressure on China will be colossal.
Fourthly, in Indonesia anything can happen. In the past 24 hours there has been a slight breath of hope, but there is a very dangerous political situation in that country. They are very near riots. There are dangers of food shortages in Jakarta and after Ramadan a new crisis may break out. I am not sure that the latest idea to roll over private sector debt will either he agreed or if agreed will reassure people for very long.
We cannot push all of these matters aside. Even if all of them turn out right, the impact on Europe will be felt. We shall sell less to these countries. The corporations are already beginning to mark down their prospects in that respect and have noted that demand is falling. There will be imports from Asia which initially will not be cheaper because they have to pay their import costs with more expensive foreign exchange. Oil is cheap and becoming cheaper. I believe that they will re-adjust quickly and that cheap imports will come into Europe and hit European and American production very hard and very soon. I believe that that will come as a great surprise to some of the pundits who have said that nothing like that can happen. We know already that direct foreign investment from Asia is drying up. Projects by Samsung in the North East are being cancelled. There is a real danger that that will cause further damage to our economy.
I urge noble Lords not to underestimate the Asian economic strength. It should not be written off as some journalists have done as though the Asian miracle is over. It is not. Asian power is enormous. It can recover from these difficulties. If it does not recover it will damage us, if it does recover it will damage us somewhat. We must be prepared for that. We must have a very strong, resilient and open European structure. If our leadership means anything in Europe it means keeping to the fore openness, resilience, the expansion programme and reform of all the arthritic structures which have made Europe a protected and inefficient zone. That is the real leadership needed in Europe and that is what we should put first.
5.42 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, our European way of life, so long as it lasts, is highly valued not just by ourselves but by large numbers of our friends all over the world, including refugees from many countries who have made Europe their home. Although we are an island nation, historically we have been outward-looking and welcoming and even able to absorb other cultures, at least since Norman times. This open-mindedness has been reflected by the Foreign Office. But, as a post-colonial power, have we recently become too diplomatically reticent to give our former colonies and distant allies the attention they deserve and once received?
We have been ticked off for meddling, as in the case of Kashmir last year, but I believe that where we can we should take every opportunity within Europe on behalf of the developing world to encourage and assist

273
the countries where we have had a particular experience. In the case of Africa, Algeria is a good example provided we act together and the Algerians allow us to help. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said, we could do more as Europeans to support our friends in the African Commonwealth, notably Presidents Mandela and Museveni who have tried to inspire a new African leadership, entrepreneurial spirit and grass roots democracy, and persuade the French to do the same. We could do more in the Middle East to convince our Moslem friends that in our new European role we are not just the creature of the Atlantic Alliance. Somehow we have to combine these roles, but we can do more as Europeans. For a start, in the Middle East we can convince our European partners and Russia that we are looking beyond the psychological war with Saddam Hussein. We could discuss the economic and humanitarian problems of the Iraqi people alongside human rights and compliance. We should be aware that Iraq is now one of the poorest countries and that the oil-for-food deal is not working adequately. We merely toe the US line which seems to be drawn somewhere between Jerusalem and South Dakota. As a nation we are hardly Europeans yet. How can we join EMU when we have scarcely learned any European languages, let alone speak them; when our suspicions of French diplomacy continue; when we rarely take German holidays; and competition for world trade and contracts is as fierce as ever? We still have a lot of ground to cover
Our new Government have made a brave and promising start in international development. I was present today at international Question Time and was impressed by the large attendance of young Members of Parliament—a rather larger attendance than on these Benches. I hope that the Government will keep their stated objectives in the White Paper within the European framework, especially during the coming Lome negotiations with 71 mainly African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. Human rights is an important new initiative provided it is coupled with the relief of world poverty which is now a strong foreign policy objective in its own right. Surely, we can expect European coherence in that.
As has been rightly said, development has its own ministry and new leadership, but this does not mean that aid is divorced from foreign affairs. On the contrary, it means more interdepartmental co-operation which is something that the non-governmental organisations have urged for some time. The Treasury's continued interest in debt is to be welcomed, especially the Government's lead in the Paris Club on Mozambique last weekend, but this needs to be extended. It is an urgent priority for the least developed nations, as Oxfam, Christian Aid and the Churches quite rightly remind us, and will continue so to do.
An economically stable society means a sounder political system and a safer world. This is not in doubt. Yet we are not pulling our weight among the DAC countries either financially or politically. Debt apart, we have not taken a lead as have some other countries in raising the issue of poverty above the level of regular
274
EU and UN meetings. The prospect of Tony Blair, or even Gordon Brown, becoming our Willy Brandt still seems a long way off.
There are urgent problems in the third world which seem far away but in the end will affect us. Civil wars, drought, poverty and AIDS also involve us. Diplomacy must now cover a vast range of social and economic issues that affect developing countries, including trade. There is concern among NGOs and church agencies that the liberalisation and globalisation process has forced developing countries into a straitjacket which is not in their best interests; in other words, to achieve financial results before they have advanced socially and politically.
The early process of structural adjustment caused havoc in Africa. While generally favoured by OECD aid donors, it led directly to hunger and starvation through austerity measures and required new aid mechanisms to help them recover: extra programmes of assistance, Lome, debt relief initiatives and 20:20 programmes which have been important but wholly inadequate. The new WTO rules and the latest Multilateral Agreement on Investment are just more waves of globalisation breaking over vulnerable societies and taking more power away from third world governments. I very much welcome the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore, on this subject. The International Monetary Fund and multinationals should not presume to fill the vacuum of good government and strong leadership. The thesis that globalisation automatically brings liberalisation and democracy in Africa as in Eastern Europe is difficult to sustain. While decentralisation and democratisation sound good to western ears—and some Asian ones—they can also contribute to the breakdown of fragile economies. This can be an impossible dilemma for traditional diplomacy. How does one reconcile the need for good governance and human rights at the centre and top and the urgency of strengthening local institutions and civil society at the grass roots?
Perhaps the Minister with her particular experience will confirm that the new management seeks people with a real commitment to change and social justice in other societies. This process is not a threat to Europe as we know it but an extension of subsidiarity and devolution to the developing countries where we are working for improvement.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak immediately after my old friend, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who made a characteristically optimistic and well-informed speech. It has been a remarkable debate. It started with two interesting and challenging speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Wright of Richmond and Lord Healey, and has continued largely at the same level.
The Carnegie Commission recently launched at Chatham House its report on Preventing Deadly Conflict. It came to the conclusion that what causes deadly conflict within and between states is injustice and frustration. That statement is self-evident to all who

275
have given the matter any attention. That is why justice is not an optional element in security and stability and why frustration can never he eliminated or even silenced by the use of force.
Before I talk about Europe and the Middle East, I would point out that the Carnegie maxim applies also to international organisations, and perhaps especially to world organisations such as the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and the proposed multilateral agreement on investments. If these bodies impose social injustice and the abandonment of national autonomy, and thus of national democracy, they will be actively promoting frustration. If their doctrine sends to the wall those who have nothing to sell, they are machines for the creation of injustice and frustration and therefore, eventually, of deadly conflict. Let us hope that that is not how history turns out.
Our debate draws attention to the role of this country as the current president of the European Union. It will be a test for us to do that well, given the long-standing differences between the United States and most of the continental members of the European Union about Iraq.
The crux of the question is whether the existing UN Security Council resolution on Iraq is sufficient to legitimate a renewal of military action, or whether another is required. The United States is sure that it is sufficient. Russia is sure that it is not. France is strongly drawn to the Russian position and, considering the successes in recent years of Franco-Russian diplomacy, one can see why. I understand that decisions may even have been reached this afternoon, and I would welcome news about that at the end of the debate if possible.
In the Middle East injustice flourishes. It is harboured, and sometimes energetically pursued, by some governments there as both national and international policy, more cruelly and dangerously than elsewhere. Consequently, frustration also flourishes there and those whose frustration leads them, in the language of the Carnegie Report, to violence and confrontation see further violence being ceaselessly urged against them.
What are ordinary Iraqis to do except despair? And the Kurds? Bombing chemical and biological weapons factories and stores is not going to help much.
The present grim situation did not come out of the blue. All people are blind, and none so blind as the supremely powerful. Part of the American blindness, with which we so often align ourselves, is that we divide up situations which are closely linked, which are even identical in some respects, each of which separately embodies injustice and frustration and thus produces deadly conflict. Thus we limit the breadth of our vision and the ease with which we can recognise injustice and frustration.
Overall, there is an American tendency to embrace the Huntington thesis—which Lord Wright has effectively demolished this afternoon—that a war of the civilisations is on the way: the West (including both Christendom and Judaeoism) against Islam, for instance. This frankly idiotic piece of futurology is being promoted by those for whom conflict—because they
276
make and sell the weapons and can avoid having their own blood shed—is an acceptable, even an agreeable vista.
The greatest concentration of the situations is in the greater Middle East. This vast area includes, above all. the new Caspian oil province and Turkey; therefore, the oil pipelines; therefore, Greece and Cyprus; therefore, the European Union. It is also bedevilled by the expansion of NATO's presence into central Asia. Here is the overall context of both the UNSCOM/Iraq dispute and the United States' approach to Iran.
Then there are the "rogue states", our supposed enemies. The United States lists Iraq. Iran and Libya as rogue states to be feared and disciplined. They engage in international terrorism and torture; they threaten and attack their neighbours; they seek weapons of mass destruction and platforms from which to deliver them and they embrace religious fundamentalism. Today, objectively, Israel is therefore a rogue state, engaging conspicuously and freely in all those activities. But the United States will not say a harsh word which is publicly audible.
There is the peace process—Oslo—in which the Palestinians' rights to land and autonomy. neglected for nearly 50 years, were at last accepted and signed for by Israel on the White House lawn. This has now turned into an ignoble barney between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Netanyahu. The real situation—the one in which Israel imposes injustice and frustration on the Palestinians, on the Lebanese, on some Syrians and on the Jordanians—is ignored.
None of these peoples were responsible for the original appalling injustice against the Jews which led to the founding of the state of Israel. Moslems—Syrians, Saudis and Iranians—all believe that the Jones/Lewinski affair is promoted by the "Friends of Netanyahu". Mr. Netanyahu was indeed visiting his various friends in Washington last week before his meeting with President Clinton. This belief could be pure paranoia or it could be a true perception—we shall not know for quite a while—but what matters politically is that it is believed and makes life harder for all those who want peace.
Next, Iraq and UNSCOM. Iraq's nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction have become part of a battle between the Security Council and Iraq, though the nuclear part is now apparently won. Israel's failure to get rid of its nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction—mostly funded by or from America—and its failure to abide by UN resolutions are forgotten by the United States. They are remembered by all of Israel's neighbours. They are the cause of Saddam's drive for weapons of mass destruction in the first place and any others there may be or have been in the Arab world.
Again, we choose to wash our hands of the collateral damage done to ordinary Iraqis by our embargoes, about which the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, spoke so eloquently a couple of days ago. Clearly, there are those in the United States who wish to use military force against Iraq. Iraq is not poised to attack at the moment, so this would be either punitive for past actions, which the UN Charter does not allow, or it would be what the

277
Pentagon calls pre-emptive counter-proliferation; that is, an attack on facilities thought to be part of a potentially proliferatory capability.
Do we want the United Nations Security Council to go down the road of pre-emptive counter-proliferation without further thought? I believe not, for its other name is aggression. Before that, there must be a new discussion and a new resolution in the Security Council that does not provide a precedent for pre-emptive counter-proliferation.
6 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I want to address in particular the need for a common European foreign and security policy, and for coherence between all the external responsibilities of the EU. It is just as well that we have an opportunity to debate the CFSP today, since we will not have it when we debate the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, giving effect to the Treaty of Amsterdam, because that Bill does not include Article 1 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which relates to amendments to the Treaty on European Union—the one which covers the CFSP. Nor does the Bill include the protocol on the relationship between the CFSP and the WEU and Nato.
The research paper of the other place on that Bill carefully notes:
"To add [the new treaty] as a whole would. in some respects, he tidier but this would breach the principle so far upheld by British governments, that it is important to maintain the distinction between the 'intergovernmental' and 'Community' aspects of any European treaty".
What does that augur for progress under the British presidency towards greater substance for the CFSP, greater coherence for EU external action as a whole, or achieving public support for an effective common policy?
It is made clear in the treaties since Maastricht that the Union's objective in external policy is to:
"assert its identity on the international scene. in particular through the implementation of a common foreign and security policy, including the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which might in time lead to a common defence".
Those are strong words: the EU is expected to "assert its identity" on the international scene. The challenge now is to translate those words into action and realise the full potential of Europe's weight in the world—indeed, to assert a European security and defence identity. Until now the problem has been that the intergovernmental procedures have been better suited to the co-ordination of national policies than to the stated purpose of implementing a common policy. That is different.
There has also been a stunning lack of political will. leading to failures, such as in Bosnia. Member states have taken positions determined more by the type of Europe that they wanted than with the purpose and scope of a European foreign policy. It would be encouraging to think that the new Government might concentrate on the needs of that policy, and not, "pontificate on procedure". in the phrase used by the noble Lord. Lord Hurd.
278
I had the privilege recently of hearing the Italian Prime Minister, Professor Romano Prodi, speak at the LSE. He outlined all the substantive economic and political reasons why:
"Europe will play an increasingly significant role on the world stage",
and:
"will have to develop a truly global vision".
He thus lamented:
"the Common Foreign and Security Policy has not yet really started".
I read that a Union-wide action plan on Kurdish refugees was being formulated between diplomats and experts in police co-operation, immigration and asylum, for approval by foreign ministers on Tuesday. That must have involved both Community competence and intergovernmental competence under the Maastricht provisions on the CFSP and police co-operation. There is no doubt already a great deal of employment for Foreign Office lawyers in working out the legal bases and format of any decisions. So far as I can see, it could be even more, not less, complicated in future, because the UK has opted out of the Amsterdam Treaty's shift of immigration and border control powers into Community competence.
Any future discussion may involve five headings: Community competence for trade and economic matters; Community competence for asylum; UK opt-out of Community competence on asylum; Union intergovernmentalism on foreign policy; and Union intergovernmentalism on police co-operation. We should try to explain that to the public.
If the present Government are no better than the previous one in wasting energy, nit-picking over competence, they will not make progress towards the treaty goals of strengthening the security of the Union, preserving peace and strengthening international security. Surely there can be no "People's Europe"—the Government's goal—without working to achieve security for our citizens at home and internationally, enabling our citizens to understand what the EU is doing along the way.
Security, as other noble Lords have said. needs to be interpreted in the widest sense—to cover not just defence or even confidence-building or arms-reduction measures under the CSCE or the UN; it should encompass and co-ordinate policies on free trade, economic prosperity and financial stability, environmental sustainability, migration, tackling crime, and furthering democracy and human rights, including women's rights, all of which are goals of the Union under the treaties. We need what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in the context of domestic policy called "joined-up policy".
I should like to see the British presidency anticipate the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty in two respects, which would promote coherence. It could encourage practical implementation, in advance, of the future duty on the Council of Ministers and Commission to co-operate in helping the Union,
"ensure the consistency of its external activities as a whole in the context of its external relations, security, economic and development policies".

279
Previously, noble Lords may be surprised to hear, there was no duty on those two main European institutions to co-operate.
The UK presidency could also encourage shadow implementation of the new powers under the treaty to decide on "common strategies" under the umbrella of which the common positions and joint actions will be drawn up. Developing common strategies is a power of great potential value. It is one which could be exciting and far reaching in its impact, not merely in co-ordinating Union activities in the various fields, but in hooking public opinion into the debate on Europe's role. Would it not be an excellent application of the "People's Europe" concept if, at the beginning of each presidency, there were an open televised debate on perspectives for progress in the CFSP, perhaps with foreign ministers meeting Members of the European Parliament and national parliaments?
For foreign policy to be effective, the policies must enjoy popular support. The political capital currently perhaps squandered on defending some EU activities which are of a dubious relevance could be regained by showing how effectively Europe could be a force for good in the world. What better time than now, while the world holds its breath to see whether Britain and America will take military action against Iraq, to achieve a European code of conduct on arms sales with real teeth to stop arms sales to repressive and dangerous regimes and real parliamentary accountability. What better atonement for past British mistakes in weapons sales to Saddam Hussein, and apparently showing his officials how to make weapons with anthrax.
It would surely not be difficult to rally public opinion to the idea of much closer working between the EU and the WEU to undertake humanitarian, peacekeeping, even peacemaking tasks—the so-called Petersburg tasks.
I shall not speak about the Middle East because others have done so, but what better time than now to develop a long-term strategy on relationships in the Mediterranean area, especially fostering the economic progress of the Maghreb and encompassing the improvement in understanding between Christianity and Islam. The most fertile recruiting ground for the extremist terrorists in Algeria are the slums of Algiers, with their millions of disaffected and unemployed young men.
Looking at Asia, surely the priority is not to sell more weapons, capable of internal repression, to the discredited regime of President Suharto in Indonesia. It is to do all that we can to stimulate trade, to secure respect for human rights and democracy, and to stabilise exchange rates by punching our collective weight in international forums such as G8 and the IMF. Such weight will increase hugely once we have a single currency which will start to match the dollar. One of the best moves the UK Government could make under their presidency is to make real progress towards Britain jointing the Euro.
Finally, foreign and security policy under the British presidency of the EU would be improved were Gordon Brown to announce in his March Budget a significant
280
increase in funding for the BBC World Service, to include funding for its co-operative broadcasts with other European external services, so that the voice of the EU is heard more loudly and convincingly throughout the world.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, my first instinct is to extend my sympathy to the Minister. She faces summing up on a debate in which the speeches have varied from matters of great seriousness and, in the case of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe, information which is valuable to us all, to a speech such as the one we have just heard, which reminds me of nothing so much as the kind of thing that was talked about by the League of Nations in the 1930s. I thought that we had grown out of that sort of thing. But the other reason for my sympathy, and perhaps a more important one, is that the noble Minister has had so little oratorical support from her own Benches. I would hardly take Lord Kennet's usual expressions of paranoia about Israel and the United States as much comfort there. But not only has she had few speeches, I would point out that the Benches behind her have, for the most part, been empty. That is not, I think, what Lord Salisbury meant by "splendid isolation". It is, after all, very important that members of a governing party should show an interest in foreign affairs. Otherwise, how will the points made by two former Permanent Secretaries of the Foreign Office about the weakening of our representation overseas be corrected? It is necessary that there should be support in the governing party for an adequate budgetary provision for foreign policy.
Having expressed my usual sympathy, may I now proceed to the topic. I find myself, not unusually, wholly out of sympathy with almost every speech that has been made and, in particular, with the speech, which I much admired in its composition, of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. It is my view that far from doing a lot as president of the European Union for the coming six months, the less we do the better.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, pointed out, the experiments in foreign policy hitherto made by the European Union have, on the whole, been unsuccessful. How can the European Union make an important contribution to a situation as dangerous as that in the Middle East—and here I agree with other speakers—when a country as close to Europe as Algeria baffles their attempts to prevent massacre? In Europe itself many people would say that, on the whole, the role of the European Union in the former Yugoslavia was an impotent one until the power of the United States was brought to bear.
I do not think that one should be surprised about that. We have constantly had it pointed out to us—indeed, it was pointed out in several speeches, leading perhaps to different conclusions—that the individual member states of the European Union have their own interests, their own policies and their own outlook. Therefore, it is somewhat presumptuous when Britain suddenly says "Oh, we have six months, we are going to be their leader". If we are to be their leader then British proposals, British interests and British views would

281
have to chime in with at least the majority of members of the European Union, and that does not appear to be the case.
I think that is particularly important in relation to a topic on which other noble Lords with greater competence in these matters have spoken; namely, the proposed single currency. It appears to be the case that the current leaders, if you like, in Europe, the Franco-German combination, regard this as the main task before the European Union over the next few months, even exceeding in importance enlargement and even relations with other continents.
My view is that although Britain is in the unfortunate position of having to preside over these discussions—and I agree it has no opt-out here—the degree of its input should be minimal. I am convinced that the project of a single economic and monetary union for an area stretching from Lisbon to Leipzig is bound to be disastrous. There is no way in which one can see an area of that kind following similar or, indeed, identical monetary and fiscal policies without creating social tensions which would possibly even lead to international conflict if it was felt that the pressure to perform, to make economic policy in certain directions, arose from pressure from more powerful neighbouring countries. The best we can hope for is that at the end of six months we will not be any nearer to that and it will be for others—God help the Austrians who preside next—to see the thing through.
Similarly, it is always nice to think of doing things, if one is a government, which one can do something about. My feeling is that one can do nothing about Europe. We have been talking about reforming the common agricultural policy ever since we became part of the EU. We could do something in Commonwealth countries. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the Caribbean, and I have talked in this House about bananas before. But there is something other than bananas which is related to Europe. As was pointed out to me recently by the Commonwealth Secretary-General, it is felt in British possessions or dependencies in the Caribbean that it is wrong that they have to pay overseas students' fees when they come to this country whereas those in the French possessions in the Caribbean, because they are regarded fictitiously as part of metropolitan France, are treated as though they were British. If we could look at a few matters like that, and there are possibilities in other parts of the Commonwealth, we would do much better than going in for grand projects which may only lead to pain.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the terms of the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond invite us to consider issues of external policy which arise in the context of our presidency of the European Union.
I wish to draw attention to one such issue which I believe to be of considerable importance relating to our policies in central and eastern Europe. These policies involve both the European Union and NATO. We shall
282
be launching negotiations to enlarge the European Union during our presidency and, if I am not mistaken, Parliament will, in the first six months of this year, be invited to approve the ratification of the protocols which have already been signed to admit the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary to NATO. The issue which I wish to raise this evening will therefore be exactly at the point of intersection referred to in the Motion.
The enlargement of the European Union was recently debated in this House in December on the basis of a report prepared by the sub-committee of the European Community Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. It examined in some detail the financial consequences of enlargement. It was an excellent report and won the general endorsement of those who took part in the debate. So it may be appropriate in this debate to say something about the security issue which will arise in the context of the NATO enlargement. I hope that we may be able to debate these matters more fully when we receive the Government's explanatory memoranda on these protocols under the revised procedure regarding the so-called Ponsonby rule agreed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in the last session. It is not clear to me whether the Government plan to propose the establishment of a scrutiny committee for that purpose, but that might well be considered.
Unlike some other security treaties, notably the Brussels Treaty establishing the Western Europe Union, the North Atlantic Treaty does not irrevocably commit its partners to come to the immediate military assistance of one of their number in the case of external attack. Nevertheless, by ratifying those protocols, we shall embrace the three acceding states from central Europe under the general security protection which the NATO umbrella provides.
The question that I put to your Lordships is whether that enlargement of NATO is wise. The external frontiers of those three states have been the subject of successive military campaigns in the past century, ever since the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 and, in the lifetime of most of us here this evening, the infringement of the German-Polish frontier in September 1939 provided the casus belli of the Second World War.
I have read recently that the three Baltic states also intend to apply for membership of NATO. Having admitted their southern neighbours, it may be difficult for us to deny them. By admitting the three Baltic states to membership, NATO would however extend its broad security protection to zones overlapping the frontiers of the former USSR. It may be the case that the Russian Federation and the Ukraine have accepted in principle the concept of the inviolability of frontiers but, as far as I know, they have not accepted explicitly the current frontiers and their unease at the present enlargement of NATO is quite evident.
Of course, we have no reason to believe that the present rulers of Russia entertain any latent objectives as regards regaining their lost territory. But I fear that we may be providing some grounds for a future

283
nationalistic Russian tendency if we do so. Historically, many of those territories, and particularly the Baltic states, have been under Russian control. Many Russians would like to see a return to the status quo. For them. the events of 1941 are not so much an unhappy distant memory; rather a recurrent nasty dream. Their feelings about what happened in 1941 are similar to what we feel about 1940. but are even stronger.
Western policy in that area appears to be based on the principle that, however grave the horrors of the past century, the only way in which to prevent them in future is to draw the lines where they now stand and to stick firmly to the status quo. If that is indeed our policy, we need to make it rather clearer and to state it more frequently than in the recent past.
In my own reflections on that subject in the past few years, it has seemed to me that we need a security organisation of a different type—a grouping of states committed to peace and to finding practical solutions, particularly to the problems involving nationalities, minorities and frontiers. Its task would be to build confidence among its members which would come to believe that they could use that organisation and the trust that they had created with the other partners as a means to provide the peaceful resolution of disputes.
I believe that France did make such a proposal a few years ago but we said that we did not like it. I do not quite know why. Something of that kind exists in the OCSE, the successor to the CSCE. However, although it has been an invaluable and useful mechanism by providing the link by which NATO forces are made available in Bosnia, under the overall authority of the Security Council, OCSE does not seem to have much public recognition, mutual commitment or clout. It is possible that some of the new organs created by NATO, such as the Co-operation Council or the Partnership for Peace, could develop in the way I have described, but I doubt whether that is happening at present.
My fear is that central and eastern Europe is at present a security vacuum. Since the collapse of the Warsaw pact, there has been no regional security organ. We have happily consigned the Cold War to the dustbin of contemporary history, a receptacle which must now be full to bursting point. But we have not yet replaced the frozen and horrible certainty of the Cold War with anything durable and worthy of confidence in that critical region.
I suggest that it is an important issue calling for close attention and action by the British presidency. Last week the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, presided at a remarkable function at the Foreign Office which marked the publication of two new volumes of documents about east-west relations in the early 1970s. The theme of one volume was the gestation, birth and growth of the Helsinki process. That was a task at which her department laboured at the time with considerable success. My suggestion is that the moment may have arrived to take up those issues again. If, in the course of the next six months, we can chart a policy for our successors in the presidency to follow in relation to central and eastern Europe, we shall have done something really useful.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, spoke about the opportunities which are presented by our presidency. Every noble Lord who has followed him has suggested ways in which we could exercise the opportunities of our presidency to make maximum use of it. The one exception was the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, whose policy of extreme faineantisme did not commend itself to noble Lords on his side of the House. He should have looked at the expression on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, as he was speaking. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was in splendid isolation not only from the House as a whole but also from noble Lords who have spoken on his own side, every one of whom addressed the positive opportunities of which the noble Lord, Lord Wright, spoke in his initial speech.
There have been so many suggestions that if the Government took them all up, there would need to be a presidency of six years rather than six months. I wish that we had that opportunity. However, let us see what we can do within the six months. I wish to make a couple of extremely modest suggestions in connection with the work of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the next session of which begins in Geneva on 16th March. I have been in contact with the noble Baroness about both the suggestions that I intend to make.
My first suggestion concerns the work of the UN rapporteurs. There are two categories of rapporteur. First, there are the country rapporteurs; and secondly, there are the thematic rapporteurs who deal with individual human rights violations such as extra-judicial executions, freedom of expression, religious intolerance and so on.
In the case of the country rapporteurs, whether or not they receive an invitation from the state to which they are assigned, they produce reports which are presented to the human rights commission. But the thematic rapporteurs must wait to be issued with an invitation by the state concerned. Sometimes that can take a great many years. For example, in the case of India, the rapporteur on extra-judicial, arbitrary and summary executions has been waiting since 1993 to be invited to India in spite of the fact that in November 1995, the Indians said that there is no objection to his visit and that the necessary arrangements would he made in due course.
There was one case in the last session of the human rights commission where thematic rapporteurs looked into the state of affairs of a country; namely, Nigeria. The two rapporteurs on extra-judicial executions and the independence of judges and lawyers conducted a joint study and made a report in consequence of a decision of the 52nd session of the commission. That shows that it is not necessary and is not a sine qua non for the state concerned to agree to such an investigation.
It has been suggested to Mrs. Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, that the special rapporteurs and working groups should have the power to conduct such investigations in urgent country situations suo moto, whether or not the state concerned

285
is willing to facilitate the arrangements for a visit. If we did that, that would enable them to make an analysis of material which is already published in the media by international human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, together with any evidence which they could obtain from exiles or even, in some case, informants within the country and then to report their findings to the following meeting of the commission.
In particular. that would enable the commission, when it meets next on March 16th. to have an evaluation of the appalling massacres in Algeria, which have already been mentioned. M. Pierre Sané, the Secretary General of Amnesty International, felt that the situation there was so serious that he asked for a special session of the human rights commission to examine the massacres, but this may not have been feasible for practical reasons. The next best thing would be to ensure that when the commission does meet on March 16th it has before it an analysis by the special rapporteur.
Such an extension of the mandate of the special rapporteurs and working groups would, if it takes place, have resource implications which would have to be considered. They are very difficult to predict in advance when we know that all special rapporteurs and working groups are already operating at full stretch. It is important that the budgetary problems of the US Centre for Human Rights are relieved, and that its accounting system is improved—and I know that the Government have been helping in that respect—so as to show clearly how much is spent by each of the special procedures.
In recent years, new mandates have been created without any corresponding increase in the total budget of the centre, and the result has been that some of the mechanisms, the working group on arbitrary detentions, have been unable to look in detail at human rights abuses drawn to their attention. If all the countries which have been requested to issue invitations were suddenly to comply, the centre would be unable to deal with the workload. Therefore, one important goal that I suggest the Government should adopt during our presidency would he to put the centre on a sound management and financial basis. That is a modest goal which should be accomplished within six months.
I mention that many countries did not respond to the request for invitations, but no composite list is published by the UN Centre for Human Rights at the beginning of each session to show when requests were made for visits and how long they have been outstanding. It is extremely difficult to gain such information. Indeed, I tabled a Question which the Minister was unable to answer. If such information were to be published, it would be an incentive to the countries to comply with the request. It would focus attention on the ones that are not co-operating with the mechanisms and would enable the commission to look at the list at the beginning of every session.
I asked the Government whether, in view of the violence in Algeria, and the disappearance of an estimated quarter of a million people in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, they would call for a special meeting of the human rights commission, as
286
suggested by Pierre Sane, and whether, given the fact that human rights and humanitarian emergencies arise regularly throughout the world, they would propose that the commission meet twice a year. The noble Baroness replied on 3rd November last, saying:
"We have no plans to call for a special session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, nor do we intend to propose that the Commission routinely meet twice a year".—[Official Report, 3/11/97; col. WA 270.]
However, the noble Baroness then went on to remind me that the commission retains the option to meet exceptionally between its regular sessions.
Since then, we have had a number of phenomena of which I shall give your Lordships just a few examples. There has been the recurrence of mass murder in Rwanda and allegations of the extrajudicial killing of at least 800 people in Iraq. Moreover, in Indian-held Kashmir, only the other day, it was reported that 23 Pandits, including women and children, were slaughtered by masked gunmen in a constituency of the Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah on India's Republic Day, and in Columbia there was a massacre at La Horqueta in November, which was reportedly the work of a paramilitary group. Obviously the rapporteur cannot be in all those places at once, and yet the extent of mass murder throughout the world, and the invariable violations of other human rights which accompany those situations, cannot be left in the in-tray, sometimes for years. If we are in earnest about the Mission Statement of the Foreign Office; namely:
"We shall work through our international forums and bilateral relationships to spread the values of human rights, civil liberties and democracy which we demand for ourselves".
then our first priority must be to strengthen and extend the capacity of the UN Human Rights Centre to conduct investigations, preferably on site, but if necessary without the co-operation of the governments concerned, and bring the results promptly to the attention of the international community through the human rights commission.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, it is indeed timely that we should today be considering the implications of ongoing Commonwealth and foreign policy as the United Kingdom assumes the presidency of the European Union. The possible development of further political and economic integration during the ensuing six months is more than likely to alter, I suggest, the complexion of this country's political and economic relationships within the Commonwealth to some degree and perhaps in the broader global international arena.
In March 1996, the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place, after considering the future of the Commonwealth, concluded:
"The Commonwealth is acquiring a new significance in a rapidly transforming world and United Kingdom policymakers should bring this major change to the forefront of their thinking … From the United Kingdom's point of view, this transformation offers potential which it is essential that we exploit with vigour and imagination".
However, parallel to the expansion and evolution of the Commonwealth, the involvement of North American commitments both politically and economically in

287
Europe has continued in the post-World War Two era. The establishment of NATO in 1949 can, I think, be fairly considered to have been a precursor of the European Union, comprising, as it did originally, nine Western European nations in addition to the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada.
Since that time, the US and Canada have been continuously involved in European affairs. For 28 years, from 1964 to 1992, Canadian troops kept the peace in Cyprus between Turkish and Greek elements in that Mediterranean island. Indeed, Canada is the only member of the United Nations to have participated in every UN peacekeeping effort since then. In fact, Canada still maintains a peacekeeping force of 1200 troops in the Bosnian sector south-west of what used to be Yugoslavia. Further, Canada, in mutual support with the United Kingdom, spearheaded the international treaty to abolish anti-personnel landmines, following what has become known as the "Ottawa Process".
Time does not permit the recitation of United States involvement in Europe since the inauguration of the Marshall Plan, but suffice it to assert that US support to Europe in peace and in war cannot be described as wanting in times of crisis. As the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, said, the main danger in our relations with America is not opposition but lack of interest.
Despite the reservations expressed by my noble friend Lord Wright—who introduced this debate in an exemplary fashion— concerning what I might term the "poodle factor", I have cited these instances of North American involvement in Europe now, and at the outset of the UK leadership of the European Union, in the fervent hope that the focus on increasingly defined shared economic, political and cultural interests with the Trans-Atlantic community will be given a high priority.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for initiating this fascinating debate today. I wish to be rather more specific than many other speakers as to some practical steps that should be taken by the Government over the next five months. It appears to have escaped the notice of some people that we are already one month into the six months of the presidency.
I understand that the long promised review of the dependent territories is still not available and will not be available in time for the dependent territories conference on 4th February. I find that quite extraordinary. I have given the Minister notice of my next question. Can we be assured that her right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will not refer to the results of the review in his keynote address to the conference on 4th February, bearing in mind the requirement expressed in paragraph 27 of the ministerial code that,
"When Parliament is in Session, Ministers will want to bear in mind the desire of Parliament that the most important announcements of government policy should he made, in the first instance, to Parliament"?
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this review will represent "an important announcement".
288
Noble Lords may wonder why I have asked this question in the context of today's debate. I can assure noble Lords that it is relevant in relation to the conflict between Spain and Gibraltar. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I were to outline political activities in this connection over the past few months. Spain has applied to join the NATO command. The Foreign Secretary immediately reacted to this and indicated that Britain would use its veto to stop Spain's membership unless and until the Spanish Government withdrew their restrictions on military and civilian aircraft on the approaches to Gibraltar airport. He further asked that the sea restrictions should be lifted.
What has happened? At the meeting of NATO held in early December Her Majesty's Government would appear to have capitulated and have agreed to allow membership on condition that Spain cannot participate fully in the NATO structure until such time as the restrictions on military aircraft are lifted. There is no mention of civilian aircraft and no mention of the sea. Where does Gibraltar now stand vis-à-vis its NATO command? Will this be removed to Spain? Will Gibraltar remain a British military base and lose its NATO status? Whilst NATO is not directly associated with the EU presidency, this is a moment in time when Her Majesty's Government could exert pressure on Spain in a move to resolve the Gibraltar situation.
In the meantime the continual, well documented harassment continues. I refer to Spanish claims to sovereignty; delays at border crossings; the 350 telephone number; the non-recognition of Gibraltarian ID cards and passports etc., etc. The UK presidency offers an excellent opportunity to bring these items forward towards resolution. The Minister in a recent debate on Gibraltar in this House stated that she would be happy to take further the issue of Gibraltarian disenfranchisement for European elections. Has she done so, and what has been the result?
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, said he believed that we should look to a solution on Gibraltar based on the Spanish proposal of joint sovereignty. Will the noble Baroness repeat the assurances of this and previous governments that the question of sovereignty is up to the Gibraltarian people and is not negotiable?
I now leave that point and go slightly farther afield. In common with my noble friend Lady Young, I wish to encourage Her Majesty's Government to secure EU agreement to negotiate a waiver from the WTO rules. to maintain the current Lome preference to the ACP countries for a 10 year period, and to safeguard the livelihoods of smallholder banana producers by guaranteeing sufficient market share to those countries' economies which critically depend on the EU banana market, whilst providing comprehensive support for economic diversification. On a recent trip to the Caribbean I was surprised to discover that one of the easier forms of diversification is the growing of vegetables particularly for the cruise liner market. I am informed that all cruise liners are revictualled in Miami. Is that perhaps a consequence of the Helms-Burton legislation in the United States?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, we have had a fascinating debate so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. We have also enjoyed two excellent maiden speeches. So many points have been made that it is tempting to respond to what has been said rather than say something different. However, the debate concerns foreign and Commonwealth affairs and therefore I feel I should say something about an area of the Commonwealth I know something about and which is important; namely, south Asia.
South Asia is important as it contains two nuclear powers; one is an actual nuclear power and the other is potential. Both have refused to sign international treaties which forbid nuclear testing and have taken a determined stand. They are in a state of at least tepid, if not hot, war with each other. India and Pakistan are engaged in hostilities at an altitude of 18,000 feet. There are daily shootings. This situation needs to be watched. I do not think that the EU presidency is at all designed to consider former interests of any country other than France. France is the only country to have its former colonies looked after by the EU. I believe that Commonwealth interests are likely to be neglected by the EU. I hope that while the Government are occupied with the EU presidency they will not take their eyes off the situation in south Asia as, in terms of foreign policy, it is an important region for us. It is also a potentially dangerous region, given the likely change of government in India and Bangladesh and the rather delicate situation in Sri Lanka. There is also the consideration that about 1.5 billion people live in the area. Therefore we ought not to take our eyes off it.
The Commonwealth as a whole is a global sub-system; it reaches across all continents. It is difficult to encompass Commonwealth interests within the framework of the EU presidency but we ought not to miss the opportunity offered to us by the Commonwealth for across-the-globe diplomacy. I refer to Iraq and many problems with regard to Islam. There are in the Commonwealth a number of Moslem countries which could be of assistance through quiet diplomacy if we encounter problems in the Middle East. That kind of lateral thinking may be helpful. The Commonwealth is useful in terms of facilitating diplomatic channels and it is a region which is of great economic interest to us. For those reasons, as I said, the Commonwealth should not be neglected while we are concentrating on the EU presidency.
I wish to mention another issue to which reference has been made. It is development in the context of the presidency. I am astonished that the debt of highly indebted, poor countries, which amounts to no more than 5 billion dollars, should be such a tough nut to crack. International agencies have been unwilling either to write off, or do something drastic about, the debt of those countries. Yet 45 billion dollars can be found overnight for badly made private loans by commercial banks. How can those banks find 90 billion dollars for bad debts by relatively rich countries? I do not begrudge those countries 45 billion dollars; we all have to pay for bankers' mistakes. But it is somewhat astonishing that the 5 billion dollars has been left standing.
290
I know that the Government have done sterling work. I urge them, however, during their EU presidency, to push much harder. One country reluctant to agree to a generous settlement of the debt problem is Germany, both in the IMF and the World Bank. I believe that the problem of debt can be tackled more vigorously.
I was fascinated by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who referred to the Asian crisis. It may look a serious crisis, especially to those in south-east and east Asia. To some extent there is a problem of confidence. It is difficult to say whether we are at a precipice and going down, or at a turning point. However, the fundamental strength of south-east or east Asian economies is such that if the IMF does not mismanage the financial confidence problems, I am sure that within a year to 18 months most of the south-east Asian economies, with perhaps the exception of Indonesia, will return to prosperity.
The return of south-east Asian or east Asian economies to prosperity, as the noble Lord implied, is in our interest. They are competitors, but their prosperity is important for our prosperity. We should not regard them as rivals. Nor should we celebrate in a quiet way the fact that they are on a downward slide. I believe that mistakes were made. We have learned that while the IMF has been watching jealously the amounts of public indebtedness, it has not watched the figures as regards private indebtedness. In a globalised financial market, private indebtedness is a much bigger problem than public indebtedness. In contrast, the IMF, which is unwilling to forgive public indebtedness, is willing and able, and is even cajoling people, to write off large private debts. Private debts may have to be written off, and some banks may have to go bust. That is a fact of life in a private market economy. But unless there is massive mismanagement, I believe that we shall see the return to prosperity of the south-east Asian economy.
The noble Lord, Lord Wright, and many other noble Lords, referred to Islamic fundamentalism. It is clear that Islamophobia is a bad thing. Like all such doctrines of hatred, it arises from ignorance and prejudice. But when one talks about Islamic fundamentalism, as with Christian fundamentalism or Hindu fundamentalism, it has nothing to do with religion. It is a secular political programme by certain people to capture the government of a country and to change policies in a certain direction. Part of the current problem of the United States arises from Christian fundamentalism; but I shall not go into that. It is important that Islamic fundamentalism is doing most harm to Islamic countries. It is undermining the stability of modern, progressive Islamic countries such as Egypt and Algeria. It has undermined Afghanistan; it has almost ruined Iran. When we take a stance on Islamic fundamentalism, it is important to remember that we should be encouraging democratic forces wherever they are.
Paradoxically, in some cases, as in Algeria, if a fundamentalist party wins an election, we should let it govern and not stand in its way. The big mistake in Algeria was made at the beginning. We are now suffering because the nature of Islamic fundamentalism was not understood.
6.55 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I wish to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. I particularly enjoyed his remarks about the need to know and understand the variety of cultures and the different kinds of Islam which make up the Islamic world.
In the time allotted to me I intend to speak about the issue of human rights in the European Union countries and, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear, particularly in Germany.
It is, of course, becoming more and more difficult to separate foreign affairs in respect of Europe and the impact which domestic affairs in European countries have on our relationships with those countries. There are, of course, precedents for concern about the internal affairs of other nations by the FCO: and I hope that the Minister will take to heart what I have to say about Germany.
The House may recall that in the debates on the Queen's Speech of October 1996 and May 1997, and also in an Unstarred Question in December 1996 on human rights in Europe, I referred to the report of the Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate Discrimination against Ethnic and Religious Minorities in Germany, for which I was the rapporteur. Minorities we interviewed included such Christian Churches as the Christian Community Church in Cologne. We were told that those churches were similar to the Holy Trinity Church in Brompton, the Kensington Temple and the Vineyard Churches which are, I think, evangelical churches in London.
I do not propose to repeat what I said previously. Many noble Lords, including several who now sit with the Minister on the Government Front Bench, were appalled at our findings and supportive of our endeavour. I have continued to monitor the situation in Germany and have become aware of the way that certain German political elements are using the European institutions to try to turn the clock back on human rights in the countries of the Union.
We were disappointed by the initial response of the British Embassy in Bonn that it,
"did not recognise the picture you paint of discrimination".
But I received a more helpful reply from the Minister who is to reply to the debate. In a letter of 1st September 1997 the noble Baroness pointed out that those who believed they had suffered discrimination had recourse to the courts. That is of course true as far as it goes, but it begs the question of why so many cases are brought by the German authorities against those tiny minorities. There have been some good signs recently, with good German court decisions. But the Jehovah's Witnesses are still unregistered although the movement has been trying to obtain registration for a long time.
The German Government have developed their strategy of discrimination to quite an art form. It includes training courses for judges, prosecutors and even law students to sensitise them against the rights of minorities. These are a regular feature of German legal life. On the evening following the launch in Bonn of our German edition, in June of last year, we were privileged
292
to attend a meeting organised by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation to warn the people of Dusseldorf against the generalised danger from Sekten.
The guest speaker at this meeting was Gunter Beckstein, the Interior Minister of Bavaria. Although the convenor of the meeting gave a veiled warning to those present that members of a British committee investigating discrimination were in the audience, Gunter Beckstein had worked himself up into quite a frenzy of incitement to hatred by the time the meeting ended. Noble Lords may wonder whether the audience consisted of poorly educated skinheads; but they would be wrong. It consisted almost exclusively of well-heeled and apparently well-educated, solid and prosperous German citizens, and they lapped it up. The House, and the Minister, should be aware that the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, which, as noble Lords will know, is the think-tank of the Christian Democrat Union, is actively encouraging discrimination.
There is only one thing that the religious minorities in Germany want. It is for the government, and the religious hierarchies working with and through the government, to abide by and apply Article 4 of the German constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion and belief. That was the very clear message of a memorable speech by Pastor Terry Jones of the Christian Church Community of Cologne at the launch, in Bonn last June, of the German edition of the Ad Hoc Committee's report.
I have been interested to read recent British press coverage of events in Germany. Noble Lords may have seen the article in The Times of 12th January by Roger Boyes, which began with these words:
"There is a raw wind gusting through Germany. Its cold edge became apparent again last week when the Government and the Opposition agreed to new legislation allowing for the bugging of private apartments.
Detectives will he able, if the draft goes ahead, to eavesdrop on doctors, psychiatrists, social workers and journalists. The point is to crack down on organised crime. But the legal resources about to be made available to the police are out of all proportion to the goal".
It was interesting to note that he quoted from the report of the Ad Hoc Committee. Three of the incidents we reported were mentioned in the article.
The situation in Germany today is that the government, the opposition and the people have moved so far to the right that it is irrelevant what the political parties are called. In the World Report on Freedom of Religion and Belief, from the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex, the editors, Professor Roger Boyle and Dr. Juliet Sheen, make a startling observation. In the introduction—not even in the section on Germany, which is, as noble Lords can imagine, damning enough in itself—they state:
"In Germany, democracy is used as an ideology to enforce conformity …It has been dismaying to find that the state, and some of its politicians and people, are using what are known from the past to be well-worn paths of discrimination and intolerance".
On the same day that the article by Roger Boyes appeared in The Times there was an article by Ian Traynor, writing from Germany, in the Guardian. The headline to the item was:
"Big Brother and friends are still watching in Germany".

293
He describes the same legislative initiative as Roger Boyes, but adds:
"Only a last minute revision scrapped provisions for the bugging of confession boxes".
Ian Traynor has also reported on the rising tide of Neo-Nazi sentiment in former East Germany, describing "no go" areas declared by young thugs and quoting the mother of one as saying that she thought punk rockers should be gassed.
We may just shrug our shoulders and think, "Oh well, Germans will be Germans"; and of course it is true that traditions of democracy have many cultural roots. But there is one important distinction of which we may not be aware because we take our own basic assumptions for granted. We in the Anglo-Saxon world assume that the state exists to serve the individual. That is not so in Germany, where the Hegelian model prevails. The contrary view to our own, correlating with Hegel's scornful disdain for the individual and his or her rights, is that the individual exists to serve the state—hence the obsession with conformity and the informer state which Ian Traynor describes so vividly in the article from which I quoted.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, I should like to follow other noble Lords in supporting most strongly the remarks of my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond in his excellent introduction about the Diplomatic Service, in which I once had the privilege of working for a short period. It is a splendid service, and is enormously admired throughout the world, reflecting great credit on Britain. I trust that the Government will ensure that it is properly funded.
There are two ways in which I hope it will be possible to use our presidency of the European Union. The first is to press the case for the enlargement of the European Union to include some of the eastern European countries—a process which will ultimately underline the absurdity of a federal European state. One of the undesirable features of the pressure for an early implementation of EMU is the danger that the imposition of stringent monetary conditions to enable EMU to come into effect will be used as an argument for delaying enlargement. We went to war in Europe for Poland. Poland is now free, and a European Union without her makes little sense. Here I must confess to a certain amount of prejudice, having been a prisoner of war in Poland during the war and having experienced at first hand the indomitable courage of the Polish people.
The second way in which I should like us to use our presidency is this. Although my noble friend Lord Wright of Richmond has set his Motion in the context of the UK presidency of the European Union, I am glad that it refers to "Commonwealth" as well as "foreign affairs". I have always personally maintained that Britain has a unique role to play as a link between the Commonwealth and the European Union,
294
to the benefit of both groups, and of course to Britain as a world trading nation. The Prime Minister will he coming to the presidency having just chaired an extremely successful Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh. Great credit for that is due both to him and to the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku and his team. The British Government's support for the UK Year of the Commonwealth and for the Centre for Commonwealth Non-Governmental Organisations was very welcome and, I think, has brought an increased awareness in this country of the significance and importance of the Commonwealth to us.
But this CHOGM was chiefly notable for producing a Commonwealth Economic Declaration, which reflected the realisation that political advance must be matched by economic progress, enabling member countries to compete effectively in global markets and to attract investment. But it was more than a declaration. Action is to flow from it. A trade and investment facility is to be set up in the Commonwealth Secretariat to assist developing countries to play their part in the globalisation of world trade. Also, a Commonwealth business council has been created by the Commonwealth Business Forum to encourage greater private sector investment in the promotion of trade and industry in the Commonwealth. I have a personal interest, in that it has at last brought to fruition a recommendation we made from the Commonwealth Conference at Cumberland Lodge as long ago as 1991 for the establishment of a network of business organisations throughout the Commonwealth.
It has taken time, but at last the Commonwealth is beginning to appreciate the potential of the part it can play as a global trading group, based on its enormous advantages of shared language, education and law. So there could not be a better time for Britain to hold the presidency of the European Union, as a major member of both the Commonwealth and the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made that point.
For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, said, there will be an excellent opportunity for Britain to work for an acceptable successor to the Lomé convention since 36 of the 70 African. Caribbean and Pacific members are also members of the Commonwealth. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, Britain can also encourage the European Union and the World Trade Organisation to accommodate the legitimate interests of the ACP banana producers and to support the full implementation of the Uruguay Round arrangements.
It is very important that the European Union should not become too inward looking. Britain, with her worldwide position and experience, can play a valuable role in bringing home to her European colleagues the vital importance of a global outlook and of establishing a multilateral trading system within the World Trade Organisation. On this the economic interests of us all will ultimately depend.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, it is a rare opportunity to own the presidency of the European Union and it is becoming ever more rare. At the outset, it happened to Britain every four-and-a-half years. Soon it will be once every 10 years and then once in a blue moon. So I hope that we will take the matter seriously. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what she proposes to highlight as the themes of our British six months. While we heard various ideas put forward by Mr. Cook in the early part of his appointment in May, I am not sure yet exactly what he plans to do between now and 30th June.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, who said that we in Britain punch a little bit above what might be presumed to he our weight. For six months we are a little heavier than we are naturally. Therefore, I hope we can get some really good punches in during the next few months. I wish to congratulate the noble Lord on his excellent maiden speech earlier this afternoon.
There was a certain amount of fanfare about the ethical nature of the Government's foreign policy a few months ago. I looked for some sign of how that ethical human rights dimension would be resolved. I hope that something can be done about it during the first half of this year, because we are stronger now than we have been or will be for some years as a representative of the European Union.
Is there any prospect of arms sales being covered by some kind of code adopted by the 15 member states, in order that we can in some way control the human rights violators who are our natural customers in the buying and selling of armaments? It would be excellent if I could be assured that some progress was being made in that direction and it would be discussed in the conference in March, to which we are all looking forward. That conference is a feature of our presidency and I look forward to hearing exactly what will be discussed at it and who will come. What is the latest news about Turkey? Will its representatives be here or not?
I have seldom had a good word to say about Russia in this House. That country is still in serious violation of human rights, particularly as regards those who serve in the army and those who come before the judicial system, either as convicted people or pre-trial. But I must congratulate the Russian Government on having taken seriously the undertaking that they gave regarding the death penalty when they joined the Council of Europe. Many people have been sentenced to death in Russia in the past year or two, but President Yeltsin has not allowed a single execution to take place since that undertaking was given. That is in great contrast, may I say, to his Ukrainian colleague who last year allowed 15 executions to be carried out in the Ukraine. I think it would he appropriate for the presidency, within its political machinery, to make it clear to the Ukraine that it cannot remain a member of the Council of Europe while that spate of executions continues. I realise that the Council of Europe is a separate institution, but we can have considerable influence on it.
296
Furthermore, I would like the presidency, if it can find the time, to form a common view on the notorious Nikitin case in Russia and make it clear that the case must be solved before President Yeltsin comes to this country for the G7 meeting in March, I believe.
Many of those matters can be dealt with not by banging the table as we used to do when we were angry with the Soviet Union, but by offering help—by offering training to the Russian police, advice over the prison system and advice as to how to avoid violations of human rights. Unlike the past, such advice is often welcomed by the government of Russia, the way things are now. They would like to do more and they would welcome our assistance in the matter. That, I believe, was what Mr. Blair found when he went to Russia in October. I only wish that on that visit he had raised other individual cases, apart from that of Miss Henderson, who was, after all, convicted of a drugs offence.
I look forward to seeing what the Secretary of State will do to fulfil his promised emphasis on the human rights dimension. I trust that he will report about it, among other things, to the foreign affairs committee of the European Parliament and to plenary in June this year.
Several noble Lords mentioned the problems that we have with Iran. I believe that this could be an important moment between the EU and Iran. It would be a mistake, as we sometimes suspect the Americans of doing, simply to place the two countries, Iran and Iraq, on one great level of supreme evil. There is a new president of Iran and it may be possible to do business with him, as Mrs. Thatcher said about a Soviet president some years ago.
We suffer from two diplomatic problems. One is the Mykonos bomb in Berlin which caused the whole of the EU to downgrade its diplomatic representation with Iran. The other is the Rushdie case which caused us, the British, unilaterally to downgrade our diplomatic representation. At the moment we, the British. have as representatives here not an Iranian chargé d'affaires but, if there is such a thing, an Iranian sub-chargé d'affaires, two below an ambassador. It would be good if we could find some way of restoring full diplomatic relations between the 15 and Iran at ambassadorial level. Then we might be able to test whether the new president adds reality to the kinder, more gentle words that he recently uttered.
What are we going to do about Turkey? Several noble Lords mentioned the problems we have with that most important ally of ours—but such problems! We have Cyprus, the treatment of the Kurdish minority, the recent ban on the welfare party, the removal of people from the Turkish parliament, including a recent prime minister, Mr. Erbakan, the measures taken against journalists and trade unionists. This afternoon I learnt of the stoning of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I congratulate him also on a truly excellent maiden speech. The army and the police seem to be out of control and there is widespread corruption in the political system. The Turkish Government have very little respect, I am sorry to say. for the European Union, seemingly it is one of the few countries with which we

297
get on badly. I hope that we shall be able to discuss Turkey with the United States and make progress with the problem.
In conclusion, I wish the Government well. They go as leaders pro tempore of the 15 into debate with themselves and with third countries. Thanks largely to the wise husbandry of the previous administration, they lead a rich country with strength, and to an extent more strength than was previously the case. I wish them every good chance in the next months and hope that we shall be able to achieve some of the points that I have outlined.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, it is a pleasure to have listened to so many wonderful speeches and I begin with that of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond. He shared some of his profound expertise and lifetime's knowledge with us today and I thank him for that. I have the pleasure of hearing him from time to time at work, now in Chatham House at the Royal Institute. He exposed only a fraction of what he knows and how willing he is to share it with us.
It has also been a great honour to listen to two maiden speeches, those of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London both of whom, in their different ways, enlarged our understanding and will no doubt do so on many more occasions in the future.
We speak today in the welcome context of a declared ethical foreign policy by this Government. I say immediately that I do not intend to make the mistake of feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, did not practice an utterly ethical foreign policy every single moment that he was Foreign Secretary. Nonetheless, to have the elected body politic making that statement sets the tone for this Government's foreign policy and particularly for our EU presidency, which I welcome most warmly.
A characteristically gloomy note was struck by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. But we must have cynics among us, without them it is all too easy. How otherwise are we to have a bit of challenge? I did not share one scrap of his uncharacteristically, possibly waspish, comment about the excellent speech of my noble friend Lady Ludford. I do not know what came over him; perhaps he wanted his tea. For the rest, his wonderful gloom about the European Union's capacity to become the equal partner in the benign exercise of power globally, for which President Kennedy called in 1963, and his touching faith in bilateral intervention and in stand-alone sovereignty warmed my heart and woke me up to challenge him.
I remind the noble Lord of President Kennedy's statement. He declared in Frankfurt in 1963:
"We look forward to a Europe united and strong, speaking with a common voice, acting with a common will, a world power capable of meeting world problems as a full and equal partner".
Surely, that is the objective of our own and successive European Union presidencies. That is our task; that is what we are here for; that is why we are in politics.
298
I disagreed profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in relation to his desire for an anti-partnership philosophy. Partnership and co-operation, not confrontation, are well proven ways of advancing la culture de la paix, with its inherent tolerance for difference and consequential practice of the full complement of human rights.
We heard a saddening intervention for nine minutes from my noble friend Lord McNair on an intra-European Union problem regarding the lack of freedom to worship in a member state. Let us remind ourselves that we are not immune from intolerance. There is no wondrous magic in unity; there is no vaccine by which every single resident of the British Isles is immune from intolerance. We are part of the global economy, of the global culture, and we catch those bugs just as easily as anyone else.
I give the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—who has become my admirable target today—an example of where co-operation works. The Minister was on her feet late last night responding to a well-informed debate in your Lordships' House on Zimbabwe. The noble Baroness. Lady Chalker, whose work many of us admire, mentioned Zimbabwe again today. With globalisation it is an international problem. Many predications of disaster were laid before us last night. But today the professional partnership of the International Monetary Fund worked its green-backed magic and a 176 million dollar loan found a temporary and welcome solution to the problems of land reform in Zimbabwe. Indeed, all elements have been satisfactorily agreed, even the land reform programme of the government which gave us such problems last night. That will be implemented within the rule of law, safeguarding agricultural productivity, in consultation with the farmers, looking after the welfare of the 180,000 agricultural workers, concentrating on marginal land—that wonderful thing—and within the constraints of the government's budget limits. That is a good start, at least for this year. With our Foreign Secretary as president of the Council of Ministers, we are in a perfect position to lead and to bring an incorporation of the donor conference on land reform which we promised at Lancaster House in 1979, as we touched on last night, with the United States of America which will, too, continue the poverty reduction programme we put in bilaterally from the United Kingdom.
Further south another form of partnership has been in practice recently. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission found a new way, thanks to the newly elected parliament of South Africa, to tackle the aftermath of bloody civil war. Perhaps we can look south and see in our presidency whether there might be a lesson of replication there too for the European Union. I think of Bosnia; I think later, once the discussions have been successful (for which we all hope and pray) of Northern Ireland; maybe even of post-Saddam's Iraq. Or is that too much to hope for?
The noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, in his magnificent speech, touched on three key themes on which I also work in a small way. He mentioned the Arabo-Persian Gulf conflict, the Maghreb, and Islam in Europe. Those are critical points. The Foreign Secretary,

299
Robin Cook, in his speech on US foreign policy towards Iran, pointed out that as a nation we are opposed to the Iran-Libya Sanction Act and, as a member of the European Union, we do not believe that isolating Iran is the right response.
Iran, in the USA's sometimes naïve cowboy and Indian philosophy of foreign policy, has become the enemy. Dual containment is not simply a touched-on possibility, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, seemed to imply; it is an actuality. It is something that is inconvenient, expensive and incompetent. It is simplistic. If possible, we should use a portion of our energies in our presidency to renew our relationship—trading, personal and political—with Iran, which has been strong and powerful for several hundred years.
We should redouble our efforts to encourage the US to abandon all pretence of continuing its dual containment policy towards Iran. We should do all possible to resolve the bilateral problems that have been put on our plate by blasphemy. We should remember how important blasphemy is to real worshippers of whatever faith. We should try to overcome an issue that has gone well past its sell-by date—the Rushdie problem—and I beg the Government, if they can, to have some thought about a restitution of the Iraqi marshland problem.
Why? In the context of Iran I ask the Government to remember that Iraq was the aggressor in the Iran-Iraq war as well as in the Gulf War with the invasion of Kuwait; that the prisoners of war in Iraq—10,000 of them—are Iranian as well as many hundreds of Kuwaitis. In fact one-third of the marshlands to which I refer are actually inside Iran and by the Ramsa Convention, all nations, since the mid-1970s—the convention was signed in 1974—have been forbidden to hold back water in such a way that it is drained from the lands of other nations.
I have put forward a big package of requests. Duel containment is not working. It puts us in a position which is hostile to Islam, which is one of the great religions of the world. Islam is something that is within the European Union and is now part of our people's heritage. Islam is not an enemy.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, I am not going to follow other noble Lords in adding to the agenda of recommendations for what the British presidency should undertake. The noble Baroness has quite enough already in her list. Much as I should like to, I am not going to follow the noble Baroness in a fiery response to a previous speaker, although that livens up our debates very much and we are grateful.
I shall pursue the theme that was taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Moore, as regards an aspect of Commonwealth affairs following the recent Edinburgh conference. This is the first general debate that we have had since that heads of Commonwealth government conference.
For me, as a humble worker at the coalface in Commonwealth relations for nearly 40 years, it has been refreshing to see the change of atmosphere in this
300
country in the past two or three years in relation to the Commonwealth and its significance. We owe that to a considerable extent to the remarkable report of the Foreign Affairs Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Howell, two years ago. It made more than 60 positive recommendations, many of which have been accepted by successive Foreign Secretaries.
The aspect that I wish to focus on is the dynamo for continued, valuable, constructive, collective, Commonwealth action. Most of our relations with Commonwealth countries have been bilateral with particular countries. But for the past 30 years the collective efforts of Commonwealth countries have been conducted under the auspices of the Commonwealth Secretariat. I remember when it was set up. My office was very cautious about its creation. We welcomed it, but we were cautious because we thought that it would get out of hand and create embarrassing problems and make showy gestures.
The opposite has been the case. The Commonwealth Secretariat has adopted a low profile and undertaken a great deal of extremely hard work which gets very little attention. It has gone from strength to strength. Like every institution, it has had its problems. Perhaps it got a bit flabby. The staff was cut back by about 15 per cent. about three years ago. It is now a very lean organisation indeed and extraordinarily good value for money. How much money do we put into the core political and administrative functions of the Commonwealth Secretariat? This country subscribes one-third of the total budget. According to my arithmetic, that adds up to under £5 million a year. That is not an enormous problem for this country.
I recognise that there is always a problem, and rightly so, when trying to increase anyone's budget, but especially in this case because if British Ministers wish to contribute more to the Commonwealth Secretariat, it can only be done under present ceilings by raiding some other part of the Vote of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Naturally, that results in a defensive tendency. I have talked with Ministers about this in the past. For understandable reasons, in recent years the stance has been very defensive indeed when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Vote has been consistently cut back. That has happened as long as I can remember.
When I was responsible for dealing with administration I remember having to identify three posts which were to be abolished. That was very difficult indeed. We have learnt of the large number of additional posts that we have taken on with the breakup of the former Soviet Union. Resources are desperately strained.
What can be done about it? It is no good thinking that the budget of the secretariat can be increased in this field by passing the hat round in the private sector. That is quite a fashionable tendency, which I endorse, but in this particular kind of work one cannot expect the private sector to ante up. It will for particular projects. In the past few years the secretariat has managed to get helpful contributions from the private sector; but we cannot really expect to turn to it for the immensely

301
valuable, inconspicuous political work which the secretariat does in exercising good offices in fending off conflict by pre-emptive talks in so many low profile, but very important diplomatic fields.
That brings us back to the old question of resource. I ask the noble Baroness to do what she can. It is nearly two years now to the next heads of government meeting. New demands were put on the secretariat at the last meeting without increases in real terms for funding the core political and administrative work. I ask her to do everything she can—in the face of what I know, from personal experience, is enormous difficulty—to get more money for the secretariat. We get wonderful value for it. By enhancing the influence, growth and development of the Commonwealth the secretariat enhances our influence. As has been pointed out, one of the dimensions of our membership of the European Union is to bring a wider global perspective to some of our partners who have not shared our historic connections in the past.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I enter such a debate which has featured so much worldly experience, wisdom and expertise of the highest calibre. It has been a privilege to listen to the contributions, and especially to the maiden speeches. It is also a privilege for me to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate because I freely confess that I am no expert in foreign affairs. I know marginally more about budgets, constraints and the Treasury—and all that I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is that we have carefully noted what the noble Lord, Lord Wright, said about the problems. The noble Lord will no doubt have noted that the present Government are constrained by a Budget and by figures which were determined by the party of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, when it was in power.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I have no doubt that the figures are those of the previous government, but it was a voluntary action on the part of the new Government to adopt them. Nothing in the constitution compelled them to do that.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, if my memory is correct, during the election campaign the present Chancellor stated that, if elected, the new Government would live within the former government's public expenditure figures. This Government have sought to keep that promise, on the basis of which they were elected.
I return to my main point. I am a former trade union official who does not have a great deal of experience at the diplomatic level, but as a union official I have had the opportunity of spending time with workers from around the world and with workers' representatives. As with diplomats and politicians, invariably when we come together on a global basis the theme is the common one of seeking to ensure that we have peace, that we work together for security and that, to achieve that end, we work together for economic progress, which is the basis of those other aims.
302
Now that we have a change of government, perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend the Minister that we might now be able to take advantage of an opportunity which perhaps latterly has not been taken advantage of to the greatest degree. I refer to the fact that the Labour movement on a worldwide basis has an opportunity to build links. We have a good reputation and a good record for doing substantial work in terms of working for change and peace in South Africa. The Labour movement has sought hard to bring the warring factions together in Cyprus. We have done the same in Ireland. The same is true in many other parts of the world—notably, in the Middle East where efforts have been made to encourage the Israeli trade union movement. Histradut, and the Palestinian workers' representatives to try to build bridges. That is an area where over a number of years and for ideological reasons, that opportunity has not been developed as much as it could have been. The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, was always a helpful Foreign Secretary and I am not making any criticism of him.
International activities also give us an opportunity to learn about how others view us in a changing world. The noble Lord, Lord Wright, referred to our imperial past. I believe that that was the only mention of it. From my experience, others around the world still seem to view us as continuing to be weighed down to some extent by our past. They see us as weary travellers, still carrying some excess baggage, still not accepting ourselves for what we are now and perhaps trying to punch rather too hard for our current weight. Some feel that, as yet, we have not quite come to terms with our new position or determined our new role in the world.
I am sorry that many who say that, and many I have met over the years, have not been here to hear today's debate. I have found it most heartening. On all sides, we have talked about moving forward in a role based increasingly on co-operation and partnership with others, especially in Europe. Although there are still many problems and incoherences in many areas of European policy, there is nevertheless an opportunity to move forward. The European Union presidency gives us the opportunity to try to give a lead in that direction.
It is particularly heartening for a newcomer to your Lordships' House that the general thrust of today's debate—even on EMU, which I know is such a sensitive subject—has none the less pointed in the right direction and in the direction in which I think that all of us believe that we shall move. It is merely a question of timing. I share that line of argument.
My contribution, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, is to give support to the Government—I hope that we have all been doing that—and to sustain them in their efforts. I unashamedly speak up on behalf of the fresh approach that we have been witnessing in the past few months. Time and tide have meant that the new Government have been given the opportunity of a fresh start—and it has been a good start. It has not been perfect, but the Government are making progress. I trust that that progress will be maintained through the UK's presidency of the European Union.

303
The Government should build on some of the major initiatives on which they embarked when first taking office. I believe that those initiatives have support out there, in the streets. They have captured people's concerns in a number of areas. Interest in international affairs has been heightened and people's appetites have been whetted in a way that we have not seen for quite some time, probably because of the preoccupation in recent years with internal fighting over Europe.
I cite as an example the Government's momentum with regard to arms control and disarmament, and especially the action that they have taken and the work that they are undertaking to secure a total ban on landmines. In that context, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join those on this side in applauding the actions taken yesterday by the Secretary of State for Defence and his announcement about landmines. That statement was greatly welcomed—and not only by parliamentarians. It was well received on the streets of this country.
I welcome the efforts to promote British exports and to boost British jobs. I believe that the FCO could play an enhanced role. If money is saved in some quarters, I would argue that that is a worthy area into which redeployed resources could most usefully be used for the benefit of all of us.
I hope that the Government will not lose sight of the Prime Minister's earlier statements in New York on Britain giving a lead with regard to the quality of the environment and in pressing for specific measures to protect the environment. I pray that the Government will continue to push for the environment to be higher up the international agenda.
I hope that support will be given for continuing to put human rights at the heart of our foreign policy initiatives. As the noble Lord, Lord Bethel], mentioned, that is controversial in some quarters.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I only wish that poverty could be given greater prominence on the Government's agenda. I hope that in due course, as our coffers improve, the issue of poverty will move higher up the agenda so that, in partnership with others, we can make a greater contribution to helping the impoverished throughout the world.
Those are fresh approaches, as was Robin Cook's decision to open up the Foreign Office to the public. That was a welcome move. It gave a strong, good signal. I welcome and commend the efforts that the Government have made to open up the FCO so as to allow greater opportunities to women and the ethnic minorities. I welcome particularly the recent appointment of Limbert Spencer as an adviser on those issues. Those are all moves in the right direction. I hope to see more of them.
We have an opportunity to make a fresh start—indeed, it is already underway. We now have some very important tasks ahead in the coming months. I greatly welcome the changes in attitude towards the Commonwealth and the fact that countries are now queuing to join rather than wishing to leave. I hope to see the Government working for reform of the UN. I hope particularly that they will work in partnership with
304
others in Europe. We have great opportunities ahead of us. I commend all those noble Lords—the majority—who have generally spoken so forcefully in support of government policy.
7.50 p.m.
The Earl of Limerick: My Lords, coming in as the last Back Bench speaker—the 31st wicket down—when the survivors in this debate await the winding up speeches, what is there left for me to say'? There have been so many well-informed, wide-ranging contributions since the noble Lord, Lord Wright—in other connections, my friend and colleague—opened the debate with a masterly speech nearly five hours ago.
I shall put aside the temptation to follow some of the interesting lines that have been opened by earlier speakers and offer a few reflections of my own. The first concerns the practicability and achievability of any objectives that we may wish to set. It is not a matter of mere strength. If we think of what the super powers have failed to achieve in pursuit of their policies, the Americans in Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan and the fact that seven years after the world combined in the cause of the liberation of Kuwait Saddam Hussein is still in power in Baghdad, we have sufficient evidence of that. I believe that it is a matter of leadership and working towards a consensus behind the goals identified by that leadership.
Britain has considerable influence in Europe, albeit it could and should be greater. I believe that part of it rests on our position at the centre of the Commonwealth. Consider its breadth. It has 50 members who represent more than 25 per cent. of the 189 nations of the world. It transcends continents, cultures, race and religion. It is not based on dominance, military or financial, or preference, imperial or material; it is based on shared objectives, although as with every extended family there are occasions when there is reason to rebuke other members of the family for what they have done, or perhaps what they have not done. It is also based on a recognition of mutual advantage.
It is striking that the membership of the Commonwealth is growing. Not only the re-joiners—Pakistan and South Africa—but also the new joiners—Mozambique and Cameroon—see advantage in being fully paid-up members of the club. Will this influence continue? I believe that it will with just one caveat: the cement as regards the Commonwealth has the monarchy at its core as well as its head. Any threat to the monarchy is probably also a threat to the Commonwealth.
My other substantial concern goes very wide. I refer to the collective ability of nations of the world to manage the process of long-term change. Changes are inevitable and arise from the causes that have always underlain them: competition for habitable and fertile land, water resources, access to raw materials and trade outlets. Sadly, they arise also from conflicts between ideologies and religions. Individually or in combination, these forces will give rise to what I believe will be the greatest threat to stability in the 21st century. I speak of the mass migration of peoples: those who flee from floods, famine, genocide or persecution.

305
That takes us to the practical problems. At national level there is the problem of absorbing refugees, both political and economic, and displaced people. At international level one has the old dilemmas that faced the United Nations and, before that, the League of Nations. First, how does one stop powerful nations from bullying less powerful nations? Secondly, how does one devise institutions of sufficient flexibility to adapt to these changes? One obvious role for a supra-body is to deter any country from transgressing onto the territory of a neighbour. Some countries are fortunate in their boundaries and none more so than the United Kingdom. One concedes that there may be minor bickering along Hadrian's Wall or Offa's Dike but no one can argue with the ocean. Major mountain ranges and rivers may also serve as natural demarcations, although riparian dwellers may have more in common with those on the opposite bank than with their own remote hinterlands.
What happens when history unfolds so that historical boundaries are no longer appropriate? Some boundaries, notably in Africa, are no more than lines in the sand decreed by far-away powers with minimal local familiarity. Other boundaries are overwhelmed by events as in Rwanda, Burundi and Yugoslavia. Behind all of those situations lies human suffering sometimes on a massive scale up to and including large numbers of deaths. The way to mitigate suffering may not always be to enforce the statufigrs quo. Analysis and logic may decree that some flexibility in modifying the boundaries will better serve the purpose. To screw down the lid of the powder barrel is to court a bigger explosion.
It is the absence of flexible mechanisms and any appropriate will to develop them which troubles me. I have heard nothing today to encourage me in that regard. I am a realist. I expect no solution to this question tonight, or even this century, but I believe that it is worthy of serious thought.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it is often said of this House that it is uniquely valuable in assembling an extraordinary amount of knowledge and experience and bringing that to bear on some of the problems that confront this country and our world. I believe that we owe a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, for having introduced a debate that is truly in that tradition. It is a debate in which a number of distinguished former Foreign Secretaries as well as former distinguished Permanent Under-Secretaries at the Foreign Office and other departments have taken part. It is a debate from which those of us who have sat through almost all of it feel they have greatly benefited.
At The Hague on 20th January the Prime Minister said:
"On external policy, the EU must be both effective and seen to be effective internationally. Political will, not hot air".
The Prime Minister and his Government have four great tools to use in establishing a significant and distinguished UK presidency of the European Union. All of those tools have been spoken about today. The
306
first is the Foreign Office itself. It often attracts criticism and sometimes deserves it, but the sheer quality of our Diplomatic Service is still remarkable for a medium size country. The second very valuable tool is the World Service of the BBC which, even today, is responding to new challenges, for example by developing a whole set of programmes on the issue of enlargement and the accession of new candidates to the European Union. Any one of us who for a long period of time has stepped outside the shores of these islands knows the extraordinary reputation of the BBC and in particular the World Service. We would be infinitely foolish to throw that away.
The third of the tools that we have is the British Council. That too we could use much more widely than we do.
The fourth, to which my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire referred, is the armed services. Over recent years they have been able to make a distinguished contribution to international peace. As my noble friend said, the problem is that the European dimension in the new study of defence forces in this country seems to have been, to a great extent, neglected.
We have obviously benefited greatly in this debate from the authority and wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell. We expected nothing less and look forward to his contributions in many debates to come.
I knew less what to expect from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. He unquestionably contributed a significant dimension to our deliberations. What he had to say about communities of faith has planted a seed of collaboration and reconciliation which has a strong potentiality.
I now refer to the four crises facing the European Union, each one of them serious, to which noble Lords have referred. The first is the crisis that concerns the Middle East at the present time. A recent development of a troubling kind is the proposal by the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu, to phase withdrawal from the territories that fall within the Oslo accords. The Oslo accords are the one bridge to peace in the Middle East between Israel, Palestine and her neighbours. It will be dangerous and frightening to resile from those accords. I pay tribute to the courage and the thought that many in Israel have brought to bear on these issues, in particular the previous government in agreeing to the Oslo accords and now attempting to sustain them as an opposition party.
The second crisis is in Iraq. I was troubled by a tendency to underestimate the significance of Iraq's decision once again not to collaborate with UNSCOM. Iraq has a potential for both biological and chemical weapons which is of great concern to those of us who wish to see global peace and order.
I share the concern of many noble Lords and Members of Parliament in another place who have discussed the effects of the sanctions against Iraq. It is important that Iraq is a signatory to UN resolutions under which it has agreed to open its weapons production to inspection and to destroy bacteriological and chemical weapons. Iraq presents us all with a troubling dilemma at the present time.

307
The first point I make to the noble Baroness the Minister—who has the herculean task to responding to this debate—is whether, in the light of what the Minister of State said in another place earlier this week about the need to pursue every diplomatic path towards peace, it might be worth considering an urgent meeting of European Union Foreign Ministers to consider whether any other approach to Iraq might conceivably be successful before the end of Ramadan brings with it the possibility of military action.
Thirdly is the continuing crisis in Bosnia. We do not know whether the United States will continue to keep its forces in Bosnia after June, although recent indications are considerably more encouraging than they were last year. As noble Lords have said, it is important that the partnership between the European Union and the United States should become more equal. The United States is increasingly distracted with its own concerns. The recent and pathetic concentration of the United States' media on the President's private life is just one more example of the way the United States can be distracted from its role as a world power.
I am a great admirer of the United States and believe it is an essential element in maintaining world order but, disturbingly, Congress is out of touch with many world events and tends to be driven by pressures from congressional districts and specific interest groups. As a result it sometimes does not make the wisest judgments about the necessity for peace and order in our world.
As to Bosnia, I say two things. The first is to congratulate the Government most warmly for the steps they have taken to ensure that European Union aid now goes directly to Republika Sryska following the appointment of the new Prime Minister, Mr. Dodik, who has already greatly encouraged those of us who hoped for a peaceful outcome in Bosnia by the strong stand he has taken on the return of refugees and religious tolerance. This remarkable man has set up a shadow Cabinet which might be described as bringing together the spiritual communities of Islam and Christianity in Bosnia. The shadow Cabinet has within it three Moslems, three Croatian Christians and three Serbians. It is a remarkable and brave thing to have done and it is very pleasing to see that our Government, as the president, has encouraged the EU to allow its aid to flow to Republika Sryska.
As I remarked to the noble Baroness the Minister during Questions today, the other step that needs to be taken to assist the possibility of a breakthrough in Bosnia is, unquestionably, the arrest and detention of the war criminals in that country. If they are not arrested and detained that will tell the whole world that one can do exactly as one pleases and con the world powers and democratic countries into accepting that by the simple act of defiance.
As to Algeria, I agree with the many noble Lords who have referred to the extreme danger of characterising Islam as fundamentalist, intolerant and likely to present a threat to the peace of the world in the course of the next century. Algeria is a terrible story of massive deaths and killings, amounting to 40,000 in the past couple of years. We cannot simply stand back and wash our hands of it.
308
Because the Maghreb poses serious threats to the peace of Europe as well as Africa there are two things we need to do. The first thing is to make it clear that, in addition to the fundamentalist forces and the military government, there are groups in Algeria, like RND and others, who are desperately trying to be heard in their support for democratic institutions. It is incumbent on the European Union and the British presidency to do whatever we can to encourage and assist those courageous Algerians in trying to recover democracy in their country.
Finally. I want to refer to some of the global issues to which the noble Lords, Lord Gillmore, Lord Desai, Lord Howell, and others referred. Glohalisation threatens us with the sweeping away of the fragile structures of order that have been set up. or it offers us a huge opportunity to begin to forge global rules. The noble Lord, Lord Howell. was right when he said that the Asian crisis is much more serious than we have so far allowed for. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, was right when he said that we need to look at the issue of world debt.
One part of the issue of world debt is the huge debts run up by countries that purchase arms and have never paid for them. They will now expect the taxpayers of the UK, the EU and the US to pay for arms they should never have received. In that context, I invite the Minister to say a little more than has been so far said about the exciting initiatives by the Foreign Secretary which he summed up in a letter to me on the 29th December, when he said that he would be seeking a non-legally binding EU code of conduct on arms exports. I can think of nothing more urgent. I wish the Minister and her colleague good speed in trying to bring that about.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, it is a humbling moment for me to congratulate, on behalf of these Benches, two very fine maiden speakers, both speaking from a lifetime honed with experience. I can do no more than offer my sincere congratulations, and the view from these Benches that the House will continue to be enhanced by their significant, serious, and thought-provoking contributions.
This has been an enormously informative and valuable debate, for which we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wright. We all agree that presidency of the EU is both an honour and a challenge for any member state. It places an imperative on the host country to offer leadership and guidance, most particularly in the arena of foreign affairs, and to demonstrate a co-ordinated and effective voice for Europe on the world stage. On behalf of the Opposition, I wish the Government success in fulfilling that vital obligation.
Today, the constantly shifting sands in the hourglass of global political geography demand different regional priorities, and some of yesterday's challenges, even those of only half a decade ago, have been replaced by a new set of no less complex challenges which require the international community to rise to them with diplomacy and initiative. In a year when the UK will also chair the G8 summit and host the second

309
Asia-Europe summit, which will be on European soil for the first time, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of their golden inheritance, granted in no small way by the work of many of the noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon—an inheritance which allows this country to stand tall and command respect for its views and influence with our partnerships and colleagues in Europe and at the UN, among the Commonwealth countries, and in our transatlantic relationship.
Yet it will not be enough to live on the interest of that legacy. For the Prime Minister to lead Europe on the world stage in the way he envisages, he and the Foreign Secretary must be equipped with the tools of decisive leadership and skilled co-ordination, and they must combine quiet diplomacy with effective action in order to address the myriad international issues of today and tomorrow.
Your Lordships' sheer breadth of knowledge and insight on some of those very issues has allowed us to circumnavigate the globe many times today, and if it would not detain your Lordships' House for an unpardonable length of time, I would willingly retread some of that ground and risk burdening the Minister with a raft of questions on the lead the Government intend to take on some of the compelling issues currently facing the international community. However, I will not. As has been rightly pointed out, the Minister already has a sufficiently Herculean task.
Suffice it to say from these Benches that we would appreciate the opportunity to hear the Minister outline the Government's plans on some of the key issues of the day: the complicated issue of Turkey's accession to the EU; progress on the ratification of the ground-breaking comprehensive test ban treaty, designed to end nuclear weapons testing and explosions for all time, and the Government's prognosis on its early ratification by all states; progress on reform of the UN, so that it can meet the challenges of the next century; reaching agreement on the EU mandate for negotiations on a successor to the Lome Convention, highlighted this evening by my noble friend Lady Young; the military option to address Iraq's continued defiance of the will of the international community. given President Clinton may well be held hostage by the fact that tough military action against Saddam Hussein's renewed sabre rattling could be perceived as a cynical attempt to deflect public attention from his domestic crisis; the unresolved Kurdish problem; the promotion of democracy and good government in Africa, particularly in the Great Lakes region—a point well made by my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey—and. finally, I should like to ask for a commitment of the Government's enduring support for that beacon of fair and respected news coverage—the BBC World Service—the point being well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby.
Nor do I intend today to discuss the critical challenge of the historic and vital process of EU enlargement and the accession process which will begin under the auspices of our presidency, and through which we will fulfil our promise to the new democracies of central and eastern Europe. I have no doubt that the Minister, noble
310
Lords and I, will have ample time to rehearse those arguments during the imminent scrutiny of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill which shortly comes before your Lordships' House.
The issue of human rights is critical. In many of the countries that we have been discussing—as was wisely pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—the perpetrators of human rights abuses rightly earn the condemnation of the international community. The victims, however, deserve the action of the international community. During the UK presidency of the EU we must lead in terms of specific action to ensure that the international community continues to keep faith with all those who suffer human rights atrocities. For the human rights of the people of Iraq, the people of Algeria. as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pointed out, and the people of Myanmar are regularly abused whether by the actions of terrorists or by their own governments.
The Opposition welcome the Prime Minister's statement that,
"to support free trade, human rights and democracy and to play a major role in the great international issues of the day [requires] political will, not hot air".
The UK presidency now offers the opportunity and the obligation for the Foreign Secretary to take a lead in voicing foreign affairs policy, and to be judged by his deeds and not his words, by his substance and not his rhetoric. I would point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, that the Minister of State has long since made it clear that, despite the rhetoric, there would be a seamless transition from the ethical foreign policy of the previous government—namely, that of critical dialogue and constructive engagement—combined with strong international pressure, when he said in another place:
"In the vast majority of cases, we will strive for a constructive engagement … Putting it crudely, there are sticks and carrots and there are difficult tactical choices to he made … Within that framework of engagement, we are keen to ensure that, as an important agenda item, there will he discussion of human rights".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/97; col. 305.]
The Opposition could not agree more, but would add that a critical dialogue does not in any way imply the acceptance of a regime or its legitimacy, but if the Minister insists that the Government's ethical foreign policy is a new and original departure from previous UK policy, perhaps she will tell the House where it will result in examples of stronger action on behalf of the Government towards perpetrators of human rights abuses, which would not have taken place under the previous Government. I know that the Minister will agree that human rights should be above party politics and remain a key element of Britain's leadership during the term of its presidency of the EU.
My noble and learned friend Lord Howe rightly pointed out the importance of economic policy in the development of Asia and the Pacific. If we focus on just one small country in the central Asian region, Kyrgystan, we witness an entrepät in the region, coming at the crossroads for potential trade among its neighbours, a country which, through strong leadership and a remarkable record of bringing all its multicultural people together in a pluralist democracy, has led to the emergence of a new state which seeks co-operation with

311
the West, like so many of the countries that emerged after 1991. We can watch an economy being built on the premise of our model of private sector regeneration. Of course, that model is being moulded into one appropriate for the local people—in this case, the Kyrgyz people.
The underlying point for us in this debate today, and for the Government, is to offer assistance to the newly emerging nations of central Asia, being built on the premises of a pluralist democracy and private sector-led economic growth. This requires a high policy priority because the support to these countries will have far reaching consequences in central Asia where the political and commercial evolution of these countries is currently the focus of Western Europe but also very important to the United States, Russia and China.
In response to the noble Lords, Lord Wright, Lord Healey, Lord Hurd and Lord Chalfont, among many other of your Lordships, I know there is unwavering consensus between the Front Benches and throughout your Lordships' House that the UK's commitment to the Gulf and to peace in the Middle East should be total and absolute. There is much consensus too, not only on the critical importance of peace but also on the route to that ultimate goal. Despite the change in Government, the UK's position on this crucial issue will. I hope, remain unchanged. The outcome of the peace process in the Middle East must offer permanent peace on the basis of security for the Israelis, and prosperity, justice and self-determination for the Palestinian people based on respect for international law.
No one can doubt that the Middle East peace process is in grave crisis, bereft of political will and impetus, drained of dynamism and impetus. Without a rudder or a compass, the crisis-buffeted process is half capsized. As each day passes with no progress we seem further away than ever from attaining that elusive but priceless prize of peace.
The latest Washington round of bilateral talks between President Clinton and Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat respectively have brought scant reason for optimism. The meetings only served to highlight Palestinian paralysis in the face of Israeli intransigence, while the influence of the United States has proved unable to break the stalemate. In this context I think it is very important to consider what assessment the Government makes of Hanan Ashrawi's remarks on a Palestinian delegation to Washington when she asked for more European involvement in the peace process, and I quote:
"as they have a more even-handed policy when it comes to our rights".
Will the Government confirm that while we respect the United States guiding of the peace process, and while we pay tribute to the vision of President Bush after the Gulf War and President Clinton's achievement on the White House lawn, the UK must make an active contribution which corresponds to our historical links with the Middle East and the high expectations of those in the region who look to this country? Will the Government confirm that, particularly during our presidency of the European Union and at this critical
312
time for the peace process, our role is not just to support but to weigh in effectively at appropriate moments in the negotiations and to mobilise the European Union to do the same?
And so we need to use the UK presidency of the European Union to seek to negotiate to unblock the impasse and to ensure that the efforts of those who have worked so tirelessly and that those who, both named and nameless, famous and unknown, have given their lives in the quest for peace process did not do so in vain.
We all agree that the UK has a proud tradition of carrying out its responsibilities throughout the world with honour and respect. Provided the warnings of the noble Lords, Lord Wright and Lord Moore of Wolvercote, are heeded about the need for a well funded FCO Vote, including the Diplomatic Corps, the British Council and the BBC World Service, we will be able to continue with this work.
As noble Lords on all sides of the House have stated, this is a time to act and to demonstrate the truth and strength of the UK's principled policies. This is the time to lead by example. In this way the UK will use its presidency to contribute towards achieving lasting peace and widespread prosperity throughout a world searching for geo-political stability in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. On behalf of the Opposition I wish the Foreign Secretary well in his momentous task.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is a great privilege to close this splendid debate on foreign and Commonwealth affairs in the context of the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union. The subject is always fascinating and particularly timely in the first month of our presidency. May I add my voice to those of the so many noble Lords who have thanked the noble Lord. Lord Wright of Richmond, for initiating the debate. Lord Wright left the FCO before I joined but I have been grateful for his kind and wise advice to a very inexperienced Minister on a number of occasions since May 1st.
We are also privileged that the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, should have chosen this occasion for his maiden speech in this House, having served with great distinction in another place, especially in his six years as Foreign Secretary. His was a powerful and thoughtful speech entirely fitting for such a distinguished statesman.
May I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. His argument about the role of faith communities is, I believe, an immensely important one in promoting knowledge and understanding which are the bedrock of reconciliation and peace amongst the peoples of the world, the conclusion, I believe that the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord Janner, also reached in their contributions.
One of the first tasks of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on taking office was to publish a new mission statement for the FCO. Our over-riding mission is, of course, to promote the national interests of the United Kingdom and to contribute to a strong world community. We are pursuing that mission to

313
secure for Britain four benefits through our foreign policy: security, prosperity, quality of life and mutual respect.
Since taking office we have made real progress in all four areas. On security we have agreed a landmines ban and signed the Ottawa Convention. We have established new criteria for arms sales to other countries. And I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bethell and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that we are working to agree in our presidency a common EU code on arms transfers. We have started the process of NATO enlargement and created a new relationship between NATO and Russia. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that NATO enlargement does not seek to threaten or isolate Russia. I am aware that some elements in Russia nevertheless resent NATO enlargement. But NATO wants a real partnership with Russia and we believe that the NATO-Russia Founding Act signed in May 1997 established a co-operative basis for our future relationship. We are also working with the Ministry of Defence in the Strategic Defence Review examining Britain's defence requirements from first principles. May I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the review is foreign policy-led and based on a thorough assessment of risks and challenges facing the United Kingdom. Together these will help lay the foundations for a secure Europe in a more peaceful world.
Secondly, prosperity: we have put employment at the top of the EU's agenda. We are promoting exports and attracting inward investment. We enjoy close and profitable trading relations with countries all over the world. We are furthering free, fair and sustainable international trade and economic relations. The Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh gave the Commonwealth a business promotion role as the noble Lord. Lord Moore of Wolvercote, reminded me and it is a role upon which we intend to build. All of these help to create British jobs.
Thirdly, the quality of life: we signed the European Union's social chapter guaranteeing the same rights for British workers as their Continental colleagues. May I remind my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe that at the Kyoto climate change talks my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, played a leading role in securing international agreement to tough targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
We have helped fight the drugs trade in the Caribbean and signed an agreement with the Russians to work together against organised crime. We have worked with the authorities in Asia to combat child abuse. For example, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Philippines during his visit there last August and we are carrying out police training in child protection techniques in Thailand.
Our consular staff, as always, are looking after British citizens in trouble overseas and keeping in especially close touch with kidnap victims' families at home.
Fourthly: mutual respect. As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, suggested, we have indeed put human rights at the centre of our foreign policy and started important
314
human rights dialogues with individual countries, including China. We called and ran the London conference on Nazi gold, helping establish a sound body of facts. We shall donate £1 million to a new fund—a UK initiative—to help needy victims of Nazi persecution.
We are promoting free media in Bosnia and helping to bring war criminals there to justice, including the courageous action by British SFOR troops to detain indictees and transfer them to the International Tribunal in the Hague, a vital activity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, reminded us. We are working for the establishment of an international criminal court. And I am delighted to inform your Lordships that the United Kingdom has today ratified the additional protocols to the Geneva conventions, a clear signal of our commitment to fundamental humanitarian principles.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has set out a vision for Britain:
"It is to make this country pivotal, a leader in the world".
In the Government's comprehensive spending review we are looking at all aspects of the FCO's work to ensure that we are resourced: to achieve the Prime Minister's vision; to secure the Government's international objectives; and to provide consular and commercial services to the British people.
I should like to add my voice to the many this afternoon and this evening, including the noble Lord, Lord Wright, the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Wolvercote, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who have paid tribute to the British Diplomatic Service. The men and women who staff our 221 posts in 145 countries are real individuals who rely on their creativity and sense of humour as much as on their professionalism, expertise and dedication, often in difficult and dangerous conditions.
The Government have made it clear that they want the UK to be a pivotal player in a strong world community. I assure the noble Lords, Lord Wright and Lord Thurlow, and the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, that our diplomatic resources will he deployed to meet that objective.
As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said, we want to create an FCO which is representative of a modern, diverse Britain, drawing on the talents of all sections of the community. We have therefore taken steps, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, reminded us, to help women and men combine their careers and domestic responsibilities; to encourage the recruitment of staff from minority ethnic communities; and to make it easier to employ people with disabilities in the UK and overseas. Those are all high priorities and we have made real progress.
At the same time, we are making the FCO more open and accessible. Foreign policy affects everybody, as this afternoon's debate has shown. The Government want to hear as many different ideas and points of view as possible. And we want to make it easier for the public to get information from and about the FCO.
My ministerial colleagues and I have invited journalists, academics and non-governmental organisations to several open seminars on issues from the

315
strategic defence review to human rights. We have recently published two volumes of documents on British foreign policy well before the usual 30-year time limit.
Given the cogent points which she made about our presidency, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, will be pleased to learn that on Monday my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, chairing his first meeting of EU foreign ministers, opened the EU's doors to members of the public who watched the council's open debate via a live video link. And my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe took part in an interactive debate about the UK's presidency work programme with several hundred journalists across Europe from the Canaries to the Urals.
Those are just some of the steps we are taking to open the EU's workings to greater scrutiny during our presidency and to bring more openness and transparency to the whole business of government.
The main aim of our presidency is to show Europe working for the people of Europe, to make them more prosperous, safe and free. Our presidency concerns are the concerns of the people we represent: above all—jobs, economic reform, tackling crime and protecting the environment. We want to combine economic dynamism with social justice, via a new Third Way between unbridled individualism on the one hand and old-style corporatism on the other.
We will be moving forward the EU agenda, especially as the Union prepares for EMU and for further enlargement, not forgetting the important subject of the reform of the CAP. And we want to restore the people's faith in an EU that can speak and work for them on the world stage, where the EU can and should be a major player, as so eloquently argued by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon.
As the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield, reminded us, the second Asia-Europe meeting is to take place in London at the beginning of April. We hope that that will reinforce economic co-operation and take forward political dialogue and develop the people-to-people contacts between Europe and Asia which are so important.
In that context perhaps I may take up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. Her Majesty's Government are very concerned and deeply interested in the resolution of the financial problems in Asia. We fully support the programmes of reform of the IMF and World Bank which were agreed in Asia. Current problems in Asia are indeed of global concern and require a global response. It is essential to keep the IMF at the centre of action, with the United States and Europe working together.
The UK has made a significant contribution. We are a major shareholder in the IMF. We have contributed to Korea's second line of defence. We have encouraged our commercial banks to roll over Korean debt. And we have a role in co-ordinating the European response as chairman of the G7/G8 during the course of the EU presidency.
316
I apologise if I do not manage to answer all the questions raised by noble Lords in this far-reaching debate. Where I am not able to do so, I assure the noble Lords that I shall write to them.
In his speech to open this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Wright, spoke from his very great personal experience of the Middle East.
I can assure the noble Lord that the Government do intend to use our pivotal role as EU president and as a close ally of the United States to develop EU and US efforts to secure a just and lasting peace in the region. We shall support US efforts to reinject momentum and ensure that EU views are heard in Washington.
But I disagree with the suggestion, as reported by the noble Lord, that the West is pursuing double standards in its actions towards Israel and Iraq. In both cases, we insist on respect for international legality and the implementation of Security Council resolutions.
With Israel, the negotiating process laid down at Madrid and Oslo is based on Resolutions Nos. 242, 338 and 425. Despite the difficulties facing the peace process at present, negotiations continue. Our efforts must go into sustaining those negotiations, which offer the best prospects for the parties involved.
But Iraq is different. There is no negotiation. The best interests of the countries in the region will be served by ensuring that Iraq complies with all relevant Security Council Resolutions and that UNSCOM is able to complete its job. Those are the objectives which the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, pointed out. After all, Iraq is led by an aggressive dictator who has actually used weapons of mass destruction against his neighbour and his own people.
I entirely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Wright and Lord Chalfont, that Islam, one of the world's great religions, dose not pose a threat. We enjoy excellent relations with many Islamic countries around the world and benefit greatly from the contributions British Moslems make to this country. We must remember too the contribution of the Islamic countries in the Commonwealth, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, reminded us.
The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, referred us to the final report, Words to Deeds, of the international task force chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The Government are deeply committed to international peacekeeping and conflict prevention. We welcome this interesting and thoughtful analysis and are studying it carefully.
I turn now to points raised on the Middle East peace process. We believe that the current US led negotiations provide the best forum for progress. That is also the view of the Arab leaders closely connected with the peace process. So we shall continue to consult closely with the US to ensure that the EU's views are clearly understood in Washington during the course of our presidency.
The noble Lord, Lord Hurd, asked for a little specifity in that respect. Perhaps I may make the following points about some initiatives which we are pursuing, among

317
others. It is not an exhaustive list but it is, I hope, an illustrative one. We are seeking to facilitate agreement on the opening of the Gaza airport, on construction of a seaport and on the establishment of transit arrangements between Gaza and the West Bank. We are also seeking to monitor closely the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and their actions in East Jerusalem. At the UK's initiative, the EU has engaged Israel in a dialogue aimed at finding practical ways of reducing the damage to the Palestinian economy caused by measures which Israel believes are necessary for its security. There has been the appointment of the EU special envoy for the peace process, Mr. Moratinos, which has enabled the EU to play a more active role in promoting the resumption of negotiations. Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Nicholson and Lady Williams, I hope and believe that we can make progress. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I believe that we must keep trying to address the issues in which we believe.
The question of Iraq was also raised. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lords, Lord Wright of Richmond and Lord Kennet, raised points in that respect. Let us be clear: we are not ruling out any options, including the military option. However, we are actively pursuing every possible diplomatic solution to the problem. We all hope; indeed, I am sure that those of us who do so are all praying for a diplomatic solution. It is not sensible at this stage to speculate on the possible nature of military objectives. The House cannot expect me to speculate in that way. It would be counter-productive and, I beg to suggest, it would not be in the best interests of the troops in that area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked about contact with our EU partners over Iraq. We believe that the UN Security Council should take the lead in the diplomatic initiatives to resolve the current situation. We discussed Iraq with our EU partners who all agree that Iraq should comply with the relevant Security Council resolutions.
The noble Lords, Lord Wright of Richmond, Lord Healey, Lord Bethell and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, all raised questions about Iran. Current EU policy is based on the decisions reached by EU Foreign Ministers on 29th April 1997 at the General Affairs Council meeting. However, in the light of encouraging political developments in Iran, the GAC council announced a review of EU policy on 26th January 1998.
The EU and the US share a common assessment of the threats posed by Iran. As we now hold the presidency of the European Union, we are determined to work for greater transatlantic co-operation in our shared areas of concern. But, of course, there are differences between our policies and those of the US, especially over extraterritorial legislation and over the prescription. We do not believe in isolating Iran. Our long-term goal is not containment of Iran but the containment of Iran's unacceptable policies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked about the follow-on in Bosnia after SFOR. We welcome President Clinton's announcement in December, echoed in his
318
State of the Union address last night, that the US will, in principle, provide troops to a follow-on force to the NATO led stabilisation force. I hope that that answers the specific point raised by the noble Baroness.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, asked specifically about the attendance of Turkey at a meeting in March. We hope the Turkish Government will decide to take part in that important meeting.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised questions about the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government believe that modernisation of the United Nations is essential. We support the Secretary General's reform package. We shall use the EU and the G8 presidencies to carry forward our points on these important reforms.
The noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, raised questions about the role of the Western European Union. The WEU is developing its capacity to handle European crisis management tasks and plays a key role in building the European security and defence identity within the Atlantic alliance. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked about our relationship with the US in that respect. We believe that our relationship with the US complements our role and our relationship with the EU and that the two are mutually supportive in that context.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised points about our friends and colleagues in the Caribbean. I have much sympathy with her worries on the question of the future of the banana regimes. The fragility of the Caribbean economies and their vulnerability to illegitimate alternative sources of income—that is, money generated from drugs or money laundering—are indeed great worries. Therefore, we are holding a special meeting in the Caribbean in three weeks' time to discuss these issues, among others, with our Commonwealth colleagues and members of CARICOM.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also raised questions about Cuba. The point about ECGD credits is currently under consideration by the Treasury. I should remind the noble Baroness that, although no visits are planned as yet to Cuba, Ministers do not rule out such visits in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, asked about the dependent territories review. Despite what noble Lords may read in press reports, there is no question of the Foreign Secretary announcing a major policy change on 4th February. The issue remains under active consideration but no decisions on the issues that the noble Lord raised have yet been taken as regards this important and complex issue. I should also tell the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that my right honourable friend made it clear after the Brussels process talks on 10th December that there is no compromise on sovereignty against the wishes of the people of Gibraltar. I hope that that is a sufficiently unequivocal statement for noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, raised questions about Tibet. This is area of continuing concern to many in Europe and elsewhere. We welcome the recent agreement by the Chinese to allow a delegation of EU ambassadors to visit Tibet soon. We can then make an assessment of the situation.

319
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, raised questions about DFID. We have signed up to the internationally-accepted development goals, notably the halving of the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by the year 2015. The Development Assistance Committee has welcomed the new initiatives of Her Majesty's Government and has said that it views DFID as one of the most important, innovative and professional agencies in the developing world.
The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Bethell, raised questions about human rights. I should like to make it clear that the UK will take a leading role in our presidency at the 54th session of the Commission on Human Rights in March and April. On behalf of the EU, we will table a range of draft resolutions on thematic and country issues and we will make a range of statements about human rights issues. We will be working within the EU to prepare positions for the commission which clearly reflect the importance that we attach to human rights.
It is nine months since this new Labour Government came to power. In foreign as in domestic policy, they have been nine months in which the Government have begun to carry out their contract with the British people. We are proud of our achievements. As the noble Lord, Lord Taveme, reminded us, Her Majesty's Government are beginning their presidency of the European Union, having established a new relationship for Britain with its European partners. It is a relationship that responds to people's needs—a relationship built on co-operation, not conflict, and a relationship which looks forward to the opportunities of the 21st century, not backwards to the memories of the 19th. As the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, said, the solutions may not be obvious, but we must still strive to find them.
That, in itself, would be achievement enough. But there is much more; for example, on landmines, on NATO enlargement and on the new relationship between NATO and Russia. There is also the rebuilding of our important relationship described by the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, and by my noble friend Lord Desai, with our partners in the Commonwealth and the importance of putting human rights at the centre of our policy.
Throughout all this we have sought, and we shall carry on seeking, to work for the British people and to make sure that what we do is understood by them. As part of this policy we are opening up the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and making it more representative of modern Britain. This mission will continue. The next few months are a time of great opportunity for this country with our EU presidency, the Asia/Europe meeting and the G8 summit in
320
Birmingham. Solutions to the huge range of problems we have discussed this evening may not be easy to find, but it is our duty to keep searching for those solutions and to fulfil our vocation as a pivotal force for good in the world.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, this has been an important and wide-ranging debate. I repeat what I said at the beginning; namely, I feel honoured at having been allowed to introduce it. I am extremely grateful to the many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. We have had excellent speeches and two quite outstanding maiden speeches.
My colleague and fellow member of Chatham House, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—indeed I think he can claim to be the senior member of Chatham House—paid me the implied compliment of having listened to every word I said, because he said he did not agree with a word of it! Perhaps I can return the compliment and say that I agreed very much with one point that he made. I hope it is proper for a Cross Bench Peer to make this remark. I share his disappointment that only five Members of the Government Benches felt able to take part in this debate. I think we would have benefited from more contributions from that source.
I would particularly like to thank and congratulate the Minister on the comprehensive, courteous and extremely skilful way in which she has summed up this debate. I thank her for her kind remarks to me. Although it is now—heavens!—nearly eight years since I retired from the Diplomatic Service I wish to express my warm appreciation for her kind and complimentary remarks and the reassurances that the Minister has given us about the Diplomatic Service and its resources.
As I have the Floor, I hope I may quickly raise one point which has really little to do with the European presidency, but it is a subject on which I have asked several questions over the past few years without getting very satisfactory replies. I wish to thank and congratulate the Minister on a Written Answer which she has given today to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, on the ratification of the additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions. I am glad to inform the House—if it is proper for me to do so—that the noble Baroness stated that,
"ratification of the two Additional Protocols of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the Protection of War Victims are today being deposited with the Swiss authorities in Berne".
I thank the noble Baroness for that.
I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at seven minutes before nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [H.L.]
Wednesday, 28th January 1998.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing: all noble Lords are free to attend and participate: and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard.
The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, an unlikely event this afternoon. This Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and will then resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Statutory interest]:
The Earl of Homemoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) Any liability to pay statutory interest shall give rise to a separate right of action which may be pursued irrespective of whether or not the qualifying debt to which it relates has been paid.").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to this first amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22. Of all the clauses in this Bill this first clause is the one on which I find people feel most strongly. For most suppliers who are paid late it is vital to have the principal of the debt paid as quickly as possible, whereas any interest which may be forthcoming as a result of this Bill becoming law will, frankly, be regarded as a bonus.
Small suppliers will, I believe, be extremely reluctant to do anything to jeopardise the speedy receipt of the main debt, and will not take advantage of the right to statutory interest if they believe that, by claiming interest, the purchaser will be able to drag out the overall payment period while they argue over the amount of the interest. Many small companies will not have the resources, either human in terms of time and
CWH 2
manpower or financial, to pursue claims themselves for statutory interest, and will therefore wish to assign or subcontract recovery of interest to others.
Learned lawyers may say that the current draft is unambiguous, but several bodies have made representations to me saying that it is not obvious. I do not believe that companies will necessarily interpret this phrase as giving them the right to assign, and I believe it is vital that this right is made crystal clear. I hope my proposed wording will clarify the point.
As far as Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are concerned, they are further clarification of the earlier amendment. They make extra provision on the separation of the right of action on principal and interest. They are specifically addressed to ensuring that statutory interest is assignable, notwithstanding that the original qualifying debt no longer exists by virtue of having been paid. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: This amendment raises an important point, that of separating the right of action for the principal debt and for the interest. If there is any doubt about whether the Bill achieves that separation then this amendment, or something like it, should be accepted if only to remove that doubt completely. I believe I am right in saying that the original Law Commission report back in the 1980s felt that it was necessary to specify that there should be separate causes of action for the principal debt and for the interest. I have not had the opportunity to check that, or indeed whether it was reflected in the draft Bill attached to the Law Commission's report.
Be that as it may, it is important to have the matter beyond doubt, for a number of reasons: first, the question of assignment, to which the noble Earl, Lord Home, referred; secondly, the question of limitation periods and when they begin to run; and, thirdly, for the purposes of ascertaining whether a debt does or does not fall within a specific jurisdictional limit.
I am reinforced in my support for this amendment by the helpful paper produced by the Forum of Private Business, which makes the point that with any individual late paid debt the original debt will far outweigh any statutory interest due. Therefore, suppliers would be unlikely to place at risk the main debt to collect interest. The threat, however, of statutory interest being pursued at a later stage would, for a range of reasons, act as a powerful disincentive to late payment, without any action being taken to recover the interest. This would not be possible without clear separation of the two debts.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry Lord Clinton-Davis: First of all, I welcome the noble Earl, Lord Home, to what I think is his first Committee stage, certainly in this place—I am not sure about the noble Lord, Lord Meston—and thank him for bringing forward this amendment by way of clarification.
We share the concern of both noble Lords that the Bill should provide a separate right of action for the interest. Indeed, that is a matter to which we have alluded in discussions which have taken place elsewhere.

CWH 3
However, we have not sought to state this explicitly in the Bill as it is unnecessary to do so. The Bill creates a right to interest. Once that right has been created, then a supplier will be able to pursue an action in pursuit of the right. Such an action may be pursued regardless of whether the principal debt, from which the right a rose, remains outstanding.
The noble Earl, Lord Home, may be aware that, technically, principal and interest form part of the same debt. Further, the right to statutory interest is dependent on the contract giving a right to the principal, to the extent that the contract sets the amount of the principal, and may also set the date when the debt should have been paid. Thus, one cannot separate the two amounts entirely.
There are other principles of general law which are at issue here and are important. When a dispute arises and the parties seek to and eventually settle it, it would be thoroughly unsatisfactory if they later sought to unpick that settlement. The settlement may have compromised the claim for interest. Moreover, if a party seeks to make a claim for just the principal or interest, and that is decided by the court, further action on the other claim may be barred by the principle known as res judicata (that is to say that the matter has already been finally adjudicated upon). If a party accepts the principal and gives an effective waiver of interest, then that is binding. All these principles have arisen because of the need for certainty and finality in the law, without which commerce would not be able to operate properly.
However, I assure the noble Lords that the Bill has been framed in such a way as to allow the claim for interest to be assigned, for example to a factor who can then claim the interest alone. This is underlined by the effect of Clause 13, with which, of course, we must read the issues to which the noble Earl has alluded in this amendment. If the debtor tenders the principal alone, the creditor can accept it on account and then pursue the interest separately—there is no doubt about that. This right is an important addition to the current law. That is why I think the Law Commission's report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, adverted—which I think was produced in 1980—is not up to date with the present situation. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lords will accept our view that this amendment is not necessary.
As far as the amendments to Clause 13 are concerned, I understand the point of policy that the noble Earl is seeking to make. He wants to ensure that the separated interest may be assigned to a third party. I am not sure that the amendments will have this effect. I make no complaint about the drafting; it is an issue of principle. The noble Earl does not have the drafting facilities that governments have. It is a point which I made frequently when I was in opposition when I put forward amendments that were not sufficiently elegantly drafted—a rare enough occasion.
Having said that, we will have a look at the whole clause to ensure that the concerns which he and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, have addressed are properly met. I would like to consider that element of the matter
CWH 4
because, as far as the first point is concerned, I hope that I have persuaded the noble Earl that the amendment which he has put forward is in fact redundant.
The Earl of Home: First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for welcoming me. I am sure we will have much to talk about in the future.
Certainly I take comfort from the assurance of the Minister that interest and principal can be separated under the Bill as drafted. I do not pretend to have elegance of drafting, not having the legal training which he has at his command. Sometimes I think that the simpler things are kept the better. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at our concerns on this point, and for his assurance that the intention which I have attempted to put forward in this amendment is covered in the Bill. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Contracts to which Act applies]:
The Earl of Home The Earl of Home moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 19, leave out ("sale. transfer, hire or service") and insert ("supply").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is simply an attempt to come up with a more concise provision. The words "sale, transfer, hire or service" which it is suggested should be removed are, I believe, unnecessary and do not add any additional meaning, while the word "supply" covers all four words in the Bill: indeed it covers others, such as, inter alia, leasing, which I intend to raise in relation to a later amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: In drafting this Bill we have tried to secure the greatest possible amount of transparency. I understand what the noble Earl is suggesting, but I think that the word "supply" instead of the five words that are used here would render the drafting less transparent. Of course, if the Committee feels I am wrong about that I will look at it again, but I really do not think this amendment adds to the comprehension of the Bill that is required. It is important that we ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises in particular understand what the Bill is about, and for that reason being more specific is more helpful. In those circumstances I hope the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Home: In trying to be clear, one makes it more difficult the more one tries to define what the Bill does and does not cover. I accept that the words in it are there for clarity but by specifically using those words we run the risk of having other types of supply or types of things which fall within the overall umbrella word "supply", such as leasing. I believe it would be clearer to leave this as an overall umbrella word. Nevertheless, I hear what the noble Lord has to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Home The Earl of Home moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1. line 21. leave out ("a conditional sale agreement or a hire-purchase agreement.).
The noble Earl said: This is something of a probing amendment. for it seems to me that some people will be unable to take advantage of the statutory right to interest while others in virtually the same line of business will he in a position so to do.
One obvious example of this is that, under this clause, hire purchase agreements are deemed to be accepted contracts whereas leasing agreements are not. I am aware that there are legal differences between a lease and a hire purchase agreement, but in many lease agreements the lessee has the ability to purchase the subject of a lease for a nominal sum, say £l. In both leasing and hire purchase agreements, the amount of the instalment or rental is a combination of principal and interest usually with a larger proportion being principal in the early days. In both cases, there are usually established formulae so that it is possible to calculate in relation to any one rental or instalment what the proportion of principal is to interest. Then the provisions of Clause 3(4) will come into force. To add to the confusion, it is now possible to have lease purchase agreements.
At Second Reading the Minister said that conditional sales in hire purchase agreements are accepted because, inter alia they,
"usually provide !Or interest payments on default".
He went on to say:
"The supplier is normally more powerful than the customer and can insist on interesti—[Official Report, 12/1/98; col 884.]
By the use of the words "usually" and "normally", the noble Lord presumably accepts that, in the minority of cases, the situation is reversed. As the Government have been keen to promote the underdog in this Bill, by retaining this clause are they not discriminating against the smaller hire purchase companies or those who are forced to enter into a conditional sales agreement? The noble Lord's own words accept that sellers with clout will use their muscle to get interest, yet this clause seems to be preventing sellers without clout from using the Bill, which seems rather strange to me.
I shall not delay the Committee at this stage by quoting other examples of sales where there may be an element of interest, whether covert or overt, and there are the so-called ROMALPA contracts where conditional sales are the norm. However, I believe that there is an inconsistency in this clause and I ask the Government to look at it again. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: I welcome the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Home. It was in fact a question that was not only in my mind but I raised it in my speech at Second Reading. It was to a query of mine on why these kinds of agreements were excluded that the Minister was responding when he used the words quoted by the noble Earl. I was going to quote them myself but I do not need to.
CWH 6
The word "normally" immediately makes one think about the cases where the supplier is not a big chap but is a smaller hire purchase company or smaller supplier—technically a "supplier" even if he is only financing the deal. Since the Government's overriding objective in the Bill is to encourage the prompt payment of commercial debts and, in particular, to encourage prompt payment to the small businessman, it seemed to me that the reply of the Minister was not entirely satisfactory. He may or may not be right—he has had good advice upon it—as to the way in which companies usually put in a clause requiring interest. but it did not seem that his answer, most carefully worded with the phrases "usually" and "normally", covered every situation. He accepted that, and I wonder whether he would think again about the reasons for leaving out these kinds of agreements for the supply of goods.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am always grateful if any of your Lordships should quote me because that helps to ensure that my words will go down to posterity. Second Reading is not everything, after all. Repetition of that fact doubly ensures that purpose which I fully support.
All the amendments are probing amendments, even the Government's amendments, because we cannot divide. I am grateful to the noble Earl for putting the amendment down because I hope I may be able to clarify the position. What the noble Earl is seeking to do essentially is to bring into the scope of the Bill conditional sale and hire purchase agreements on the ground that they should be treated in the same way as leasing agreements.
We have excluded conditional sale and HP agreements because they are used to grant authorised credit. They usually provide for interest payments if the periodic payments are not made in a timely way. They do not fall within the mischief which this Bill seeks to address; that is, the use of one's suppliers as a source of unauthorised trade credit by the debtor. Therefore, I would ask both noble Lords to reconsider whether it is necessary to include such contracts in the Bill.
It is reasonable, where the supplier expects that he will be paid on a given date or within a given time, that he should be recompensed if that expectation is falsified by events. Lease agreements do not necessarily have a remedy for late payment. The lease term ends and money may still be owed. The Government believe that, generally, leases should fall within the legislation. If it proves that some forms of contracts should be exempt from the legislation, this can be provided by the power under subsection (4), to which I refer the two noble Lords who have spoken.
I do not believe that there is an inconsistency. I do not see the case where this represents any form of discrimination, as was asserted by the noble Earl, Lord Home, and by my noble friend Lord Borrie. I hope that I have answered his point as well. I therefore think that the omission of these words would produce the right result, and so I would ask the noble Lords to reconsider

CWH 7
what they have said. They cannot push it any further, but they will have a right to come back to it. That is the Government's point of view.
The Earl of Home: I thank the Minister for that response. I have to say though that I do not entirely accept what he has said because in practice the difference between a hire purchase and a lease is extremely small. As I have said, one can even have lease purchase agreements. That is not an entirely satisfactory response. I will, however, read carefully what the noble Lord has said in Hansard but I reserve the right to come back to this at Report stage if the Government are not prepared to consider it further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, leave out lines 7 and 8.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 and also to speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 12, 16, 28 and 29. The Government intend to provide that all orders under this Act, other than the commencement order, should be subject to the negative resolution procedure of the House. This set of amendments ensures that this effect is achieved and is tidied up in the drafting of the Bill.
This is for very practical reasons, and indeed it follows the guidance from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The commencement orders cannot be subject to the negative resolution procedure. I am sure noble Lords will understand that the right to claim interest cannot be provided by order and then simply taken away after 40 sitting days of the House due to a negative resolution. It is important that phasing is understood and acceptable.
The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has reviewed the powers sought under this Bill, and its report has been placed in the Library of the House for noble Lords to see. It was its recommendation that the powers in Clauses 2 and 3 to accept contracts and debts respectively, and in Clause 5 to set the rate of interest, should be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The Government's amendment will ensure that all orders made under the Act, other than commencement orders at Clause 15(2), are subject to this negative resolution procedure.
The power to set the rate of interest under Clause 5 is particularly unsuitable for the affirmative procedure because, if economic circumstances change suddenly, it may be necessary to make an order at very short notice. The powers in Clauses 2 and 3 to accept contracts and debts respectively will involve technical definitions of exceptions, and the regulations under Clause 15(3) will comprise temporary measures incidental to phasing. These powers are not the type generally subjected to
CWH 8
affirmative procedure and that is probably why the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee did not recommend that they should be.
Lord Meston: The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to new Clause 1, but he probably meant to refer to Amendment No. 23, which provides for a new clause after Clause 13. Could he confirm that?
Lord Haskel: Yes, I do confirm that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Qualifying debts]:
4 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 19, leave out from ("law") to end of line 20.
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to probe what appears to us at first sight to be rather unnecessarily elaborate drafting. Before the Minister says so, let me say that I recognise that, if I have a point, the amendment as it is is defective, to which I shall allude further in a moment. The purpose of our amendment would be that Clause 3(3) would read:
"Where—
(a) a right to demand interest on a debt exists by virtue of any rule of law the debt is an excepted debt".
That would seem to be quite a simple proposition which we could all understand. But what is drafted here is not only that you must have a right to demand interest by virtue of any rule of law, but you must then have an exercise of that right to have it regarded as an accepted debt. The subsection then states, in line 21,
"(and shall he treated as always having been) an excepted debt".
I do not understand why we do not just delete paragraph (b). It would be sensible also to delete the words in the next sentence that are in brackets,
"(and shall he treated as always having been)".
It seems to me that there is an opportunity to provide a much simpler piece of drafting here. Doubtless there is some deeply skilled legal reason for requiring the provision to be drafted in this way, but I have to say that just for the moment it escapes me. I should be grateful for some explanation from the Minister.
Lord Haskel: There is indeed some deeply skilled legal reason, and it is all tied up with Scottish law. I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord would have been in a position to know this. It may be helpful if I set out why Clause 3 has been included in the Bill.
Subsection (3) covers a specific issue that arises in Scottish common law. In Scotland, a creditor may include on his invoice for payment, after the creation of the debt, a statement noting that unless payment is made by a specific date interest will run at such and such a rate. We have not sought to override this option in Scottish law. One may assume that the creditor making the claim for interest has set a rate which at least recompenses him for being kept out of his money. Where the rate is excessive it may be struck down by

CWH 9
the courts. As the right to demand interest applies in this manner under Scottish law, it is necessary to retain subsection (3)(b). If we did not, the noble and learned Lord's amendment would have the effect of disapplying the legislation to Scotland, as the right to demand interest exists under the common law.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am very interested that it should be a point that applies exclusively to Scotland, but I certainly understood that to be the position with regard to Scotland. What I had not appreciated, and what has been helpful, although I am not sure that I approve of it in principle, is that, with this subsection, there will be two routes to the securing of interest. That surprises me as a policy decision. I should have thought that if there was a right to secure interest in the fashion that the noble Lord indicated as being possible in Scotland. that should be the only fashion in which one should be entitled to secure it. One should not have these options. But I shall certainly reflect on the matter. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, leave out lines 28 and 29.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Period for which statutory interest runs]:
The Earl of Home The Earl of Home moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 37, after ("debt,") insert ("or where the provisions of section 14(2) apply.").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 24. The Bill specifies that, when no credit period is agreed. the relevant day is in effect 30 days from the date of invoice. While this period is appropriate for most sectors, in some industries, especially in the manufacturing industry, accepted practice is 30 days from the month end following the date of invoice. Indeed the July Green Paper in paragraph 6.4.1 seemed to acknowledge this by suggesting that the default period be 30 days from invoice date unless a debtor can, and I quote,
"demonstrate entitlement to a longer credit period in accordance with trade custom and practice".
I hope the Government will agree that it is desirable not to cause a great upheaval and change existing accepted and well tried methods of trade and will consider the wording I have suggested. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: We are aware that the Confederation of British Industry has expressed concern about this. Its desire is to ensure that trade custom and practice are recognised in the Bill and that where they exist there is no requirement for an express contract term for deferment of the day that the debt is created.
We believe that the Bill deals with this matter, though I understand the point which the noble Earl seeks to make, and in fact there is no difference of view between us about the desirability of this. Clause 14(2) purports to deal with that problem, so I have not been persuaded
CWH 10
that the amendments are necessary at this stage. As regards contract terms, the word "terms" clearly includes the date or dates for payment, but if the Bill is not sufficiently clear on this point, I will want to consider the matter before we come back at Report.
The Earl of Home: I thank the noble Lord for that. Again, I have no pride in the authorship of the wording that I have suggested, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will consider whether the existing wording is clear enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert ("provided that the agreed date shall not be more than 90 days after—

(a) the day on which the obligation of the supplier to which the debt relates is performed; or

(b) the day on which the purchaser has notice of the amount of the debt,

whichever is the later.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 4(2) seems to allow for unlimited extension of the date for payment by agreement. That would allow the dominant party to negotiate away any risk of statutory interest. The Minister at Second Reading referred to the possibility of Part II of the Bill being available to remedy the imposition of excessive credit periods, but it is not clear how the freedom of contract given by Clause 4(2) would interact with the powers of the court to hold under Clause 8 that a contractual extension or variation of the right to interest is void in circumstances where there is no substantial remedy for late payment. It is in order to probe how these two provisions interact that I move the amendment.
I am most grateful to the Minister for writing to me after Second Reading indicating that consideration was being given to the point when I raised it at that stage. However, I suggest that an extension of more than 90 days is undesirable and that the upper limit for the relevant day should be 90 days. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I propose to speak a little longer on this issue because it is pertinent to the whole question of the effect of the Bill on excessive credit periods, which, after all, is a very important aspect. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for proposing the amendment to enable this discussion to take place.
I want at the outset to observe that the setting of a precise number of days to cap credit periods could well have an effect the very opposite of that which is intended. The 90-day term might well be viewed as an industry standard of something that is legitimate practice and consequently result in a lengthening generally of credit periods to 90 days, which would not be desirable.
The Government's policy in framing this legislation has been to minimise as far as possible the extent to which we interfere with the principle of freedom of contract. However, we are very much aware of the potential abuses that could be perpetrated, particularly where the creditor business is small and the debtor

CWH 11
business is large and powerful. That is a point which was made frequently during the course of the Second Reading debate. Excessive credit terms imposed on the supplier by the dominant purchaser to avoid or contract out of the terms of the legislation will simply not be permitted. The Bill has the effect of allowing the courts to strike down contractual terms which confer excessive credit periods.
Perhaps I might now set out the issue of excessive credit periods in rather more detail because, as I say, it is a very important issue not only for Members of this Committee but for others outside who may seek to take advantage of the Bill. One of the main objections to the proposed late payment legislation that we have heard in the extensive consultations that we have undertaken is that it will lead dominant customers to insist on contractual terms which effectively extend unreasonably the credit period available to them so as to avoid having to pay interest. Whereas at present small suppliers may be paid late (say within 45 days instead of the agreed 30 days), the Bill could lead to credit periods of 120 days. This would leave small businesses in a very much worse position than at present.
Credit periods can be contractually extended in two ways: first, the date on which the debt is created (that is, when it legally falls due) may be deferred; and, secondly, a period of grace may be introduced following the date on which the debt is created, during which the creditor agrees not to sue for payment, charge interest and so on. In practice, there is very little distinction between the two, but they are legally distinct and are handled in different ways in the Bill as a result.
I turn now to the way in which excessive credit periods are handled in the Bill as it has been introduced. First of all, there is deferring the date on which the debt is created. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 prevents parties agreeing contractual terms which unreasonably postpone the obligation to pay the contract price. As it stands at present, the 1977 Act applies only where the term is a standard written term of one of the parties. We will consider whether to amend its effect with regard to oral payment provisions. That is something we can consider between now and the next stage of the Bill.
The second element is introducing an excessive period of grace. Clause 4(2) says that the date on which the debt is created is "the relevant day". The effect of agreeing a period of grace is to vary the right to statutory interest. Instead of statutory interest accruing on the day after the debt is created, it will not accrue until the day after the period of grace has expired. Clause 8 provides that variations of the right to interest are valid only if the right, as varied, or the overall remedy for late payment is substantial. Clause 10(2), in addressing terms imposing conditions or limitations on the exercise of the remedy, includes terms conferring a period of grace.
To return to the specific amendment, the courts, in judging whether excessive terms have been used to attempt to contract out of the provisions of the Bill, must be free to view the terms of a contract in the context of the industry to which it relates, and so take into account trade custom and practice when they reach their
CWH 12
decision. The imposition of a 90-day term as a measure of what is, or is not, an excessive credit period would fetter the discretion of the judge to reach a decision based on a range of relevant factors. For example, in the greetings card industry, because of the seasonal nature of the business, with cards being printed and packaged long before they are sold, the credit period is longer than 90 days.
I hope what I have said helps with the consideration of these amendments. This is an extremely important part of the Bill. I, like the noble Lord, want to ensure that dominant purchasers are not allowed to escape their responsibilities by insisting upon excessive credit periods. Consequently, I will look again at the text to see whether there is any way to make the Bill clearer on the point, although I am not convinced that that is required. However, I undertake to look again at that point in the light of what has been said in support of these amendments.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Meston: I am, of course, grateful to the Minister for that undertaking to look again and, indeed, for the consideration he has clearly already given the matter in view of his detailed response to my amendment. It is evident that he and his department recognise the importance of the point raised by this amendment.
It certainly was not my intention in any way. directly or indirectly, to extend periods for payment, as was suggested might result from an amendment along the lines I proposed. Indeed, I would question whether an amendment of this sort would have that effect. Be that as it may, the Government have indicated that they are aware of the problem. They have also indicated (as I understand from the response of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, which will of course repay further study in Hansard), that the intention is that Clause 4(2) is without prejudice to the wider powers of the court to strike down unfair terms under Clause 8 or otherwise under statute. With that indication. I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Rate of statutory' interest]:
Lord Fraser of Carmylliemoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 15, after ("State") insert (", other than in Scotland.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a point I have already raised on the Competition Bill and the National Lottery Bill, and I make no apology for indicating to your Lordships that on almost every other Bill which comes through the House I shall be returning broadly to the same point. I do so for this reason. When the Government introduced proposals for constitutional change in Scotland in the Queen's Speech. they repeatedly described those changes as the most important constitutional changes of this century. That contrasted sharply with the introduction of the Scottish parliament Bill in the Commons just a fortnight ago.

CWH 13
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, well recalls that when the Scotland Bill was introduced during the Labour Party's last period of government, at the time it was introduced at Second Reading not only was the Prime Minister in his seat virtually for the duration but so was every other Cabinet Minister. On this occasion, apart from a brief visit from the Leader of the House of Commons, no other Minister or Cabinet Minister was present as this most important constitutional change this century was introduced into the House of Commons. My concern, therefore, is that, although Mr. Donald Dewar may regard this as the most important constitutional matter, it would appear that other departments in Whitehall have not appreciated or understood that fact or, possibly more worryingly, they have understood it all too well. Realising how poorly thought out some of the detail has been, they have little option but to close their minds to some of the absurdities likely to result from the artificial line of devolving some matters and reserving others.
My purpose in putting down this amendment is to explore exactly what the Government intend here and also to ask a broader policy question. First, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, whether, as far as he is aware, the matter of the late payment of commercial debts interest is a matter that would fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament? It would certainly appear to me that it does, because in looking to Schedule 5 to the Scotland Bill, it states at the foot of page 60:
"In spite of section 28(4), interest on sums due in respect of taxes or excise duties and refunds of such taxes or duties is not within the legislative competence of the Parliament".
If the interest payable on taxes or excise duties is quite specifically reserved to this Parliament, it follows that matters of interest fall within the devolved matters to be given to the Scottish parliament. If that is correct, I have a serious question to which I hope that someone from the Department of Trade and Industry will at long last give me an answer. If the Bill proceeds through the House and another place with no difficulty—and I see no reason why it should not—it is likely to get a commencement date some time towards the end of this year. We are told that the progress of the Scotland Bill is such that the parliament will be up and running in the year 2000. There is a very real issue here as to whether this Parliament should be legislating in respect of matters to be devolved to the Scottish parliament so close to the point of that parliament being established.
I would suggest to the Government that the correct approach would be that they should not so legislate unless they can put forward to this Parliament a clear and compelling case for the desirability of legislating immediately. It troubles me that if we legislate so close to the establishment of that parliament, first, it will be seen by it as condescending and interfering. Secondly, while I was not particularly keen that such a parliament should be established, if it is to be established I would prefer there to be as few points for conflict between the parliaments as possible.
What rather surprises me about the inclusion of Scotland within the Bill is that, as I understand it, it is the Government's view that they should not be
CWH 14
legislating in respect of Scotland in respect of reserve matters. In his speech at Second Reading of the Scotland Bill, Mr. Donald Dewar said in the most ringing terms that the first act of the Scottish parliament would be to introduce legislation to do away with the last remnants of feudal tenure in Scotland. Whether others selected that as the most important piece of legislation for Scotland is another matter.
If that is truly a compelling serious major issue for Scotland, why on earth has it not been introduced in this Parliament? There are two Scottish Standing Committees in the House of Commons which have remained totally under-utilised—indeed, not utilised at all—since 1st May.
From what Mr. Donald Dewar was saying, I took as an indication of policy the fact that if there was something within the reserve matter they would leave it aside. However, as we go through the National Lottery Bill and the Competition Bill, and as we now come to this Bill, we find that there are reserve matters on which there is to be legislation in this Parliament. I regard that as undesirable and 1 hope that the Minister can offer some explanation about why it is considered important to legislate now for Scotland.
I can in a sense see a powerful argument for him wishing to have legislation for Scotland in this Parliament, for the simple reason that there must be countless contracts that are concluded every day, week, month and year, between those in Scotland and their suppliers in England. I can understand that, and it might be considered desirable that there should be a single law applying to contracts, whether they take place exclusively in Scotland, exclusively in England, or are cross-Border. If that is the Government's position it would seem to be desirable to exclude the right to legislate on such contracts from the powers of the Scottish parliament. What troubles me about what is proposed at the present time is that there is a very real prospect of confusion and, far from there being a smooth transition to the system of devolution, we shall find, on the contrary, that there are opportunities for conflict.
My final question to the Minister is, if I am correct in my understanding that this is a matter which would fall within the devolved powers, why is that the case? It would seem to be more desirable to leave it wholly within the reserved powers of this Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, is absolutely right: we are legislating so that business can go on in Scotland. The effect of the noble and learned Lord's amendment is that there would be no rate of interest operable in Scotland until a Scottish parliament was in existence. It seems a hit rich, coming from the noble and learned Lord, who played a leading part in the "No, no" campaign, to suggest that everything should wait for the very parliament that he wanted to stop.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Could I interrupt the noble Lord? I hope he will take a rather more serious approach to this issue than his opening remarks would indicate. I hope he will address this matter, because it is

CWH 15
very important. Even if we start from a position of not particularly caring for the establishment of this Scottish parliament, clearly, if such a parliament is to be established, we should examine what is being done to ensure not that the parliament does not work or that it is unduly constrained in what it can do, but that there should be a minimum number of points of conflict between the two parliaments. That is the issue I have been addressing in my arguments to the noble Lord, and I hope he will answer me on that basis.
Lord Haskel: Just to continue the argument about the facts, if we accept the noble and learned Lord's amendment, as there would be no power to prescribe a rate of interest for Scotland there would be no power of a Minister of the Crown which could transfer to Scottish Ministers by virtue of Clause 49 of the Scotland Act when enacted. Thus, not even the Scottish Ministers, when there was a Scottish parliament, would be able to prescribe a rate of statutory interest under this legislation.
Turning to the question of the competence of the Scottish parliament, the rate of statutory interest applicable in cases of late payment of commercial debt will be set by the Secretary of State until that power is devolved to Scotland on the enactment of the Scotland Bill. The setting of a rate of interest for late payment in Scotland and the rest of the UK will then be underpinned by consultation between the Scottish administration and their Whitehall counterparts.
The noble and learned Lord raised the question of interest on taxes and excise duties. The Bill does not cover this as these are matters of private law.
The noble and learned Lord commented that the matter should be the preserve of the Scottish parliament, but this is not a matter which I can debate with the noble and learned Lord in Committee at this stage. We will have to lay out our arguments and write to the noble and learned Lord.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am sad to say I find that an unsatisfactory answer. I appreciate perfectly well that, under Clause 49 of the Scotland Bill, where legislation is passed in this Parliament certain functions would pass to the First Minister, or whatever he is called, in the Scottish parliament. However, that is not true of the issue that I am concerned about. I have not received an answer yet as to why it is regarded as compelling that we should be legislating for Scotland at this stage. I must say that the Minister's answer has certainly provoked me to ask some further questions and put down some further amendments to deal with that interesting circumstance where a contract is indeed between parties on different sides of the Border. If I understand what he said about Clause 49, it is at least potentially the case that the statutory rate of interest in Scotland could be different from that established in England. That seems to me to be a rather extraordinary state of affairs, and it is a matter to which I shall return with some interest at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezramoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 10 is grouped with Amendment No. 11 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Home, and no doubt he will speak to that amendment. Amendment No. 10 is a very small but nonetheless important amendment in which the word "may" is replaced by "shall". I realise that parliamentary draftsmen are always very careful to give Ministers a maximum degree of flexibility in making orders under legislation. However, in this case I believe they have gone a little too far because, if the flexibility is left in the Minister's hands either to fix a rate of interest or not to do so, then it is in his hands to negate the whole purpose of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: The Government have placed in the Library of the House a draft order under Clause 5(1) which I hope noble Lords will have had a chance to look at.
I understand that the legislation would not work if no rate of interest or its formulation was announced. As the Government are bringing forward the Bill, clearly it would be our intention to announce an interest rate. That is why we have published a draft order which sets a rate of the Bank of England's official dealing rate plus 8 per cent. However, we will certainly consider further the noble Lord's amendment because I believe he has made rather a good point.
The Earl of Home: In speaking to Amendment No. 11, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if, in order to make myself clear, I stray slightly into Amendment No. 13 as I believe we might consider these together, although I am happy to repeat myself at a later stage.
I believe it is important that industry should know at any one moment on what basis the rate of interest is calculated. The Minister said at Second Reading that he needed flexibility in the legislation so that it could stand the test of time. I entirely accept the Minister's sincerity when he said he was not trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes in this respect. I further accept that a formula related to the Bank of England base rate may not at some time in the future stand that test.
However, it seems to me that purchasers, and particularly purchasers overseas, would find it hard to understand and accept a rate of interest which is not fixed in accordance with an explicable formula. I would be perfectly happy for a formula to be set in consultation with that part of government most involved with money, namely the Treasury. I believe that that formula could then be explained clearly and openly to any purchaser, even a foreign purchaser who may not be conversant with our systems.
Without any disrespect to any past, present or future Secretary of State—who I am sure would consult the Treasury as a matter of course before changing the rate—it would make life very much more difficult for an exporter to explain why he has to change a rate of interest apparently set at the whim of an individual. While it may be necessary to change the formula from time to time—and indeed I have already accepted that it may have to change from a Bank of England base

CWH 17
rate—at least if there is a formula sellers will know the system. If the Secretary of State is to be able to act individually to any interest rate volatility I believe that it will he very hard to explain that to a purchaser, particularly a foreign one.
Lord Meston: I was simply going to follow what the noble Earl has said by posing a question as to the reason for the reference to a formula in Clause 5. Am I right in understanding that it is not enough to say that the Secretary of State may—or, if the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ezra is agreed, "shall"
"set the rate of statutory interest by prescribing … the rate of statutory interest".
but that the Bill also has to provide for the alternative to a formula simply in order to cover the formulation of the interest by reference to base rate? If that is all that is intended by the reference to a formula then I am happy.
I did raise this matter at Second Reading. I have a horror of formulae, and it looks as though the reference to a formula might allow for something far too sophisticated in the calculation of interest for the purposes of the people who have to use this Bill, if it is enacted, in practice.
Lord Haskel: Perhaps I may respond to Amendment No. 11. First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that he is correct; there has to be a formula.
Perhaps I may assure the noble Earl, Lord Home, that in setting a rate of interest the Government will wish to consult parties both within and outside government. This is how we arrived at the rate that has been set in the draft order, and I can assure the Committee that if any change is made it will not be made by the Secretary of State acting on a whim. However, on a theoretical level, I understand the concern of the noble Earl, and the Government will be willing to consider his amendment.
Lord Ezra: In the light of what the Minister has said about Amendment No. 10, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("made by statutory instrument").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Home The Earl of Home moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 17. leave out from ("interest") to end of line 18.
The noble Earl said: As drafted, this amendment gives the Secretary of State the ability to set the rate of interest without reference to anybody. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and the assurances that he has given that the Government will always consult both within and outside government. However, we cannot entirely be certain who will be future Secretaries of State and whether they will always be quite as responsible as no doubt the current and former incumbents have been. If the Secretary of State can act on his or her own, how will that rate be publicised? Will the Secretary of State take out paid space in the press every day so that companies will have to look through newspapers to see what that rate is? Small and
CWH 18
medium-sized enterprises do not have time to look through newspapers to see which side of the bed the Secretary of State has got out of on that morning. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I suspect—and this appears to be confirmed by what the noble Earl has just said—that this is another way of trying to secure his aim of reducing the power of the Secretary of State solely to set the interest rate. I think the noble Earl conceded that it will not always be possible to state on the face of the Bill the rate of statutory interest. It is our desire to link the rate to the official dealing rate of the Bank of England as announced by the Monetary Policy Committee. But, as the noble Earl rightly said, it may not be incumbent on the Bank to announce the rate in the future if the committee decides to use a macroeconomic tool other than interest rates to give effect to monetary policy.
For that reason the Bill provides a power exercisable by the Secretary of State to prescribe the rate of statutory interest instead of a particular formula. From what he said previously, I have a feeling that the noble Earl is sympathetic to that argument. But it is of course for him to determine whether he will want to push the amendment at a later stage.
The Earl of Home: I thank the Minister for that response. I remain rather concerned that sole powers could lie with one individual as I believe it is hard to explain to overseas purchasers in particular how a rate can he set by an individual who may have nothing to do with finance at all. In many countries around the world the opposite number to the Secretary of State is not at all a financial person. I shall further consider our position on this point. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mestonmoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: Clause 5(2) provides:
"The Secretary of State may set the rate of statutory interest with a view to—

(a) protecting suppliers whose financial position makes them particularly vulnerable if they are paid late;

(b) deterring the late payment of qualifying debts".

Surely those are the primary objectives of the Bill. If the Secretary of State does not have to have regard to those objectives, or if there is any doubt about his obligation to do so, it would seriously weaken the Bill. Accordingly, the amendment proposes that those be mandatory considerations for the Secretary of State when setting the statutory interest rate. I of course accept that those two objectives may not be the only considerations for the Secretary of State and would in that respect be happy to accept the modification suggested in Amendment No. 15 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Home, or something like it, to make clear that the two matters referred to in the Bill are not the only relevant considerations to which the Secretary

CWH 19
of State shall have regard. Nevertheless, I do suggest that this is an important amendment to reinforce the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Home: I have some sympathy for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It is certainly essential that the interests of the less powerful suppliers should be safeguarded. I also accept, however, that there may be occasions where other factors have to be taken into account as well. Nevertheless, I believe the noble Lord's point is well taken, and I agree with him that at all times the Secretary of State should take paragraphs (a) and (b) in the clause into account. My suggestion that the words "inter alia" be inserted will, I hope, meet the point.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Borrie: I have found this subsection a little difficult and will continue to do so, whether it has "may" or "shall" in it, for two reasons. First, I do not know whether primacy is given to paragraph (a) or (b), or is intended to be given to paragraph (a) or (b). I wonder what the Minister will have to say. Secondly, partially to repeat something I said at Second Reading, I am not sure whether the words,
"deterring the late payment of qualifying debts",
suggest the possibility of a penal rate, which I thought the Government had set their face against in the course of the consultation paper of last year. In intervening in this debate I am not sure that I agree with the proposers of the amendment, but I would be obliged to my noble friend the Minister if he could clarify the purposes of Clause 5(2), either as it stands or as amended.
Lord Clinton-Davis: As to the point which has just been raised by my noble friend, I do not think a question of primacy arises. I shall certainly consider what he said, but I do not see the logic in that observation, although I have always respected my noble friend's logic, going back for some years. On the question of the penal rate, I do not think that what has been stated gives any reason to suggest that, and we do not intend it to have that effect.
On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I am very much aware of his concern regarding the need to protect the most vulnerable in the business community. The Bill is about protecting creditors and deterring late payment. I am sorry about the use of that word; I do not intend it to be misleading in any sense. The fact is that in dealing with those matters the Secretary of State should be obliged to have regard to them.
The noble Lord went on to argue that the aim of protection may better be achieved by replacing the word "may" with the word "shall". Our case is that it is important that we ensure in the legislation that the Secretary of State may have regard to the need to protect the vulnerable and to deter late payment. As the noble Lord said, they need not be the only considerations in determining what is to be the interest rate. Whether that is done by including the Treasury in the way that he has suggested is another matter, but they need not be the only considerations which have to be applied.
CWH 20
Perhaps I may give an example of the steps the Government are taking to gather information as this may help the Committee to appreciate the way in which we go about this matter. In gathering information we take account of the existence of the Better Practice Payment Group. It is an integral part of the way in which we are working in partnership with the business community in order to try and promote the whole culture among British business. This group sponsors the work of the University of Bradford's Payment Observatory, to which I paid attention in the speech I made on Second Reading, and I sense that the House at that stage accorded that proposal some sympathy. Part of the remit of the group will be to review the findings of the University of Bradford's Payment Observatory, which, among other things, will monitor and report on payment trends. Work of the Better Payment Practice Group in examining the results of the University of Bradford's Payment Observatory will give the Secretary of State important information to aid informed decision-making concerning interest rates and the efficacy of legislation and other measures generally. I suspect noble Lords would not wish me to prolong the matter by doing so, but I am prepared to set out the membership of the Better Payment Group, or I could write to anyone interested about that.
The Secretary of State, under the Bill as it is drafted, may consider the position of vulnerable suppliers and the need to deter late payment. These need not be her only considerations. The noble Earl, Lord Home, has sought to interpose the words inter alia. They are deeply offensive, I understand, to British parliamentary draftsmen; they are foreign words. Having used them in my legal practice on innumerable occasions I did not find them very offensive and I am sure the same would be true of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, and the galaxy of other Silks at this Committee stage. I am told it might perhaps be less offensive to use the time honoured English phrase "among other things". I rather prefer inter alia but, if it is deeply offensive to the government draftsmen, I will of course withdraw that remark instantly and I hope it will not go further.
Having said that, I will look at the way in which that particular phrase, as I have suggested it might be amended, could be incorporated. I give no undertaking about that at this stage on this deeply serious issue, but we may be able to come back to it. I hope that reassures the noble Earl.
Lord Meston: I am grateful to the Minister for forcing himself to lapse into the English language when he would much rather discuss this matter in Latin.
The position, more seriously, is that I accept that the two matters in Clause 5(2) need not be the only considerations for the Secretary of State. However, as drafted, the Bill actually allows the Secretary of State to disregard those two matters entirely or to give them negligible weight. This is a Bill which does not have a purpose clause, but surely, if one is looking to define the purpose of the Bill, it is to achieve the two things referred to in Clause 5(2). It detracts from the purpose, in my submission, to have the word "may" instead of

CWH 21
"shall". Accordingly, this is a matter to which I would wish to reserve the right to return, albeit with improved wording, at Report stage.
Let me briefly mention the difficulty raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. It seems to me, as a matter of construction, that where one has a statute which lists a number of considerations, normally no one of those considerations is to be given any particular priority over the other, unless the Bill or the statute so provides.
So far as the reference to deterring is concerned, there is a distinction between the word "deterrent" and the word "penal" which was referred to in debate at Second Reading. I have always understood that the word "penal" has a peculiar meaning of arbitrariness in English Law and that the use of the word "deterring" in the Bill does not leave the Bill vulnerable to the suggestion that a penal rate is being imposed.
There may be a further complication in that regard when we have to consider the provisions of the European directive, as and when we have them or a draft of them to consider. For the moment, however, I do not share the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has with the word "deterring". To return to the substance of the amendment, this is a matter which I certainly feel needs further thought, and for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Lord Haskelmoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3. line 24, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ezra: Having given notice about Clause 5 standing part of the Bill, my noble friend and I wish to give the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the opportunity to say how this clause in particular on interest rates and how the Bill in general would link up with the long-awaited European directive. This was an issue which was referred to in a number of speeches at Second Reading. This directive seems to have been delayed much longer than anybody expected. No doubt the noble Lord himself and his colleagues have had discussions in Brussels about this, and I think we need to be a little reassured that, having gone through this Bill so carefully, it is not likely to be upset in a major way when the directive appears.
Lord Clinton-Davis: This is a matter which gave rise to concern during the Second Reading debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has stated, on the part of a number of your Lordships, and clearly it is helpful to enable me to reflect further with your Lordships on the current state of play as far as that proposed directive is concerned.
It is true that at the present time the European Commission is working on a draft directive on late payments, but it will be rather wide in the sense that it will, as we understand it from our discussions with the Commission officials, cover measures beyond a
CWH 22
statutory right to interest. It may be that it will include, for example, VAT cash accounting and fast-track court procedures, and obviously we will have to look carefully at those ideas if they are forthcoming.
As far as discussions with the Commission are concerned, I can tell your Lordships that officials of the DTI and my colleague, Barbara Roche, the Minister for Small Firms, have indeed had meetings with the Commission on the legislation which we are currently considering. In July, she briefed Commissioner Papoutsis, the Commissioner with this responsibility, on the proposals we were advancing. We understand very well the point that has been made by a number of your Lordships that it would be unfortunate if we were required by the directive to amend the Bill or the Act after it had gone on to the statute book.
The present state of play is far removed from that. We have not seen the draft directive because it is not yet before the Commission. It is, I understand, hoped by the Commission that it will have a draft before it next month for consideration. We think, from the discussions that have taken place with the Commission, the directive will set a minimum rate of statutory interest less than that which we are proposing under the Bill.
I also understand that in setting the rate the Commission have taken a view, such as we have, of protecting the most vulnerable suppliers and deterring late payment. The fact is that the directive is unlikely to be in force at the earliest for another four years, and there is a great deal of terrain to be covered before that. And even if the draft directive is approved by the Commission, it then has to be considered by the Council of Permanent Representatives, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, and it is by no means certain that the directive will be supported by all the member states. We simply do not know at this stage, and I do not want to have a debate based on conjecture.
We take the view that it is important that we should proceed with our consideration of the Bill at this stage. It does not seem to me that we are doing anything which will confound the purposes, as we currently understand them to be, of the draft directive. Therefore, rather than to wait and see—and nothing may emerge from it anyway—we would do better to proceed with our own legislation and ensure that we play a positive part in the Commission's thinking. The important thing is whether our legislation would be in contradiction to that proposed by the Commission. I see no evidence of that situation being a possibility, and certainly not a probability.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Home: I am most interested by what the Minister told us. I am also very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, agrees with me that the proposal might be delayed because on Second Reading I made the very point that the Bill was premature.
We are still talking about a fairly short timescale before it is proposed that the directive comes into force. If the Bill continues its course through this House and another place with customary speed, it may well be more or less over just as the directive comes into force.

CWH 23
There is already a rumoured difference as regards the rate of interest. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, at Second Reading objected to my use of the word "penal". That was not my word as such but it was a word which the Commission is using. Some noble Lords may think that base rate plus 8 per cent. is indeed penal. I do not want to initiate a long debate on that topic now, but this is a possible example of a difference between the Government and Brussels and no doubt there will be others. It would therefore be interesting to know when the Minister proposes that the Report stage should be.
There is another reason why I said that the Bill was premature. At no stage does the Bill deal with the tax treatment of the receipt of interest or the right to receipt of interest. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether received interest is taxable. Is the accrued debt, even if not collected, taxable? What is anticipated as regards VAT on interest? If the Minister does not have the answers today, I would be most grateful if he would clarify them before the Report stage.
Nor is there any mention of legal costs in the Bill. Unless there is certainty in the supplier's mind that he will, if successful, always receive costs he will be loath to bring an action because legal costs could easily exceed by a long way the interest which he receives. Perhaps the Government have not had time to think these points through, in which case a further period of reflection may be desirable. That might also coincide with the publishing of the directive.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble Earl for his additional observations from the bottom of my heart and I will try to deal with them.
First, as regards the prematurity of the Bill, I did not believe that that was the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I understood that he shared the same thinking. The noble Lord appeared to be more concerned about obtaining information about the current state of the discussions between the DTI and my colleague, Mrs. Roche, and the Commission. I detected no sign that the noble Lord was of the opinion that the Bill was premature, neither in this debate nor in the one that we had at Second Reading.
The noble Earl speaks of the short timescale of the Bill. That is a matter of conjecture. At best there will be a short timescale; at worst there might be no directive at all. That is a factor that has to be seriously taken into account when we consider the need at this stage for pushing ahead with this legislation.
If I were to be wrong about that, I do not believe that harm would have been done in any event. We might have wasted the time of some of your Lordships, but I think we all enjoyed Second Reading and are enjoying the Committee stage; we are rejoicing in the fact that this afternoon we can be here in the Moses Room. I do not seriously believe that harm will have been done, and the purposes we are pursuing are wholly consistent with the directive, if in fact we can be sure that it does not cause a sense to be present that the Commission has gone beyond its competence, which is a possibility on the two issues that I have raised. I am not making a judgment about that; I am just saying that it is a
CWH 24
possibility. There is always the question that is foremost in the minds of noble Lords on the other side of the Committee about that sort of issue.
On the question of the date of the Report stage, I take instructions on this sort of thing and I am told that it is likely to be in the week beginning 16th February.
On the question of VAT, the full price including VAT will bear interest. The interest will be paid wholly to the creditor, who will have paid the VAT up front to the Customs and Excise. I hope that deals with the point which the noble Earl has raised.
On the question of tax treatment of interest, that should be treated in the same way as interest charged under a contractual provision for interest; in effect, it would be a non-tax item and its treatment would be tax neutral. I do not know whether I was asked about how this would be dealt with in the company's accounts; that is a matter for the auditor, of course.
On the question of legal costs, the rule in this country is that costs follow the event; that is to say, that the successful party is entitled to the costs. We have paid attention to one particular matter to which I adverted in the Second Reading debate. It concerns the use of small claims court procedures to ensure that through this fast-track procedure the legal impediments to swift action through a major court action would not arise. We would bypass many of those obstacles.
As to whether a creditor would feel that it was not worth even going through the small claims court, that is a matter about which that individual will have to make a judgment. It is perfectly possible. There are many people who would not wish to use any form of litigation if there was a risk of costs being substantially against them. However, the reality is that it is necessary to ensure that small enterprises are informed about their rights so that they can, on a rational basis, exercise their judgment in that matter as to whether it is worth while going to court to recover the interest element, for example, which is the level which was mentioned, or whether it would be just as well to abandon the matter. This is why there is nothing mandatory about the provisions we are inserting. It is a permissive right. They can take action if they deem it appropriate, and they need not if they deem it inappropriate.
Rather different considerations might arise, although not wholly different ones, about the principal debt as distinct from the interest. Then the interest could be a substantial sum if the principal debt was a very large one. All I can say is that I think it is right that people should have given to them the right information about the remedies that can be sought and the fora in which those remedies might be obtained so they can make up their own minds about the value of these. I hope the noble Earl will feel that I have addressed the points that he raised and that we can now move on.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Purpose of Part II]:
The Earl of Homemoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 7, leave out subsection (2).

CWH 25
The noble Earl said: Subsection (2) precludes a supplier from taking advantage of the Bill after a debt is created, saying that the parties are free to agree terms. Later the Bill goes on to say that parties may agree a remedy that is substantial. Obviously, if that happens, there is no problem. But what does "substantial" mean in this context, and what will happen if the parties do not agree? Would it not be easier to omit this subsection altogether so that the Bill can be used by anyone at any time?
As the amendment is also grouped with Amendment No. 18, perhaps I may speak to that as well. Although I prefer the amendment to which I have just spoken, because I believe it is simpler, if the Government insist on the first part of the subsection I should like the noble Lord the Minister to consider removing the second part. As drafted this provision would result in the dominant party to a contract being able to adjust the terms of that contract to its own advantage. Indeed the very fact that it is included at all might encourage an unscrupulous party so to do. Equally the removal of this line will prevent parties from creating and then rearranging the terms of the contract. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I have to advise the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 18.
Lord Haskel: I can understand the concerns raised by the noble Earl, Lord Home, but perhaps I can persuade him that the Bill should stand as it is on this point. If, after the creation of a debt, the parties had an argument and could not agree terms on dealing with the debt, then they would lose a valuable means of resolving disputes without the need to go to court; that is if they came to any agreement over the interest. Clause 7(2) means that parties will be able to agree to waive all or part of the interest due where, for example, the creditor chooses to do so as part of a package of measures to resolve the dispute.
I would ask the noble Earl to consider the amendment in that light. Otherwise, if this amendment were to stand we might find ourselves in the absurd position of parties having to go to court for the remission of interest which both parties accepted should not be paid as part of the settlement of the dispute.
I turn to Amendment No. 18. I should like to note that the Government have tried to make the Bill as transparent as possible to avoid both legal and commercial uncertainty. The subsection may appear tautologous but it has been drafted to aid clarity and to avoid legal confusion. That is especially important where any confusion may result in small businesses having to go to court to resolve uncertainties. The noble Earl's amendment may lead to some legal uncertainty about the position of terms agreed after the debt has been created. For that reason, I hope the noble Earl will agree to the current wording.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Borrie: Before the Minister sits down, will he just confirm that, after the debt is created, the parties are
CWH 26
free to agree terms dealing with the debt, even though the terms involve no "substantial remedy" for the supplier?
Lord Haskel: I am advised that they would be dealing with the terms that had already been agreed.
The Earl of Home: This is a complicated topic and I am not sure that I followed totally the logic of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I shall look very carefully in Hansard at what he has said and return to the matter at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to. Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Meaning of "substantial remedy"]:
The Earl of Homemoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 5, at end insert?
("(The onus of proving that it was fair and reasonable to incorporate a term in a contract shall lie on the party so contending.").
The noble Earl said: I am aware that the Government are already considering how best to link the Bill in with the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. I believe that this amendment does precisely that. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Earl's amendment would in fact move the burden of proof on to the debtor to show that a contractual term should be upheld. I fail to see why this reversal of the burden of proof is desirable, although I shall come in a moment to the question of the effect of the Unfair Contract Terms Act.
I should like to start by referring to the reasoning behind our position on this matter. Both parties have in fact agreed a contract. That is evidence that they both felt it to be a reasonable and fair contract. The test which we seek to apply in the Bill is whether the remedy for late payment is inadequate for the purpose of compensating the supplier for late payment or for deterring late payment and that it would not be fair and reasonable to allow the remedy to be relied upon to oust or vary the right to statutory interest. In effect, therefore, it would be for the plaintiff to argue that the contract agreed—it is important to emphasise the word "agreed" in this context—failed to meet the test set by the Bill. That is a logical position, because only the plaintiff would be able to demonstrate that the contract term was unreasonable or unfair to the plaintiff. It would be extremely difficult for a defendant to be able to demonstrate that the contract was fair and reasonable for the plaintiff. How on earth would the defendant go about discharging that burden?
The noble Earl, Lord Home, alluded to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 where the burden of proof is, as the noble Earl has sought to interpose in this Bill. But there really are substantial differences between this Bill and the 1977 Act. That Act deals with exclusion clauses in contracts, and Part II of this Bill deals with contractual terms to provide a remedy for late payment.

CWH 27
These remedies may not satisfy the definition of "substantial remedy", but they do not provide an exclusion to a remedy. That is the substantive difference between the approaches in this Bill and the Unfair Contract Terms Act. I simply do not see how the defendant could discharge the burden of proof that the remedy in the Bill was fair and reasonable to the plaintiff—clearly, it is the other way round when it comes to the plaintiff being able to show that the remedy was unfair or not reasonable. With great respect, the amendment does not really stand up, and I hope that the noble Lord will not, in due course, persist with it.
The Earl of Home: I have to confess that this amendment did not originally carry my name and therefore I may be accused of introducing a proposal when I am not totally aware of all its arguments. My intention in agreeing to it, however, was that it is important to create a link between this Bill and the Unfair Contract Terms Act in order to ensure that they dovetail together. This amendment is an attempt so to do. If it has failed to do so, then I will withdraw it and look forward to the Government's proposals as to how they might link this in. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Conflict of laws]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Assignments, etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Lord Haskelmoved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 13. insert the following new clause—
ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

(" .—(1) Any power to make an order or regulations under this Act is exercisable by statutory instrument.

(2) Any statutory instrument containing an order or regulations under this Act, other than an order under section 15(2), shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament:).

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Ezramoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 7, line 24, after ("force") insert ("not later than two years after the day on which it is passed").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, which is grouped with Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Home. The purpose of the amendment is to raise the whole question of phasing. The Government's proposal, as it
CWH 28
emerged at Second Reading. was to have two preliminary phases of two years each before the Act came into force as a whole. The concern which my noble friend and I have about this is that it is not only too long a period but that it could lead small firms which alone would have the right in the first phase to claim interest to be too worried to do so. There could be very little use of that facility during the period for reasons which were well pointed out at Second Reading. The whole purpose of the Bill might fall into disrepute as a result. We therefore feel that either there should be a preliminary phase of only two years, or that during the first phase large firms should be able to make claims against other large firms. A wider use could then be made of the facility and the legislation could gain greater credibility.
Lord Meston: I support this amendment. I believe it is important that the risk of the timetable drifting is taken into account. I accept, of course, that the Government have been good enough to provide us with drafts of the commencement orders. That gives some comfort to those who are anxious about the date when the Bill will come into operation, at least its first phase.
There is a need for certainty; there is a need for the period to be as tight as possible; and there is a need to avoid distortion between large firms and small firms as to the terms on which they can contract. A further reason, I suggest, for making the period as tight as possible is that the phasing depends upon definitions to be contained in the order, a draft of which has been provided to us. Definitions of a small business, a public sector body and a large business are no doubt necessary, but are extremely detailed and in marginal cases can be hideously complex. Unless a simpler way can be found to define in particular a small business, the shorter the period this regime has to exist the better.
The Earl of Home: The phasing-in process of the Bill has led to much debate in industry and was raised by several noble Lords at Second Reading. I am aware that there was a certain amount of support for phasing during the consultation process, but I doubt whether any of those consulted realised what an extremely complicated procedure this would turn out to be.
In the context of phasing, the draft order makes a genuine effort to explain what is a large company and what is a small one, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that this has resulted in an incredibly difficult formula. For instance, if a supplier wants to claim interest from a purchaser employing about 50 people, how is he to know whether that purchaser is big or small? Does the purchaser have to say whether he is big or small? If he is obliged to do so by law, when does he have to do so? Does he have to inform the supplier immediately? If he does not do so until a court hearing the supplier may have wasted a good deal of time and money putting his claim together.
In the case of an expanding company, I understand, a supplier may not be able to make a claim on 31st March but can make a claim in relation to the same debt on 2nd April. A new company may not be able to be sued on 30th June but can be sued on 1st July for the same

CWH 29
debt. How will the supplier know when that company breaks through the barrier? Presumably, the same problem applies in reverse as regards a purchasing company which is laying off staff; the supplier may be able to claim interest on 31st March but cannot do so on 2nd April.
Then there is the question of small subsidiaries. These may be offenders as the result of parent company policy. Surely they should not be allowed to get away with it? I hope that the Government will agree with me on that one. If the Government do agree, when is a subsidiary not a subsidiary? Is it when it is less than 51 per cent. owned or when it is not equity accounted? I do not believe that this problem is addressed in the draft order.
I believe that other difficulties are associated with the phasing proposal which I will not go into now. None of these problems needs arise if the Government simply give all companies sufficient time to adjust their minds to this legislation and prepare themselves accordingly. I have suggested a period of four months in my amendment as various bodies representing small and medium-sized enterprises have advised me that that would give small companies time to adjust, but there is no particular science in my four month proposal, and it may be that six months or even longer might be better.
It is, however, arguably better that SMEs should address this issue while it is still fresh in everybody's mind rather than put it into the bottom of an in-tray and forget about it, and suddenly find that the phasing period is over for them and they are not ready. A great amount of complicated, time-consuming and possibly expensive work could be avoided by bringing this Act in its entirety into operation on the same day.
As an alternative, although I hope the Minister will consider what I have raised seriously, as I understand it, it is proposed that after a three-month period from the passing of the Act, small businesses will be able to take action against each other, against the public sector and against big business. However, big businesses cannot go against each other or the public sector on day one. I cannot believe that the Government want the public sector to be able to shelter from big business by using this clause, and I do not see why big businesses should be immune from each other. I believe my proposed wording takes care of these points.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I hope noble Lords will feel that it was helpful that we placed in the Library of the House the draft order under Clause 15(2), which I believe all noble Lords will have received. The reason for doing so was that, not only should we give noble Lords advance notice of what we had in mind, but that this debate should stimulate the possibility of our thinking further about the draft order itself. I am grateful for the comments which have been made, which have been very helpful and which I can assure noble Lords I and my colleagues will consider with great care.
It is right to say that this is another of the most important areas of debate that were covered at Second Reading. Further to that debate I have had discussions with the noble Earl, Lord Home, and with the noble
CWH 30
Lord, Lord Ezra, on, inter alia, this issue, and it is right that that should have been the case. Our concern is to ensure that, when we have concluded our deliberations on the Bill, it will be the best Bill that we could have produced through the debates in this House because all of us are ad idem—if I may use that term and defy my own previous logic—on the objective of ensuring that small enterprises should be protected initially.
One of the points I made in the debate at Second Reading was that we recognise that one of the most important matters is for small firms to be able to establish their credit management systems so that they are able to meet all their payments on time. I rehearsed on that occasion the measures that were being introduced to help them in that respect. After all, they have limited management resources and it takes time to develop the necessary systems to deal with that particular matter.
We, of course, as I also said at Second Reading, went out to wide consultation on the Bill, particularly on the question of the phasing proposals. Rightly or wrongly, 87 per cent. of business respondents supported phasing and 85 per cent of business respondents supported the timetable that we were proposing. I say again that I will certainly read very carefully what has been said, and I am always prepared to consult further with noble Lords who have raised this point, and others, but unless there is a very good reason for changing our position on this matter we would be reluctant to do so. It would he inconsistent of the Government to recognise that small businesses need credit management help if we were not to allow them sufficient time for the measures to take effect before requiring them to pay interest themselves on overdue debts.
Phasing will put businesses on notice that they should take action if their systems are inadequate. That is an important part of this debate. We simply cannot expect small businesses to develop these systems in just four months, as the noble Earl, Lord Home, has suggested. These are technical matters. There are training matters that need to be addressed, and, in addition, those with IT systems are already under pressure to ensure their systems are compatible with the year 2000. So they need time, and the Government feel that, despite the arguments we have heard so far and as I stressed, before this Committee stage, we should give that time to them so that they can prepare themselves more effectively for the legislation coming into effect.
The noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Ezra, suggested that two years would be an appropriate period. We feel that it is not only a question of developing systems, but also allowing businesses sufficient time to make sure that those systems are viable. That is why we have suggested two phases before commencement of the Act.
The noble Earl, Lord Home, suggested giving large businesses the right from commencement. This legislation is, of course, essentially designed to help small firms. That is how it was announced: that is how we reacted to some of the consultations that took place: and that was the message that we sought to get over. The fact is that large businesses are very well able to

CWH 31
look after their contractual relationships, and therefore I am not sure that the amendment proposed by the noble Earl is necessary.
I ask the noble Lords to reconsider their amendments, though of course we will deal with them if they feel that is necessary.
On the question of large against large, which is another part of the noble Earl's case, I assume that his amendment would also extend to the public sector; he may have overlooked that, but I do not blame him for that—that happens. I see that the noble Earl is nodding affirmatively that that was his intention. I will look again at that, because it is an important matter.
Notwithstanding what I have said about the primary purpose of the Bill being to support the interests of small enterprises in the first instance, I will look again at what the noble Earl said about large businesses being able to utilise the provisions of the Bill against other large businesses. We can come back to that at a later stage. However, I want to make it very clear that I give no undertaking that I will come round to that view. Certainly, I can give the undertaking that we will reflect on the matter before the Report stage--which is at least a couple of weeks ahead—but I can give no undertaking as to the result of those reflections.
Lord Ezra: I thank the noble Lord for the full reply he has given. It is clearly a most important issue, and I am glad that we shall be able to come back to it at Report stage, because the Minister has indicated that he would look seriously at the proposal, for example, that large businesses might be able to claim against large businesses in the first phase. I think there are a number of arguments in favour of that view, which I hope we will be able to deploy in more detail later.
I understand that in the case of other European countries which have already introduced these measures, there was in fact no preliminary period; they went straight in and they do not seem to have suffered as a result. I hope that the noble Lord will consider their experience as well when we come back to look at this again, as I am sure we will, and report at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Homehad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 26:
Page 7, line 24, after ("force") insert?—

("( ) as respects contracts where both the purchaser and the supplier employ more than 50 persons, at the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed:

( ) as respects any other contract,").

The noble Earl said: In respect of my amendments I thank the Minister for undertaking to cogitate on some of these topics—
Lord Clinton-Davis:I would not put it as high as that.
The Earl of Home: Perhaps "reflect on" would be a more appropriate phrase. I am afraid I do not know the Latin for "reflect".
CWH 32
The effect of this phrasing and the problems of defining a small company is that until there is a free-for-all and anyone can sue anyone, I do not think that small firms will go through the rigmarole and expense of going against someone who is roughly of the size between small and big. I believe that people will not take advantage of this Act for some considerable time, which is a pity.
However, as the noble Lord has kindly agreed to reflect, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Lord Haskelmoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("made by statutory instrument").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskelmoved Amendment No. 30:
Page 7, line 30, leave out ("made by statutory instrument").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Homemoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 7, line 35, leave out (-contracts") and insert ("debts").
The noble Earl said: In relation to this amendment I have no particular worries when the supply comprises a genuine package of obligations and prices are agreed before the Act comes into law. However, with an existing contract which is in effect an umbrella contract that covers only the general terms of supply and does not specify the obligations and prices, each new supply is in effect a new supply and should be catered for in this Bill.
A good example of this was given to me—that of a developer having a general agreement with a supplier to provide bricks for a housing development. The requirement for bricks may be over a considerable period of time, depending on the demand for housing in the area. The period could be months or it could be years. It does not seem fair to exclude the brick supplier who has entered into this umbrella agreement, securing what he hopes will be for him a valuable long-term contract, although obviously by considering this Bill we are anticipating that there may be hiccups at some stage during the supply of his bricks. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I support this amendment in so far as it raises an important point. I wonder what consideration has been given to the effect of the Bill, as it is presently drafted, on running account arrangements.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am surprised in some way by this amendment, although we are talking about discussion at this stage and there is no reason why what I think must be a probing amendment should not be put down. All amendments, as I have said before, are probing amendments at this stage in this place. It would be wrong to apply this Act retrospectively. It would amount to the Government providing the way for goal posts to be moved by making the parties to a contract subject to a sanction which they had not foreseen when

CWH 33
they had agreed the contract. I do not believe that that would be appropriate. The whole purpose here is to ensure that the parties have some knowledge and certainty in the contractual relationships which would be enhanced by the provisions of the Bill. We do not want to detract from that position, which I believe would he the essence of the situation if these amendments were to be included.
It is critical that the parties to a contract should know what the legal position is and what their obligations are contractually. That is important before the terms are agreed. I therefore feel that what is proposed here would lead to a good deal of commercial uncertainty for parties currently agreeing contracts. That is the rationale of the objection that I have taken to the amendments.
I thank the noble Earl for raising the issue because it is pertinent to our discussions today that all those angles should be properly considered. However, I hope that the Committee will appreciate the points that I have raised. We are not in favour of retrospection as far as the provisions of the Bill are concerned.
Perhaps I may say also that I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Home, has raised umbrellas now on two occasions in our deliberations today. I have detected no sign of a storm, let alone a tempest.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Home: The very essence of the thinking behind the Bill is that we may get some rather nasty hailstones coming if some of the contracts go wrong, or late payment goes wrong, which leads to suppliers taking advantage of the Bill. We hope that the economy will continue to prosper as it did in the past so that this becomes less and less necessary as time goes on.
This was indeed something of a probing amendment. I shall continue to use the term "umbrella" rather than "parasol" because I believe that this is for rain, not for
CWH 34
sun. There are quite a lot of examples where such umbrella agreements discriminate particularly against small suppliers such as in the example that I gave who have no idea what the situation might be as a development goes along: they are a long way from agreeing any price or other conditions in relation to a particular supply of bricks.
The noble Lord has kindly said that he will consider this along with the other amendments that I have put forward today, and I look forward to seeing what will come out on Report. In the meantime, I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in not tearing me to bits in my debut on this side of the House—
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before the noble Earl sits down, I should say that I gave no undertaking on this amendment that I saw cause for reconsideration in the light of the argument that I sought to adduce in reply to the noble Earl. He is right in saying that we will study carefully everything that has been said in this debate. but I can certainly give no undertaking that there will be an amendment proposed in this regard.
The Earl of Home: I apologise to the noble Lord for my lax use of wording. I am grateful to him for at least considering the points that we have raised, if only to reject them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: This concludes the Committee proceedings on the Bill. I thank your Lordships for your indulgence.
The Committee adjourned at ten minutes before six o'clock.

  Nuclear Weapons: Policy
  Nuclear Weapons: Policy
  Geneva Conventions: Additional Protocols
  Geneva Conventions: Additional Protocols
  Arms Embargoes
  Arms Embargoes
  Arms Embargo on Argentina
  Arms Embargo on Argentina
  Bahrain: FCO Visit
  Bahrain: FCO Visit
  Iraq: Ethnic Cleansing
  Iraq: Ethnic Cleansing
  Iraq: Reports of Mass Executions
  Iraq: Reports of Mass Executions
  East Timor: Human Rights
  East Timor: Human Rights
  Sheikh Al Jamri
  Sheikh Al Jamri
  Bahrain: Human Rights
  Bahrain: Human Rights
  Human Rights
  Human Rights
  India: Human Rights
  India: Human Rights
  Iran: Human Rights
  Iran: Human Rights
  Bahrain: Human Rights
  Bahrain: Human Rights
  Samaritans: Israel-Palestine
  Samaritans: Israel-Palestine
  Political Parties: Funding
  Political Parties: Funding
  Firearms Certificates: Appeals Procedure
  Firearms Certificates: Appeals Procedure
  Firearms: Certificates
  Firearms: Certificates
  Prisoners: Religious Visits
  Prisoners: Religious Visits
  OECD: Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  OECD: Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  IFOR/SFOR Troops
  IFOR/SFOR Troops
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Scottish Police and Social Work Services
  Scottish Police and Social Work Services
  Scotland: Chief Constables' Accountability
  Scotland: Chief Constables' Accountability
  Scottish Police: International Conference Attendance
  Scottish Police: International Conference Attendance
  Scottish Police Conduct: Inquiry Procedures
  Scottish Police Conduct: Inquiry Procedures
  Scottish School Leavers: Qualifications
  Scottish School Leavers: Qualifications
  Scottish Primary Schools: Studies
  Scottish Primary Schools: Studies
  Scotland: Roads Programme
  Scotland: Roads Programme
  Scotland: NHS Non-core Services
  Scotland: NHS Non-core Services
  Scotland: Opencast Mining Applications
  Scotland: Opencast Mining Applications
  Greengairs: Public Inquiry
  Greengairs: Public Inquiry
  Scottish Parliament Building
  Scottish Parliament Building
  2000 Non-Domestic Rating Revaluation
  2000 Non-Domestic Rating Revaluation
  Motorists: Blood and Breath Tests
  Motorists: Blood and Breath Tests
  Abortion Statistics
  Abortion Statistics
  Government Works of Art: Loans
  Government Works of Art: Loans
  Works of Art: National Register
  Works of Art: National Register
  Inflation Rate
  Inflation Rate
  Annuities: Information
  Annuities: Information
  Legal Aid: Statistics
  Legal Aid: Statistics
  Legal Aid Services
  Legal Aid Services
  Rosemary West Trial and Appeal: Transcripts
  Rosemary West Trial and Appeal: Transcripts
  LEAs: Funding
  LEAs: Funding
  Schools: Fair Admissions
  Schools: Fair Admissions
  Teachers: Public Recognition
  Teachers: Public Recognition
  History: Education
  History: Education