Sitting of 29 January 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Madam Speaker: Members will already be aware that a wooden moulding fell from the ceiling of our Chamber during the night. This morning, our staff checked to see whether there were similar defects in any other mouldings, and one further moulding has been removed. [Interruption.] It is not very funny, actually. I have been advised by our experts that they are as sure as they can be that it is safe for us to continue sitting here. Over the weekend, steps will be taken to ensure that all the mouldings are screwed into the ceiling joists, but I am confident that everything will be in good order again by the time that we sit on Monday. We shall now proceed with our usual business.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Student Loans
    Mr. Chidgey: What plans he has to extend student loan provision to students studying part time on equivalent undergraduate courses. [24179]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): There are no current plans to extend student loans to part-time students, most of whom are employed and are therefore able to support themselves. However, for the first time, we are making significant sums available to part timers through access funds.
    Mr. Chidgey: Given that the Government have accepted the Tories' spending plans for the next two years, can the Minister explain why he is unable to give an assurance that part-time students should be able to access student loans in the life of this Parliament, given that the Government's Teaching and Higher Education Bill, currently in another place, makes exactly that provision?
    Dr. Howells: The Bill makes that provision because we have a great deal of sympathy with the evidence that is emerging on behalf of part-time students, and we are ensuring that they are adequately provided for so that they may undertake and complete the courses that they desire to complete. However, the hon. Gentleman does not understand that his plan—which, of course, will once again be paid for out of the magic penny that the Liberals
    484
    are always spouting on about—will result in payments being made that will be a deadweight because, as he must have heard me say, most part-time students are already employed. That is why Lord Dearing did not recommend such a measure in his inquiry into further education.
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: I welcome the Minister's assurance on the widening of access to loans, but may I ask that the Department continues to keep the matter sympathetically under review? I draw his attention especially to the increasing numbers of part-time students who are studying in the new universities, and to the courses that they are fulfilling. It is important—especially given the many women on such courses—that access to, and encouragement to serve on, those courses, continues.
    Dr. Howells: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are fully aware of the important part that part-time study plays in lifelong learning. That is why we have doubled access funds to £36 million and extended provision to accommodate part-timers.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Is the Minister aware of efforts by the Select Committee on Education and Employment to find ways of accelerating and increasing the amount of genuinely private funding that might be used to fund student loans? Does he agree that, if such efforts were successful, more money might be provided for access funds and for higher education? Will the Department for Education and Employment undertake to support any such efforts?
    Dr. Howells: We shall always examine such evidence and we are keen for private enterprise to play a much greater part in ensuring that its employees receive every opportunity for education at all levels. The best firms in the country are already doing so.

    University for Industry
    Dr. Whitehead: If he will make a statement on the progress of the establishment of the university for industry. [24180]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): We have made substantial progress with the help of the working group chaired by David Brown of Motorola Ltd., and we shall produce further details in the forthcoming White Paper on lifelong learning and the prospectus for the university for industry, which will be published in March.
    Dr. Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the right degree of support, the university for industry will rank alongside that other achievement of a Labour Government, the Open university? Can he assure me that the creation of the essential starting point, the multi-media learning network, is being satisfactorily progressed by the design and implementation advisory group?
    Mr. Blunkett: I can give that assurance. The university for industry will make a major contribution to equipping our nation with the skills required to sustain growth with stable inflation, and to do so in a new century, when new

    485
    skills and the ability to take advantage of information and communication technology will be at the forefront of our prosperity and our ability to compete.

    Higher Education Reform
    Mr. Garnier: How much his Department has spent on publicising the Government's proposals for the reform of higher education. [24181]
    Dr. Howells: The Department has spent some £534,000 on publicising the Government's proposals for the reform of higher education. That covers our response to the report of the national committee of inquiry into higher education under Sir Ron Dearing—Lord Dearing—and the new arrangements for financial support for students in higher education.
    Mr. Garnier: How does the Under-Secretary justify a reform that will cost the poorest students £2,000 a year more than better-off students during an academic year?
    Dr. Howells: We undertook to inform everybody who needed the information about the details and the truth of the new funding arrangements that we intend to put in place. We think that that is a proper expenditure of money. The evidence of the success of our approach is seen in the rising number of applications for undergraduate places for next year.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that some students are labouring under the misinformation and scaremongering spread, in part, from those on the Opposition Benches? Does he agree that that small sum spent to tell the truth, so that students are not put off doing courses, is money well spent?
    Dr. Howells: It is interesting that the nature of that scaremongering and misinformation that has come so often from some quarters is changing rapidly. I understand that the shadow Secretary of State for Education last night informed the audience at a debate on the future of higher education that he thought that our proposals for student loans would be much fairer than the arrangements put in place by the previous Government.
    Mr. Don Foster: Is not the only reason why the Minister has had to spend so much money on advertising details of his proposals to students, the Government's hasty and ill-conceived response to the Dearing commission report? Does he agree that the proposals will do nothing to improve the funding crisis left by the previous Government because of the failure to passport the additional money from student fees to higher education, and that we shall end up with a higher education system that has two tiers—ivy league universities and bargain basement universities?
    Dr. Howells: No, I do not agree. I am proud that this Government had the guts to make a decision—something that is not a characteristic of the hon. Gentleman's party.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Has not the publicity served its purpose well, and have not potential students responded?
    486
    The applications to Anglia polytechnic university in my constituency are up on this time last year, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming that.
    Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend is right. Applications are rising quickly. The Jeremiahs and doom-predictors have been proved wrong. Students know that a degree brings them great opportunities in life and enables them to earn more when they are working. That is what we intend higher education to do. We shall see that the money is in place so that every student with the qualifications to take up those places can do so.
    Mr. Welsh: What plans does the Department have to pay the fourth-year tuition fees of students undertaking an honours course at a Scottish university, thus ending the present discrimination against English and Welsh students? Is the Minister aware of the harmful effect of his policy on university policy?
    Dr. Howells: As the hon. Gentleman knows, because I have told him so on several occasions, we are urging Scottish universities to recognise the great worth of two-year A-level courses in England and Wales, and allow students with good grades into the second year of four-year degree courses at Scottish universities. That is a perfectly good arrangement, and we shall try to ensure that it works properly.
    Mr. Dorrell: Is not the truth that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) was seeking that the student from a high-income background will pay an extra £3,000 for a three-year degree course under the Government's proposals, while a student from a low-income background will pay an extra £5,265 for the same three-year degree course? Will the Minister now answer the question posed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier): why do the Government believe that low-income students should face a steeper increase in the cost of their degrees than their contemporaries from more privileged backgrounds?
    Dr. Howells: The shadow Secretary of State does not understand that students from low-income families will not be required to pay tuition fees. He adds up the sums in an incredibly idiosyncratic way. That is why he keeps jumping up and down in his seat. The money will be there for every student who wishes to take up a place at university and who requires it. The payback arrangements for such loans are good. People will take up such loans, and the proof of that is in the present application rates.

    Qualifications
    Mr. Rendel: What plans he has to consolidate 14 to 19-year-olds' qualifications into a single framework. [24182]
    Mr. Blunkett: My remit letter to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority asked it to develop our manifesto commitment to a coherent and high-quality national framework for 14 to 19-year-olds. Our consultation paper, "Qualifying for success", which progresses that manifesto commitment and the earlier Dearing report on 16 to 19-year-olds, will be reported on by the QCA in February.
    Mr. Rendel: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that we should establish a parity of esteem

    487
    between academic and vocational qualifications? If so, will he confirm that the present divide in the gold standard between A-levels and advanced national vocational qualifications is destroying that parity of esteem, and it would be better to combine the two?
    Mr. Skinner: He knows all about it—he went to Eton.
    Mr. Blunkett: I cannot top my hon. Friend's answer.
    There is undoubtedly a divide in Britain between vocational and academic qualifications, which is reflected in the way in which people too often disparage industrial and business routes. Therefore, we are committed to providing a high-quality, over-arching certificate, on which we are consulting, which retains the gold standard of the A-level, extends its breadth and provides people, through vocational qualifications, with an equally credible and high-quality route for achieving the same goals.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have inherited a real problem from the previous Administration as a result of the pressure on young people from training and enterprise councils—many of which are trying to do a good job, like my own in Calderdale and Kirklees, which is doing an excellent job? Over the years, young people have been pushed towards fast training that leads to qualifications so that TECs get their money, and away from longer-term, more expensive training, such as the new apprenticeship schemes? Can we do something about that quickly?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to say that the new standards council that we are establishing, and our review of NVQs, will help us to ensure that high-quality qualifications are available whichever route people take post-16, as will our commitment in the legislation presently in the other place to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to education and training in order to gain a qualification while at work, so that they, too, can take their place in the labour market of the future.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: What representations he has received concerning the activities of training and enterprise councils. [24183]
    Dr. Howells: I regularly receive representations about TECs on a variety of issues.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government are in danger of giving the impression that they are so blinkered by the limited welfare-to-work programme—money and priority are only for that—that they are squeezing out all other topics? Small and medium enterprises in my area tell me that their problems are recruitment and skills shortages—something that the Surrey business link identified in its latest survey. Will he particularly commend the Surrey TEC, which has involved more than 1,000 companies in its modern apprenticeship programme?
    Dr. Howells: Although I have no hesitation in congratulating the Surrey TEC on its achievements—and they are great achievements; more than half the new starts
    488
    in Surrey are modern apprenticeships, and that is a model that every TEC should follow—I have to dispute the assertion that the right hon. Lady made at the beginning of her question. This year, there will be 72,000 new, modern apprenticeship starts—10,000 more than under the present arrangements. We value them, and want them to expand and continue.
    Mr. Derek Foster: I invite my hon. Friend to reconsider the relationship between TECs and regional development agencies. At the risk of offending his national sensitivity, may I suggest that he follows the Scottish model? Would it not enable the RDA to pursue a coherent economic development strategy, including a skills strategy, within the regions?
    Dr. Howells: My right hon. Friend raises some interesting issues. We are looking at every possible option. We want our training to be the best in the world, and for that we must have the most efficient means of brokering, commissioning and paying for training. I am interested in what he says. I shall look at it carefully. We are looking at the models not only in Scotland but in Wales, where they seem to work quite well.
    Mr. Keetch: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members were told this morning that training and enterprise councils are required to keep approximately £70 million in reserve, but they would like to keep £170 million in reserve? Yet, in a written answer to me today, he accepted that more than £278 million is in reserve, which he says will be used for Government priorities. Will he assure the House and the TECs that that money will not be directed simply to bolstering the new deal but will be used for the benefit of TECs in their areas?
    Dr. Howells: I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that that money will be used for the best possible projects, which will strengthen competitiveness and the employment infrastructure in the areas that the TECs serve. I want it to be spent on an array of new projects. We have some interesting ones in mind. Perhaps, over a cup of tea, I could talk to him about them.

    New Deal Pathfinders
    Mr. Dawson: If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal in pathfinder areas. [24184]
    Mr. Blunkett: I commend all those who have involved with the 12 pathfinder projects for the new deal. In the first three weeks alone, 5,300 young people were invited for interview. Three thousand young people entered the gateway, of whom half have been placed for jobs, and hundreds of young people who are not yet entitled to enter the new deal have presented themselves at jobcentres wishing to be part of it. That is a tremendous start, of which we can all be proud.
    Mr. Dawson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging response about this excellent scheme.
    Can my right hon. Friend assure me that young people entering the new deal scheme will be offered a real choice of quality training and work placement? Can he further assure me that vulnerable young people, who are in so

    489
    much need of this scheme, will receive the counselling and emotional support that they require to enable them to continue in ways that were previously denied to them>?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am happy to give that assurance. The gateway, with basic social and educational skills provisions, the specific advisers and mentors for the young people concerned, and the commitment that every young person will get education and training to an approved qualification, all demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that this is not just a makeweight scheme but a real programme that equips young people to take their place in the labour market and helps to meet the skills shortage referred to earlier.
    Mr. Rowe: Have the pathfinder areas thrown up for the Secretary of State the people who are paying the real cost of the new deal? Will he explain to older people in my constituency, many of whom have made 200, 300 or 400 applications for jobs, why they are now told that their job clubs are to be cut back because of the costs of the new deal? Given that unemployment is falling, is not the money originally set aside for the new deal more than ample? How does he explain to my constituents that they are being sacrificed to the Chancellor's need to build up a war chest to win the next election?
    Mr. Blunkett: I should like to inform the hon. Gentleman's constituents why they have been unemployed for so long under a regime that the hon. Gentleman helped to prop up. I should like to explain to young people in his area how we shall ensure that they do not become the long-term unemployed adults of the future and that they have the opportunity that has been denied to middle-aged people. I should like to explain, as the Chancellor said, and as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights said on 5 January, how we shall extend the scheme to older unemployed workers, giving them the qualifications and skills that they need.
    Above all, we shall ensure that no young person ever again faces, at the age of 18, the prospect of not having a job year after year. They must learn to get out of bed, get themselves into a job and earn their own living for the future rather than depend on the state.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: Has it yet been possible to evaluate the adequacy of the allocation for the gateway period? Will my right hon. Friend keep that matter under review, as £260 for up to four months seems a small amount?
    Mr. Blunkett: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall keep the matter under review. It is important that the gateway is a quality entry into the new deal and that we let no one down in terms of evaluating the first 12 pathfinder programmes. It was appropriate to pilot the programme first to ensure that we learn the lessons and apply them when we roll the programme out for the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. Willetts: Let me return to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). Does the Secretary of State not recognise that, in the past week, many hon. Members on both sides of the House will have received a letter from their local employment service telling the same story about the cuts
    490
    in job club placements and in job plan workshops for people who are not eligible for the new deal? Is it not clear that there will be two different categories of unemployed people: those with the extra expenditure of the new deal; and more than a million people who will receive less assistance in the future than they received in the past?
    Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman's last assertion is incorrect. A higher proportion of adult unemployed will have access to job clubs and similar measures than is the case now. Unemployment dropped by 28 per cent. in the past year; job clubs are being reduced by only 15 per cent.; and the take-up at job clubs has been only 87 per cent. With the 750 remaining job clubs, it is therefore possible to do a better job more effectively and in the best interests of unemployed people, so that they get a job rather than attend a club.

    Welfare to Work
    Mr. McAllion: What recent representations he has received relating to the Government's programme for welfare into work for 18 to 25-year-olds. [24185]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights (Mr. Andrew Smith): We continue to receive many supportive comments and suggestions, including from businesses, the voluntary sector, training providers and, most importantly, from young people, whose reaction to the introduction of the new deal in the pathfinder areas has been very positive.
    Mr. McAllion: All the agencies that work with the young unemployed agree about the new deal's huge potential to make a real difference, but there is widespread criticism of the element of compulsion within the scheme. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, by insisting on compulsion, he is sending out a message that the new deal will be done to the unemployed rather than for the unemployed? Could he not put his faith in the genuine quality of the options being offered as a guarantee of the new deal's success? The tiny minority who say no to offers of genuine help need more help, not more compulsion.
    Mr. Smith: We have had the answer, in that more than 3,000 gateway interviews have been conducted and we have not had to initiate sanctions in a single case. Moreover, more than 500 young people have volunteered to go on the new deal programme early. So far, all the evidence from the pathfinder interviews is that young people understand very well the difference that the new deal will make for them and for their prospects of employment.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: How does the Minister square his pre-election pledge of getting 250,000 young people off the unemployment register with the fact that only 122,000 people are currently on that register? If he accepts those figures, will he tell us why the Chancellor has allocated a disproportionately large amount of resources to getting young people off the unemployment register under the new deal? Younger people are more mobile, better educated and more able to get a job. It is the older, long-term unemployed who need the resources.
    Mr. Smith: I make no apology for the attention that this Government, unlike the Conservative Government,

    491
    have given to the particular needs of the young unemployed. Unemployment levels among young people are twice those in the rest of the work force. A terrible price is paid as a result of persistent unemployment among the young. It damages people's lives and the lives of their families, and leads to the corrosion of communities. The statistics show not only that 120,000 young people have been out of work for more than six months, but that 15,000 pass the six-month threshold every month.
    Mr. Kidney: What role does my right hon. Friend envisage for collaborative partnerships between employers and further education colleges in delivering the quality training that is such an important component of welfare to work?
    Mr. Smith: A very important role. The hallmark of the new deal is the provision of quality training in every option, so that young people gain the recognised qualifications that will not only get them into a job, but will help then to progress in employment. One of the most exciting and innovative aspects of the new deal is that colleges and other training providers will work in partnership with employers to open up opportunities to young people who have previously been denied them.

    National Curriculum
    Mr. Fearn: What plans he has to introduce a new national curriculum for primary schools within the next five years. [24186]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): We plan to introduce a revised national curriculum from September 2000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for State announced plans on 13 January to give primary schools more time to focus on literacy and numeracy for the next two academic years.
    Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister agree that, in the past few years art, music and sport have been squeezed out of the curriculum? Are there any plans to bring those subjects back into the curriculum? I visit quite a few primary schools, and they all say that those subjects have been squeezed out because of the limited time allowed in the curriculum.
    Ms Morris: I am not sure that those subjects have been squeezed out: they have not been dropped from the national curriculum. Those and the other core and foundation subjects have a place, and are taught in schools. Long may that remain so, because the subjects to which the hon. Gentleman referred are important, and are part of a broad and balanced curriculum for our children.
    Helen Jones: Does the Minister agree with me and with the primary school teachers in my constituency who responded to the White Paper that the primary curriculum has been overloaded and prescriptive? They wanted more flexibility, and more time to concentrate on literacy and numeracy, which is what the Secretary of State's proposed in his recent announcement.
    Ms Morris: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly the message that we have received from teachers
    492
    and parents. Parents made it clear in their response to the White Paper that their overriding priorities were, quite rightly, literacy and numeracy. The proposal that my right hon. Friend announced last week will enable teachers to exercise their professional judgment. In delivering that broad and balanced curriculum, they will now have the freedom to concentrate on literacy and numeracy. If those skills are taught before the end of key stage 2, children will have greater access to the broad curriculum when they reach secondary school.
    Mr. Dorrell: I agree that it is desirable for the national curriculum to focus on the essential core, as was always the intention, but why will the Government not publish the results of key stage 2 tests at the end of children's primary education: tests against that curriculum? Does the Minister recollect that, last March, the Secretary of State pledged a future Labour Government to national publication of the test results—not local publication by local education authorities, but national publication by the Department? Why are the Government breaking that pledge?
    Ms Morris: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I thought that he was going to congratulate the Government on publishing key stage 2 test results a full two months earlier than his party did when in office.
    The results have been published locally for parents—
    Mr. Dorrell: Nationally?
    Ms Morris: They will be published nationally, so that everyone will be able to see how local authorities and schools are performing. I understand that the local authority figures will be published next week, and that the others will be published when they are available. We always said that they would be put on the internet.
    The key point, however, is that parents, who have a right to know how local authorities and schools are performing, received the information two full months earlier than they did under the last Government—and next year they will receive more information, even earlier.

    School Attendance
    Dr. Stoate: What measures the Government are taking to ensure that children of school age attend school regularly. [24189]
    Ms Estelle Morris: All pupils need to attend school regularly if standards are to be raised and if young people are to gain an adequate grounding for higher education, training or employment. We are supporting locally devised projects to a value of £22 million in 119 English local education authorities under the improving attendance and behaviour category of the standards fund for 1998–99. We are also consulting widely on detailed new guidance for schools and LEAs on attendance issues.
    Dr. Stoate: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree that those who are away from school without good reason can become marginalised? How may the new social exclusion unit be able to help the problem?
    Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those who leave school without qualifications are excluded from

    493
    so much else in life. Some of the saddest figures relate to those who become offenders and appear in court while they are of school age. Six in every 10 of them have been persistent truants or excluded from school.
    That is the cost of poor attendance and truancy, and that is why dealing with those problems is such a high priority for the Government—and why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced that dealing with them will be one of the first tasks of the social exclusion unit. It will address the problems as they have never been addressed before, in a multi-disciplinary way, drawing together the efforts and resources of a number of Departments. We look forward to receiving an early report from the unit, so that we can make progress.
    Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the governors and teachers of Kinnerley primary school, which came top of the league in Shropshire this year? That included attendance figures. Will she ask how on earth the teachers and governors of Shropshire schools—[Interruption.] I should be grateful if the Minister would pay attention and listen to my question.
    How on earth will teachers and governors deliver a similar quality of education in Shropshire next year with 450 fewer teachers? That shortage has been caused by cuts of £10 million, and the Government's swingeing shift of resources from shire counties to inner cities.
    Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman's closing comments are a strange reflection on a Government who have just put more extra money into education than his party's Government ever managed to do. I am happy to congratulate the school in his constituency, and all the schools elsewhere that take local action with well-devised projects to reduce truancy and ensure good attendance.

    School Security
    Mr. Edwards: What measures have been taken to enhance school security for 1998–99. [24191]
    The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government are making available an extra £22 million in 1998–99 to improve security in schools in England.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman sure of the numbers?
    Mr. Byers: Absolutely, yes; it is two times 11, I think. That sum is in addition to the £6 million provided through our new deal for schools.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that a secure environment is essential for learning and for teaching, and that vandalism is far too common in our schools? May I assure him that all the schools in my constituency in Monmouthshire will greatly welcome the Government's commitment to allocate additional resources and specifically to improve school security?
    Mr. Byers: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's questions. This year, Monmouth has received some additional resources to help with school security. We have to put the interests of children and school staff first, which is why it is vital for the Government to ensure that they have a secure environment during school hours.
    Mr. Evans: I am sure that the Minister will agree that it would be even better if seven times £8 million pounds were spent to help secure our schools. Do the Government have any plans to encourage local education authorities to visit some of the schools in their area to test security? It is all very well for schools to make an assessment of their own security needs, but parents would be reassured if an independent assessment of schools' security needs were made urgently.
    Mr. Byers: This is an important matter, about which I am sure all hon. Members are concerned. The working group on school security is still considering the matter, and I will draw to its attention the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. He is absolutely right to say that we need to ensure that parents feel confident about the school environment in which their children spend many hours a day.
    Mr. Drew: Does my hon. Friend recognise the particular problems faced by schools in rural and semi-rural areas? Although they may not have the same order of problems, they still—because of isolation—need to be secure. Will he ensure that moneys reach the more rural schools? Anything he can do to ensure that that happens will be welcomed.
    Mr. Byers: I assure my hon. Friend that, when we make our decisions on allocating money for school security under phase 2 of our new deal for schools—which will have a school security element—we will be conscious not only of what are perhaps to many people the more obvious needs of schools in more urban and built-up areas but of the specific needs of isolated rural schools. All schools need a secure environment. Although it is important that schools do not become fortresses, we have to get the balance right and ensure that our children receive education in a secure and safe environment.

    School Repairs (Lewes)
    Mr. Baker: What plans he has to help tackle the backlog of repairs to schools within the Lewes constituency. [24192]
    Mr. Byers: As a result of the Budget statement on 2 July 1997, we expect that an additional £2 billion will be spent through our new deal for schools. Moreover, in 1997–99, East Sussex local education authority will receive a capital allowance of over £21 million to support building improvements.
    Mr. Baker: I am grateful for that answer. However, does the Minister realise that, after 18 years of underfunding by the previous Conservative Government, schools in my constituency—indeed, across East Sussex—have a huge backlog of basic maintenance and repairs? Although the news that he has given us is welcome, the problem will not be solved. Does he realise

    495
    that many small village schools have real, specific and considerable needs even though they are rarely at the top of action lists? I am thinking of village schools in my constituency such as, for example, Wivelsfield, Newick and Upper Dicker. What comfort can he offer to them? Will he press the Prime Minister and his other colleagues to lift capping, so that local authorities can do the job that they know they want to do?
    Mr. Byers: The very important element of our new deal for schools funding is that it is making grant available to local authorities and to schools for building purposes. As it is grant, it will not count against a local authority's cap, making the capping regime irrelevant in the new deal. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that 15 schools in his own constituency are covered by East Sussex's application for the second phase of new deal funding. If that application were to be successful, it would make a very real difference to the quality of education that children in his constituency are receiving. We are confident that, with the new deal phase 2 for our schools, we will provide a quality learning environment, which we believe will play a vital part in driving up standards in our schools.
    Mrs. Browning: Given that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) has raised specific questions about local education authority schools such as those in East Sussex, what is the Minister's response to the letter sent only yesterday to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, who lists East Sussex as an LEA threatening cuts? The letter lists other LEAs, many of them Labour-controlled, that will not be spending all their additional allocation on education and schools, and states:
    "the additional £835 million for education in next year's Budget is not going to find its way into schools, despite the Government's declared wishes."
    We hear words, words and words from the Government, but education is not a high priority in Liberal Democrat and Labour-controlled LEAs up and down the country.
    Mr. Byers: I join the hon. Lady in condemning East Sussex for failing to pass on the money that it has been given by the Labour Government, which we believe should be spent in the schools of East Sussex. However, I am sure that she will be aware that East Sussex is under Conservative control, so she needs to make representations to her political colleagues in East Sussex and urge them to ensure that the money that the Labour Government have given East Sussex—
    Mr. Ian Bruce: No, they have not given it.
    Mr. Byers: They have given it. East Sussex has the money, but Conservative councillors there are refusing to pass it on. New deal funding is grant so it does not count against the local authority's cap.

    Out-of-school Child Care Initiative
    Mr. Gapes: What assessment he has made of the out-of-school child care initiative. [24194]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): In 1997, the Government commissioned a third evaluation of the out-of-school child care initiative to assess the extent to which schemes have become financially viable and to examine the factors affecting their viability. The report was published on 22 January and a copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library.
    Mr. Gapes: I welcome the Government's commitment to double funding for the out-of-school child care initiative, but can my hon. Friend assure me that more efforts will be made to ensure that resources reach the poorest and most disadvantaged communities with the worst deprivation?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend expresses his characteristic concern for the most disadvantaged of his constituents. The previous Government would support provision under the out-of-school child care initiative only when a scheme could demonstrate that it would be self-sustaining within a short period. Only this morning, I discussed that and other child care issues with representatives of training and enterprise councils. They want more attention to be given to developing local capacity in deprived areas over longer time scales and to supporting parents in low-income households to meet the costs of child care. I fully recognise the force of what my hon. Friend and the TECs have said.

    New Deal Pathfinder (Black Country)
    Mr. Cranston: What reports he has received on the progress of the new deal pathfinder in the black country. [24195]
    Mr. Andrew Smith: I have received weekly reports on the new deal pathfinders, including the one in the black country. I was pleased to visit Dudley last month. It is early days, but the programme has made an encouraging start, and I thank my hon. Friend for his active involvement locally.
    Mr. Cranston: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will know that last Friday I visited Dudley zoo, which has just taken on one of my constituents, a young man who had been unemployed for seven years. How can we further involve small and medium-sized enterprises such as Dudley zoo in the new deal?
    Mr. Smith: When I visited Dudley, I met representatives of business, including small businesses. There will be an active marketing campaign, locally and nationally, to get as many employers as possible signed up. We are also working through the sectoral business associations and bodies such as the Federation of Small Businesses have pledged their support to ensure that as many small businesses as possible are involved. My hon. Friend recounted the story of his constituent, and such instances bring home just what a difference the new deal will make to people's lives. That is why we need it and why it is such a good programme.
    Mr. Baldry: Does the Minister accept that unemployment rates in Dudley, as elsewhere in the

    497
    country, are coming down fast, as the Secretary of State said recently? As a consequence of Conservative policies, unemployment fell by 28 per cent. over the past year. Is not the real problem in Dudley and elsewhere that employers are increasingly facing skills shortages? Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Department will keep under review the amounts spent on the new deal and whether some of that money could be better used by TECs to help with more skills training? Otherwise we shall have the ludicrous situation of money being spent where it is not needed and not spent where it is needed.
    Mr. Smith: Despite the welcome fall in unemployment, far too many people are unemployed—especially young people—and for everyone who remains unemployed, that unemployment is 100 per cent. They need all the help that the new deal will provide. We are implementing the right programme at the right time for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gives. When the labour market is tightening and firms are finding it difficult to recruit workers with the skills that they need, a programme that equips young people with training and skills so that they can help to fill those vacancies will not only benefit the young unemployed but will be good for business.

    Special Needs
    Mr. Paul Clark: What steps will be taken to ensure that young people with exceptional needs are able to enter the new deal early if they choose to do so. [24196]
    Mr. Alan Howarth: We are committed to ensuring that the new deal meets the individual needs of all young people, including those with special needs, who will be offered the opportunity to join it early. That includes people with disabilities, those with literacy or numeracy problems, lone parents, ex-offenders and others at a particular disadvantage.
    Mr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. The scheme that is being developed to deliver the new deal in the Medway towns will ensure that those opportunities exist. Special advisers to the scheme through the gateways opportunity, including Members of Parliament who are members of the planning team, will experience some of those opportunities. That is why I cannot wait to join the Army in the woods for a 36-hour survival course to develop my motivation and team skills. Does my hon. Friend agree that the new deal has given opportunities at a local level—that is the important point—to build strong, wide-reaching partnerships involving the private and voluntary sectors, the Employment Service and the public sector to deliver the training and skills that our young people require for the 21st century?
    Mr. Howarth: After his magnificent result at the general election, my hon. Friend should be offering survival courses. He may receive applications from Conservative Members who are already panicking at the thought of the next election. I am delighted by the quality of partnership that is being developed for the new deal in
    498
    the Medway towns. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his commitment, to Linda Russell, who has led the process for the Employment Service, and to all the businesses, TECs, local authorities and voluntary organisations that have responded so positively to the Government's challenge to give better support to unemployed people.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The Minister was clearly the first person in the Labour party to benefit from the new deal. I am glad that he is being less aggressive in response to questions on the new deal. Members of Parliament have received letters from the Employment Service telling us what is happening. We are grateful for that, but we are panic-stricken because the Employment Service is dismantling itself before the new deal has come in. It will be needed to help the most difficult cases to come off the unemployment register. Will the Minister please look again at the cuts to the Employment Service currently being announced?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is part of the old deal. Unemployment is 28 per cent. lower than a year ago. It must be sensible to scale back certain provision against that background. Funding per person is largely unchanged. The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that there is a sensible case for what we are doing given that job clubs are only being used to 87 per cent. of capacity. However, where local partnerships think it appropriate, more job club places can be provided. Employment Service district managers are consulting Members of Parliament and locally. It would be preferable for Members to respond constructively rather than using the opportunity for opportunistic political point scoring.
    Mr. Allan: Does the Minister recognise the concerns expressed by many in our ethnic minority communities, which traditionally suffer disproportionately high unemployment, that their young people will have difficulty gaining access to the high-quality employment option under the new deal? Does he recognise that such concerns are often fuelled by scepticism as a result of poor experiences on schemes under the previous Administration? Does he have any plans to deal with such issues?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the grievous reality of unemployment among members of ethnic minorities—particularly young people. Unemployment among people from ethnic minorities is running at twice that among white people—15 per cent. as against about 7 per cent. Unemployment is higher among young people across the range of ethnic minorities. For young black people, unemployment is running at 34 per cent. The most chilling statistic is that, among black men in London aged between 16 and 24, unemployment is 45 per cent. The previous Government left behind a shameful situation.
    We are involving ethnic minority organisations at every point in the new deal. We have introduced ethnic

    499
    monitoring to examine what barriers to success there may be for young people from ethnic minorities. We are, of course, monitoring very closely the outcome so that we can respond sensitively and urgently to this very important challenge.

    Regional Aid
    Mr. Barnes: What representations he has received recently from the alliance for regional aid; and if he will make a statement. [24197]
    Mr. Andrew Smith: I met representatives of the alliance for regional aid in August last year. We discussed the reform of the European structural funds and the criteria for their allocation. The Government are seeking arrangements which are fair, affordable, efficient and durable, and which take due account of United Kingdom regional interests.
    Mr. Barnes: The alliance for regional aid is worried that £1,000 million a year, which we have been receiving from the European regional development fund under objective 1 and objective 2 assistance, may begin to disappear. One of the factors involved is the unemployment figures that are presented to the European Union. We still operate on the fiddled method that the Conservatives introduced. It must therefore be made clear to the EU that unemployment is higher than the official record shows. We might need to adjust the figures to show that that is so.
    Mr. Smith: The Government have been making the point about the importance of accurate unemployment statistics. We are seeking to re-establish public credibility and confidence in unemployment figures, which were so shamefully undermined by successive changes and fiddles when the Conservatives were in government. The review has properly been conducted by the Office for National Statistics at arm's length from the Government precisely so that it could not be subject to any charge of political interference or manipulation—nor has it been. My hon. Friend and the House can expect an announcement from the Office for National Statistics in the very near future. In the meantime, the Government will continue to fight for a fair deal for the United Kingdom regions in our negotiations with Europe.

    Literacy and Numeracy
    Mr. Ivan Lewis: What steps he plans to take to ensure that schools are able to timetable for teaching an hour a day of literacy and numeracy. [24198]
    Mr. Llwyd: How many representations he has received on his recent proposals for more school time to be devoted to teaching numeracy and literacy, and if he will make a statement. [24199]
    Ms Estelle Morris: We announced earlier this month that schools will have time to devote an hour each day to literacy and to numeracy. From September, primary schools will no longer be required to follow the current prescribed programmes of study in the national curriculum subjects of art, design and technology, geography, history, music and PE. We have also published our plans to free teachers from unnecessary bureaucracy and give them more time to teach the basics.
    Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Since 1 May she has made it clear that we shall demand the highest standards from our schools, but also that we shall give our teachers and governors the tools with which to deliver such standards. In the context of literacy and numeracy, books are an important element in the ability to deliver high standards. What plans do we have to increase access to and use of books in our schools?
    Ms Morris: The whole House will have been pleased to hear the announcement made this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that the Government are to provide an additional £23 million for books in schools. That will mean that most schools will receive £1,000 extra to spend on books. When we add that to the £59 million already put into the literacy strategy, we see that the Government are taking action to ensure that we raise standards in the basics of literacy and numeracy. That will be welcomed by all schools and all parents.
    Mr. Llwyd: Bearing in mind the present low morale in the teaching profession, will the hon. Lady assure the House that, before the changes are introduced, there will be wide consultation with the profession, in order to allow those changes to work? The move is surely right and proper; none the less, it should be implemented in a way that is comfortable and practicable for schools and teachers.
    Ms Morris: We shall indeed consult on the proposed changes over the next few months. I know that my right hon. Friend's announcement this morning will also raise morale in classrooms. It shows that the Government are giving teachers the tools to do the job. They are essential partners in our crusade to raise standards, and I know that they will welcome today's announcement

Bloody Sunday
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the events in Northern Ireland on 30 January 1972, which has become known as Bloody Sunday.
The facts that are undisputed are well known. On 30 January 1972, during a disturbance in Londonderry following a civil rights march, shots were fired by the British Army. Thirteen people were killed and another 13 were wounded, one of whom subsequently died. The day after the incident, the then Prime Minister set up a public inquiry under the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery.
Lord Widgery produced a report within 11 weeks of the day. His conclusions included the following: that shots had been fired at the soldiers before they started the firing that led to the casualties; that, for the most part, the soldiers acted as they did because they thought their standing orders justified it; and that although there was no proof that any of the deceased had been shot while handling a firearm or bomb, there was a strong suspicion that some had been firing weapons or handling bombs in the course of the afternoon.
The time scale within which Lord Widgery produced his report meant that he was not able to consider all the evidence that might have been available. For example, he did not receive any evidence from the wounded who were still in hospital, and he did not consider individually substantial numbers of eye-witness accounts provided to his inquiry in the early part of March 1972.
Since the report was published, much new material has come to light about the events of that day. That material includes new eye-witness accounts, new interpretation of ballistic material and new medical evidence.
In 1992, the then Prime Minister said in a letter to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), who has campaigned tirelessly on the issue, that those shot should be regarded as innocent of any allegation that they were shot while handling firearms or explosives. I reaffirm that today.
Last year, the families of those killed provided the previous Government with a new dossier on the events of Bloody Sunday. The Irish Government also sent this Government a detailed assessment that analysed the new material and Lord Widgery's findings in the light of all the material available.
I want to place on the record our strongest admiration for the way in which our security forces have responded over the years to terrorism in Northern Ireland. They set an example to the world of restraint combined with effectiveness, given the dangerous circumstances in which they are called on to operate. Young men and women daily risk their lives protecting the lives of others and upholding the rule of law, carrying out the task that we have laid upon them. Lessons have, of course, been learned over many years—in some cases, painful lessons. But the support of the Government and the House for our armed forces has been and remains unshakeable.
There have been many victims of violence in Northern Ireland before and since Bloody Sunday. More than 3,000 people, civilians as well as soldiers, police and prison officers, have lost their lives in the past 26 years. It may
502
be asked why we should pay such attention to one event. We do not forget or ignore all the other attacks, all the innocent deaths, all the victims of bloody terrorism.
Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, a former permanent secretary in the Northern Ireland Office, is currently considering a suitable way in which to commemorate the victims of violence. In particular, the sacrifice of those many members of the security forces, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who lost their lives doing their duty, will never be forgotten by this Government, just as it was not forgotten by the previous Government. The pain of those left behind is no less than the pain of the relatives of the victims of Bloody Sunday.
Bloody Sunday was different because, where the state's own authorities are concerned, we must be as sure as we can of the truth, precisely because we pride ourselves on our democracy and respect for the law, and on the professionalism and dedication of our security forces.
This has been a very difficult issue. I have re-read Lord Widgery's report and looked at the new material. I have consulted my colleagues most closely concerned. We have considered very carefully whether it is appropriate now to have a fresh inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday. I should emphasise that such a new inquiry can be justified only if an objective examination of the material now available gives grounds for believing that the events of that day should be looked at afresh, and the conclusions of Lord Widgery re-examined.
I have been strongly advised, and I believe, that there are indeed grounds for such a further inquiry. We believe that the weight of material now available is such that the events require re-examination. We believe that the only course that will lead to public confidence in the results of any further investigation is to set up a full-scale judicial inquiry into Bloody Sunday.
We have therefore decided to set up an inquiry under the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. The inquiry will have the power to call witnesses and obtain production of papers. As required by the Act, a resolution will be needed to set up the inquiry. That resolution will be tabled later today in my name, in the following terms:
"That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the events on Sunday, 30 January 1972 which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day, taking account of any new information relevant to events on that day."
Lord Saville of Newdigate, a Law Lord, has agreed to chair a tribunal of three. The other two members are likely to be from the Commonwealth.
It is not possible to say now exactly how long the inquiry will take, but it should be allowed the time necessary to cover thoroughly and completely all the evidence now available. It is for the tribunal to decide how far its proceedings will be open, but the Act requires them to be held in public unless there are special countervailing considerations.
The hearings are likely to be partly here and partly in Northern Ireland, but, again, that is largely for the tribunal. Questions of immunity from prosecution for those giving evidence to the inquiry will be for the tribunal to consider in individual cases, and to refer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney—General as necessary. The inquiry will report its conclusions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and our intention is that they will be made public.

503
Let me make it clear that the aim of the inquiry is not to accuse individuals or institutions, or to invite fresh recriminations, but to establish the truth about what happened on that day, so far as that can be achieved at 26 years' distance. It will not be easy, and we are all well aware that there were particularly difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland at that time.
Bloody Sunday was a tragic day for all concerned. We must all wish that it had never happened. Our concern now is simply to establish the truth, and to close this painful chapter once and for all. Like the hon. Member for Foyle, members of the families of the victims have conducted a long campaign to that end. I have heard some of their remarks over recent years and have been struck by their dignity. Most do not want recrimination; they do not want revenge; but they want the truth.
I believe that it is in everyone's interests that the truth be established and told. That is also the way forward to the necessary reconciliation that will be such an important part of building a secure future for the people of Northern Ireland. I ask hon. Members of all parties to support our proposal for this inquiry.
Mr. William Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for giving more than the usual notice of it. On behalf of the Opposition, may I echo what he has said about the work of our security forces, who have so consistently shown great courage and professionalism, often in the face of extreme danger or provocation?
I believe that it was right for my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), when he was Prime Minister, to say that those who died on Bloody Sunday were innocent victims of the troubles, and the Prime Minister has today reaffirmed the statement of my right hon. Friend.
Is the Prime Minister aware that we welcome the fact that the extensive press speculation in recent weeks that he was planning to make an immediate apology turns out to have been misinformed? Indeed, it would have been bizarre for the Prime Minister to make an apology in advance of any inquiry. As the Prime Minister has reminded us, more than 3,000 people have died in the present troubles, most of them at the hands of ruthless terrorists. Does he agree that, when it comes to discussing apologies, it would be both right and helpful to our hopes for peace to have an apology or to see some sign of contrition from terrorist murderers on both sides of the sectarian divide?
On behalf of the Opposition, may I say that we are naturally sceptical about reopening an inquiry which was conducted 25 years ago, especially since previous Governments have already carefully examined new evidence submitted to them? However, if the Prime Minister is personally satisfied—on the basis of the strong advice he has received—that genuine, fresh and compelling evidence has now been submitted which is significant enough to warrant the reopening of the inquiry, we shall accept his judgment.
Finally, does the Prime Minister agree that the members of the tribunal and all of us here—especially those of us who have never served in the armed forces—should be very careful indeed when trying to second-guess with
504
hindsight, and from the comfort of the House, the actions of a 19-year-old soldier under fire on the streets of Londonderry 26 years ago?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with all those points and particularly with what the right hon. Gentleman said in respect of the difficulties facing young soldiers in those circumstances, and in respect of the actions of ruthless terrorists over a number of years. The fact that there is to be an inquiry should not in any shape or form be taken as an indication of any diminution of our total condemnation of those terrorist acts and our belief that those who are responsible for them should show the remorse, apology and contrition necessary. I agree with that entirely.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's point, of course there are difficulties with reopening an inquiry after this length of time, but I am personally satisfied that it is the right thing to do. In the circumstances—although there can be all sorts of debate about whether the balance of advantage politically lies in this or that direction—if the evidence is there and is compelling, and I believe it is, it should be done.
Mr. John Hume: May I express my very deep appreciation to the Prime Minister for his statement? He is very right when he underlines the terrible tragedy that that day was. I know something about it, having been the only public representative on those streets on that day. It is therefore right and proper—this is an objective that no reasonable person should oppose or could oppose—that the full truth be established about what happened on that day.
May I also thank the Prime Minister for his recognition of the enormous dignity of the families of the victims of that day in their pursuit of that objective—the truth? Let us now hope that the steps he is putting in place will finally produce the full truth and be a major part of the healing process in our divided community.
The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. His work in campaigning for this is especially worthy of remark, as he is one of the people who have always believed in a peaceful solution to the problems of Northern Ireland.
Mr. David Trimble: I am sorry to have to say to the Prime Minister that I think that the hope expressed by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that this will be part of the healing process is likely to be misplaced. Opening old wounds like this is likely to do more harm than good.
The basic facts of the situation are known and not open to dispute. An arrest operation went wrong. The arrest operation was directed at rioters engaged in sustained rioting after an illegal republican parade. It was a pity to hear the mealy-mouthed language that the Prime Minister used about that.
I also have to point out to the Prime Minister that mistakes by the security forces have happened frequently over the years. There have been many cases where the security forces have fired on and killed innocent civilians. There have also been cases where the security forces have fired on and killed other members of the security forces. When such mistakes occur, the fault lies less with the men who have been placed in difficult circumstances than with those who have created them.

505
We are in favour of the truth, too. We would like the truth to come out about many things. There will be widespread scepticism about new witnesses. There will also be questions about selectivity in dealing with this incident and not others.
We have heard that the Irish Prime Minister has pressed for the inquiry. Will our Prime Minister ask him to look into the actions of his party when it connived at the creation, funding and arming of the Provisional IRA? Does the Prime Minister realise that there will be those who will use this inquiry to denigrate our armed forces? The relatives may not seek revenge, but others do.
Finally, I thank the Prime Minister for his reference to the victims of terrorism and, in particular, for his reference to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Does he agree that it is a pity that the Northern Ireland Office removed the reference to the security forces from the terms of reference of the Bloomfield inquiry into victims?
The Prime Minister: May I say to the right hon. Gentleman, in respect of the circumstances, that one of the difficulties is that it cannot be said—to deal directly with his point—that this is a situation in which those who were killed were engaged in illegal activity. It cannot be said, because the Widgery report itself—this is one of the reasons why I think it is important that we reconsider what happened—makes it clear in respect of many of those who were shot and killed that there is no suggestion that they were acting illegally. I went through the report myself in a great deal of detail.
In respect of the four people who were killed in the Glenfada Park flats, let me quote from Lord Widgery's conclusions on evidence. He says:
"the balance of probability suggests that at the time when these four men were shot the group of civilians was not acting aggressively and that the shots were fired without justification."
That is actually in the Widgery report. This is not a set of circumstances in which one can say that there is a necessary correlation between any illegal activity that day and the people who were killed. That is one of the reasons why it is important to consider the evidence.
In respect of what the right hon. Gentleman said about terrorists and the actions of terrorists, I entirely agree, but we do not need an inquiry into Warrenpoint, Enniskillen, Hyde park and Warrington. We know who was responsible. Those were appalling acts of savagery and violence, and we condemn them. The people responsible for them should be punished to the full extent of the law.
What is important, however, is that we make sure that, in respect of matters where there has been fresh evidence given and where we have considered that carefully and come to the conclusion that that evidence genuinely warrants looking at these matters again, it would be wrong, no matter what the inconvenience or the political advantage in pushing it away, not to act according to the evidence. That is what I did, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that I did that on the basis of a serious examination of the report, the new evidence that had been submitted and a careful analysis of where it might lead. I believe that the best way of dealing with the matter is to have a proper objective reconsideration, without any preconditions as to what the outcome may be, so that the truth can be established and told.
Sir Edward Heath: I thank the Prime Minister for telling me last night that he was
506
going to make his announcement today. I do not think that it is appropriate at this stage to carry on discussions and arguments about what in fact happened; for that, we must now await the new report.
On the right hon. Gentleman's remark that Lord Widgery produced his report quickly, I would say only that that was the demand of the House of Commons. The event took place on the Sunday; the Home Secretary announced on the Monday that the commission would be set up; and I announced the commission here on the Tuesday. The general demand was that the matter should be dealt with speedily, because members of the forces change rapidly and the House also wanted the quickest possible answers to the questions. That is the explanation.
I shall readily agree to the commission seeing any of our papers, if it so wishes. The Widgery commission saw the greater number of them—whatever it asked for, it saw. However, if there are still others that the new commission wants to see, I shall readily agree.
The Prime Minister concluded by expressing the hope that this commission will see the end of the matter. I sincerely share that hope—but it is a hope.
The Prime Minister: I do not dissent from any of that—it is a hope. I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the circumstances in which Lord Widgery was asked to perform his task, although that obviously had certain consequences, which I also described in my statement, as to the evaluation of the evidence. In respect of what he said about his own co-operation, I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The proposal that the Prime Minister has made has the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. I do not believe that he is being mealy-mouthed; this is a courageous decision, not least because some of the conclusions may be painful and even disturbing. I commend his remarks about the young men and women of the security services: I and many other hon. Members have seen their qualities at first hand, and anyone who has done so could not but be impressed by their maturity and bravery.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the inquiry should not become part of the peace process or a substitute for it, but should be seen as a confidence-building measure to assist the progress of that process? Does he further agree that to try to arrive at the truth after 25 years is a Herculean and probably unprecedented task, and that the tribunal will therefore require all the help it can get? Rather than deal with the question of immunity on the basis of individual cases, would it not be right to establish in principle and in advance that those who give evidence freely and frankly before the tribunal will be given immunity from subsequent civil or criminal proceedings?
The Prime Minister: On the last point, there are rules set out in the 1921 Act in respect of that matter, and it is open to the tribunal to request immunity, which the Attorney-General would be able to give. It is also the right of any people appearing in front of the tribunal not to give evidence that incriminates themselves. We certainly do not see this as an exercise in recrimination—the more help that we are given in establishing the truth, the better, so I shall certainly take on board the hon. and learned Gentleman's point.

507
It is true that there is a 26-year time gap, but much of the process will consist of evaluating evidence that is already there and can be re-evaluated, together with the new evidence that has now been passed on to us. As for its not being part of the peace process or peace talks, that is absolutely right—it stands on its own in the end. There are arguments both ways politically and we have given careful consideration to the issues, but I hope that the House will accept from me that the decision was made because, having gone through the Widgery tribunal, having looked at all the evidence and also at some of the findings of fact made by Widgery and finally having looked at the conclusions, it seemed to me absolutely clear on the evidence that there was material that demanded fresh reconsideration. That is especially true given that it had already, in a sense, been accepted by the British Government, in the 1992 statement, that those who were killed were innocent of any illegal intent.
Mr. Roger Stott: I am not entirely sure whether my right hon. Friend is aware that seven of his Back-Bench Members of Parliament were in Northern Ireland on Monday and Tuesday; as secretary of the departmental Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, I was happy to arrange that visit.
Our final round of talks on Tuesday afternoon, in the guildhall in Derry, was with the families and the victims of Bloody Sunday. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all my colleagues who were there, on behalf of the families of Bloody Sunday and on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), when I say that we thank my right hon. Friend for his statement today.
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his support
Mr. Andrew Hunter: Does the Prime Minister agree that Bloody Sunday should also be seen as the tragic climax of a sequence of events that started some time before January 1972, and that many people and organisations helped to shape those events? Will the inquiry's terms of reference enable the tribunal to consider relevant background factors before 30 January?
The Prime Minister: The tribunal's inquiry is into the events of the actual day itself, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, of course, it is right for us to consider—no doubt it is something that the tribunal will have in mind when it comes to consider what happened on that day—the events that led up to it. There had been an extraordinary amount of violence, and many killings and murders had been carried out by terrorist organisations—in particular, the IRA. Of course all these things helped shape the context in which the events of that day took place. None the less, the tribunal will focus specifically on the events of that day and on the responses that were made, which is right and proper, but I have no doubt at all that it will have in mind the context in which those events happened.
Mr. Peter Temple—Morris: The Prime Minister is to be commended for this decision, and he deserves the full support of the House for it. Is he all too well aware that certain historical events in Ireland—often very sad events—have polarised and symbolised the opinion of many of the Irish towards the British, and that
508
we must get over those to secure the peace? Does he further agree that this is not about retribution or recrimination, but about implementing the even-handed treatment of all the people of Northern Ireland, without which we cannot secure the peace that they deserve?
The Prime Minister: That is right. Of course there are many polarised views. When we are presented with conflicting claims—some people calling for an inquiry; some people saying that it is not the right thing to do—the only way out of that situation is to examine the evidence and see whether it is justified on its merits. I believe, for the reasons that I have given, that it is.
It has not been a difficult decision. Indeed, I have been very closely personally involved with that decision; that is one of the reasons why I made today's statement myself. I have no doubt at all that, on the evidence, it is the right decision.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The Prime Minister has made it clear why Bloody Sunday is entirely different from the Bloody Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays that Ulster has endured; he said that it is different because the state's own authorities were concerned in it. If that is so, on the other side, the state's own authorities—the Dublin authorities and leading members of the Dublin Government—were involved in bringing about the Provisional IRA, and many of the terrorist acts that the Prime Minister is condemning were done by the Provisional IRA. Indeed, a member of the talks process today, who sits there presiding over his own party—Gerry Adams—was responsible for the terrible calamity of Bloody Friday in Belfast.
Therefore, as the Irish Government have joined in pushing for this inquiry, I would ask the Prime Minister to join now in pushing for an inquiry to look into the state's involvement, in the south, in producing the IRA, which has done such terrible deeds.
The Prime Minister: First, of course we received representations from the Irish Government, but the decision was our decision, and it was taken on the basis of the evidence. Secondly, in relation to the Provisional IRA and the events in which it was involved, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Bloody Friday, in which, some six months after the events of Bloody Sunday, 11 people were killed and 130 injured in Belfast. We know who was responsible for that and we can condemn them. We do not need an inquiry to condemn it; we know who was responsible. The Provisional IRA was responsible, and we condemn it.
Mr. David Winnick: My constituency is not far from Birmingham, where so many innocent people were murdered in November 1974. Is there not all the difference in the world between a Government in a democracy, who should always make sure that the rule of law is upheld, and terrorist organisations that, by their very existence, defy the rule of law? That is the answer to those on the Opposition Benches who speak of all the victims of violence. The important difference is between those who might have been terribly wrong, as quite likely they were on Bloody Sunday, and the victims of terrorist violence, which we have always condemned in the House.

509
I hope that the time will come when, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, there will be a memorial to all the victims of violence. We have a memorial in Birmingham to those whom I mentioned. Let all the victims be remembered.
The Prime Minister: I agree. All the victims should be remembered. I agree also with my hon. Friend's initial point, that we do not operate according to the standards of terrorist organisations. We operate according to the standards of the rule of law. That is why it is important always, in any circumstances where doubts are raised, that we lay those doubts to rest.
Let me make it clear once again: this is an inquiry into the facts, not a prejudgment of the facts. We shall inquire into what happened on that day. It is one of the best answers of democracy to the terrorists to say that when allegations are made against us, we are prepared to look at them. We have nothing to fear from a proper inquiry. We are prepared to uphold the rule of law. Terrorist organisations do not do that, which is precisely why they are terrorists and why we support the rule of law. If that distinction can be made, it is the distinction between the path of democracy and the path of violence.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: I know from my 10 years' experience as a Law Officer in Northern Ireland and from the opportunity for discussion with people of good will on both sides that there is a genuine residue of anxiety not only about the events of that day, but about the inquiry that had to follow so swiftly. Lord Widgery is held in great regard, but there remain anxieties about that inquiry.
I believe that the Prime Minister is right to set up a fresh inquiry, but would he re-emphasise to the House that the armed forces are always placed in the most difficult position; that the object of the inquiry must be to get at the truth, not to go for recrimination and not to go for prosecution; and that any request by the tribunal to the Attorney-General for immunity could properly be considered sympathetically?
The Prime Minister: I agree with all of that. It is not for me to make the Attorney-General's decisions for him, but I know that he will give the matter proper consideration when requests for immunity are made. I agree entirely with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the difficult position in which the armed forces are placed. That is why I went out of my way in my statement to put on the record our support and admiration for the work that they do.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's comment about the genuine residue of anxiety is right—in part, for the reason that I gave earlier. There has been much debate about the Widgery conclusions, but, even in relation to the Widgery tribunal's findings of fact, it is clear that, in respect of many of those who were killed that day, there is no suggestion that they were involved in unlawful activity. That is why there is a residue of anxiety. People ask whether, if it is accepted that innocent people were killed, it is not right to establish the truth of what happened.
I agree with those who said earlier that we should not prejudge the outcome. We have set up the inquiry under a highly respected Law Lord, an extremely able man.
510
There will be two good people with him. That tribunal of three will genuinely inquire into the facts. It will be for them to establish the facts, which I am sure they will do impartially.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was a member of the delegation of Labour Members who visited Derry on Tuesday of this week when we met some of the relatives of the victims of Bloody Sunday who have been campaigning for justice for more than a quarter of a century and who put forward a strong case for some form of international independent inquiry?
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that some of the representatives of the Unionist community whom we met expressed no objections whatever to such an inquiry and, therefore, it is important that the inquiry is seen to be a search for truth and justice, which surely is in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, whatever their political or religious beliefs?
The Prime Minister: Yes, it should be a search for truth, and I believe that many in the Unionist community will understand why it is necessary to have this inquiry. However, what those in the Unionist community will want us to do—which is why it is so important that we do so in the House—is to express our abhorrence at all the killings that there have been in Northern Ireland and our condemnation of the terrorists who engaged in those killings. That is a necessary part of reassuring them that this is not something that is done for one community or the other community; it is something done genuinely to get at the truth of what happened.
Mr. William Ross: Is the Prime Minister aware that I am somewhat disappointed that, having read the Widgery report, he did not set out very plainly to the House the background of the events? The Widgery report says that between August and February in that area nearly 3,000 shots were fired at the security forces and 456 nail bombs were thrown at them; that there were 225 explosions, mainly in commercial premises which belonged to Protestants, the end result of which was that they have largely disappeared from the west bank of the Foyle; that there was heavy and sustained rioting on that day; that the illegal march was part of the on-going effort made to overthrow the Government of Northern Ireland which the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), carried out three weeks later; and that the soldiers were there to uphold the rule of law, which, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, all democracies should uphold.
Will the Prime Minister give us a clear understanding that the tribunal will not only consider the evidence that has been produced by the Irish Government and people in Londonderry, but will consider and seek out all other evidence that was available at that time and not examined, because some of it might shed a somewhat different light on the events that the right hon. Gentleman has explained to the House today?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that the tribunal will consider all relevant evidence, as it should do. In respect of the background of the events, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I said that earlier myself. Of course the

511
background to the events was as he described, but the plain fact of the matter is, as I also pointed out earlier, that it is not in dispute that, even on the basis of the Widgery report, at least some of those who were killed were killed wrongly. Therefore, it is important to try to establish the truth.
The background will no doubt be part of the consideration that is given by the tribunal to what happened on that day. None the less, it is important, in circumstances where it is a matter of common ground that innocent people were killed on that day, that the truth is properly established. In the end, that is best for both sides of the community.
Mr. Norman A. Godman: I offer my sincere compliments to my right hon. Friend on his remarkable decision to set up the tribunal. There is now an opportunity, perhaps a final opportunity, to uncover the truth of that awful day and bring this dreadful affair to an end. It would be appropriate if many of the sittings were held in Belfast. I also emphasise, if it needs to be emphasised, that Labour Members hold our armed services in high regard. Some of us have even served with the British Army.
The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend said at the end. The tribunal sittings will be a matter for the tribunal itself. In respect of the process, it is natural—I think that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the former Prime Minister, implied this—that there are of course risks in such an undertaking as holding this inquiry; there are bound to be. The process will be difficult and painful at times—that is clear as well. What is plain to me is that the problems, the wounds, have not disappeared over 26 years. They are still there. The best chance to heal them is to have a proper reconsideration and to try to get at the truth once and for all.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I represent the home base of one of the most distinguished regiments in the British Army, the Parachute Regiment. Just a few weeks ago, the 1st battalion of the Parachute Regiment returned to Aldershot from yet another tour in Northern Ireland, which it carried out with great distinction and great sensitivity.
Is the Prime Minister aware that this is a two-sided business; that there were indeed casualties on that tragic day in 1972, but that, since 1969, no fewer than 43 members of the Parachute Regiment have lost their lives in trying to uphold the peace in this country, in these islands, and that six civilians and one Roman Catholic padre were killed in Aldershot, outside the officers mess, in a despicable retaliatory action by men whom he condemns but who will not be called to account by the inquiry that he is to set up?
The Prime Minister made great play of his and his Government's support and admiration for our armed forces, and I believe that to be sincere. I believe that he does recognise the particular difficulties faced by young men in having to make split-second decisions, but does he not recognise that his decision today in some sense threatens to put counter-terrorist operations at risk if the front-line soldier feels that he does not have the support of his political master, whose orders he carries out?—[Interruption.] These are questions which deserve
512
answers. I represent men who are serving in Northern Ireland—[HoN. MEMBERS: "We all do."]—as do right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, and those men deserve an answer. The IRA will not be called to account in the inquiry that the Prime Minister will set up.
I conclude by reminding the Prime Minister:
"These tragic events belong in the past."—[0fficial Report, 19 April 1972; Vol. 835, c. 521.]
Those are not my words but those of his predecessor, now Lord Callaghan.
The Prime Minister: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Whether these events should be revisited and whether it would have any effect on the way in which the armed forces operate on the ground weighed heavily with us. I agree entirely that they have to know that they have the support of their political masters, and they have it 100 per cent., but it would be a disservice to them to believe that they should have anything to fear from an inquiry that establishes the truth, where people accept that people were killed in circumstances in which they should not have been killed. Far from undermining support for our armed services, I believe that, by setting up the tribunal of inquiry under a highly respected Law Lord and establishing it in such a way that it can get at the truth, we underline the fact that, unlike the terrorists, we do not have anything to fear from inquiries into the truth.
The hon. Gentleman said that the IRA will not be called to account. Yes, they will be called to account. We do not need a tribunal to call them to account—we call them to account now. We call them to account every single time that any one of us speaks on these issues. We condemn absolutely and unequivocally what they have done and the terrorist murders that they have carried out.
Labour Members as well as Conservative Members have had constituents who were killed, murdered, in random acts of terrorism. That has happened on both sides of the community. We have seen in the past few weeks terrorists who have gone to a taxi rank and shot the taxi driver just on the basis that he happened to be a Catholic. All those people deserve our condemnation. It is precisely to show why we set higher standards than the terrorists that we say that it is right to have this inquiry.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The seeds of the inquiry were contained in letters sent from the previous Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), saying that the victims were innocent, and, prior to that, in letters to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and myself, saying that they were not guilty. In those circumstances, an inquiry was on the cards.
I was also with the group that met the families of the victims of Bloody Sunday in Deny on Tuesday. They said that there were two things that they did not want: first, they did not want an apology, because that would cut across and perhaps substitute for an investigation; and, secondly, that the inquiry should not be dealt with as a quid pro quo or a confidence-building measure but should take place entirely on the ground that it is the correct and just thing to do. I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has a proud record of raising issues in relation to Northern Ireland in

513
a particularly impartial and constructive way. I agree with both the points that he made. First, it would have been quite wrong if an apology cut across the investigation, and, secondly, the inquiry should be based on the evidence. It is based on the evidence, because, in a sense, that is why the matter has not gone away over 26 years. It might have gone away had the evidence been less clear, but it has not gone away precisely because the evidence is clear. There are matters that must be investigated and looked at.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The new dialogue group has been asking for at least a partial reopening of Widgery. May I give unqualified support to the Prime Minister's decision, to his statement and to his answers to questions? I am sorry both that people died in Derry that day and that thousands have died in the years since. There is nothing that the Provisional IRA can do to make people in Great Britain want to split the Union, but we should warn the disloyalists who are killing Catholics after the murder of Billy Wright that they test the unity of the Kingdom far more.
The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for what we have said. I agree that those who carry out appalling killings in the name of loyalty to the United Kingdom commit a profound act of disloyalty to the United Kingdom, and they will not affect the Government's judgments in any way.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and the assurances that he gave. They are a further demonstration that he and his Government, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, want to do everything possible to bring fairness, justice and the truth to the Province of Northern Ireland. Will he assure us that there will be no sidetracking of evidence, but no one will be intimidated against giving evidence, and that we shall obtain the truth, which will be published and presented to Parliament?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I can give those assurances. Certainly, the evidence will be properly considered and the results given to the House
Mr. John Wilkinson: I sat through the debate to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the former Prime Minister, referred, on 1 February 1972, and heard how earnestly hon. Members on both sides of the House desired to establish the truth—the then Minister of State for Defence, Lord Balniel; Robin Chichester-Clark; the Home Secretary; Merlyn Rees, now Lord Rees; and Harold Wilson. Lord Widgery produced an exemplary report, which was remarkable for its clarity and objectivity. May I say to the Prime Minister that we need to look resolutely forward to secure reconciliation? The wounds run too deep. May I say candidly that reinvestigating these matters will just exacerbate the pain, sorrow and grief, and lead to further alienation of loyal people in Northern Ireland, who look to their Government to secure and protect their birthright and inheritance?
The Prime Minister: First, I do not cast any aspersions on the decisions that were made at that time. Many
514
hon. Members have given graphic descriptions of the circumstances in which those decisions were taken. In the end, it is a matter of judgment. We must make a judgment on whether it is possible to look forward without having sufficiently looked back and sorted out the problems that history has left us. My judgment is that we will not be able to move on to the next chapter until this chapter is properly closed.
I understand why the hon. Gentleman may disagree with that judgment. It is a fine judgment to make, but I came to it on the evidence. This issue will not go away. The residue of anxiety and grievance will not disappear while the evidence remains so clear that it is necessary to reconsider and re-evaluate what happened on that day. I do not doubt that that will be painful in many circumstances, but it is always better to search out and reach for the truth than to decide that it is too painful to get at and we should move on.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for establishing the inquiry. Will he assure the House that all Government and military departments will give their full co-operation, that the evidence that was ignored by the Widgery tribunal will be made available to the inquiry, and that witnesses, from whatever quarter, who require financial support for legal representation at the inquiry, will receive it?
All of us who want peace in the Six Counties recognise that it has to be based on honesty and truth. The inquiry will help to give an awful lot of people confidence that the Government are serious about the search for peace in Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister: The Ministry of Defence will advise any of those serving at the time who give evidence to the tribunal, and will ensure that they are looked after properly. Other questions of representation will be for the tribunal to decide.
A lot of evidence will be examined afresh, although it is also fair to say that some of that evidence will be re-evaluated; it was available at the time.
Mr. Peter Robinson: The Prime Minister has told the House that a judicial inquiry is needed because he wants to get at the truth, which he said was particularly important as an arm of the state was involved. Is he aware that another event—one that did not occur 26 years ago when someone else was Prime Minister—occurred in HMP Maze not much more than 26 days ago while he was Prime Minister? A man under the controlled custody and care of the state was murdered. A civil service-type inquiry is being held into that incident. Why can we not have a full-blown, judicial, public inquiry into those events, especially in view of the fact that a number of innocent people have been killed as a result?
The Prime Minister: There is already a perfectly well-established procedure for inquiring into such events. Two inquiries are already under way: one by the RUC and the other by the person specifically appointed to look into incidents in prisons. We have made it clear that we shall inform people of the results of those inquiries, and I am satisfied that that is the best way to deal with the matter.
Mr. Edward Garnier: I assure the Prime Minister that my question implies no criticism

515
either of the decision to reopen the inquiry or of the two eminent Commonwealth judges who are to sit with Lord Saville. Will he explain why he has decided to have two Commonwealth judges, as opposed to three United Kingdom judges?
The Prime Minister: Because it is important to make it absolutely clear that the inquiry will not only be impartial but will be seen to be impartial. Those appointments give the best chance of credibility. We have considered the matter carefully. We believe that it is right to have a senior British Law Lord, and that it will assist the inquiry to have two Commonwealth judges, who come from outside our jurisdiction but are familiar with its rules, sitting alongside him. That has been broadly welcomed across the spectrum.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Almost every hon. Member will agree with much of what the Prime Minister has said. I certainly do, and I do not doubt his good intentions. Does he accept that, since the Widgery report in 1972, the operational conditions of the Army and the security forces have changed dramatically, with the introduction of the yellow card and more stringent regulations? Because of that, two guardsmen, Fisher and Wright, are now languishing in gaol because they believed that they were doing their duty—mistakenly, as it happened.
Does the Prime Minister accept that, apart from the families of the deceased, with whom we all sympathise, the people who will gain the most satisfaction from his announcement may easily be—I regret to say—the IRA and Sinn Fein? As the Prime Minister rightly pointed out, they were responsible for Warrenpoint and Enniskillen, but he recently met their representatives at No. 10 Downing street.
Finally, will the Prime Minister accept my assurance that, whatever he may believe, the announcement of an inquiry will make it more rather than less difficult for the security forces on the streets of Northern Ireland to carry out their task?
The Prime Minister: I do not agree with that. If I had thought that, it would have been a very strong reason for not having an inquiry. I have to say that I think the single best weapon in the hands of those who are on the extreme side would that they could say, "They are not having an inquiry even when the evidence demanded it, because they are afraid of having one." I think that the greatest benefit of being seen to be unafraid to establish the truth in an inquiry will go to the democrats, who are able to say, "We are the people who recognise that we do things in a different way from terrorists, and when allegations are made about the way in which we have done things, we are prepared to have them investigated, and investigated properly."
As for the way in which the regulations have changed since 1972, yes, they have changed considerably. In respect of the case of Messrs Fisher and Wright, leave was granted in the High Court on Monday to seek a judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to
516
comment further while legal proceedings are in train, but the hon. Gentleman will have heard the response that I gave an hon. Member yesterday.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the Prime Minister welcome the support that his initiative has received from many parties in the House, including the Liberal Democrats? Will he confirm that the intention is not to carry out a witch hunt, but to hold an inquiry that is seen to be absolutely independent? Lastly, does he agree that the intention is not to build a monument to anguish, but to dismantle one, so that we can lay to rest the 26 years of uncertainty that many have experienced—and, perhaps, find it a little easier to look forward to a more peaceful future rather than back to a troubled past?
The Prime Minister: I agree with that entirely.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the Prime Minister comment on one problem that will clearly arise from what he has said today?
I think that it is common ground between us that there is a strand within the Republican movement—it is probably a majority strand, although I accept that it is not a unanimous strand—that has not been seeking an inquiry for all these years, but seeking a verdict. The verdict that those people have been looking for is that a British army of occupation murdered peaceable people in the street.
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that people in that frame of mind will not be satisfied by any form of inquiry that does not give them the verdict that they seek. While I do not for a moment minimise the difficulty of the decision that the right hon. Gentleman felt that he had to make, there is a sense in which what he has done today, far from laying the matter to rest, means that it will stay there in perpetuity.
There are those who would believe—and I think that they would believe it without criticising the Prime Minister for the decision that he has made—that the interests of the innocent people of Northern Ireland, and of the British Army that has protected them with such conspicuous courage, would have been better served if the House had said collectively, "A judicial inquiry was set up by a democratic Parliament, and we should have the confidence in our own institutions to stand by that original verdict."
The Prime Minister: We should stand by it entirely, unless there is evidence to suggest that it should be reconsidered. It would be contrary to the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman has said if, having evaluated that evidence, weighed it, looked at it and decided that it merited a reconsideration of the events of that day and of the original tribunal of inquiry, I refused to allow that.
As for the suggestion that people may want a type of verdict that convicts the "British army of occupation" and all the rest of it, and they are not going to get it, and that will be a problem for them, I am not setting up the inquiry for those people. I am setting up the inquiry because the relatives of those who died that day have the right to expect us, their Government—the British Government—to try to establish the truth of

517
the events of that day. I am interested in their interests, their concerns and their sense of grievance, not in the sense of grievance of people who have engaged in terrorist acts.
Mr. Tim Collins: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can assure the House that, before his decision, he neither sought nor received any expression of opinion on the matter from any member of the Clinton Administration?
The Prime Minister: I have not personally, no, although I think that their views on it are pretty well known—as are the views of the Irish Government. They are perfectly entitled to their views. I took the decision based on the evidence.
Madam Speaker: I think that that is it. Thank you very much, Prime Minister.

Business of the House
4.29 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill (Fourth Day).
TUESDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill (Fifth Day).
WEDNESDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales).
Remaining stages of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Motion on the English revenue support grant report.
FRIDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [7th allotted day].
Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate on the Child Support Agency on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. The subject for the second half of the day to be announced.
TUESDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Third Day).
Motion relating to the beef bones regulations.
WEDNESDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until 7 pm, motions on the Welsh revenue support grant reports.
Consideration of any Lords Amendments which may be received to the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill.
THURSDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the Scotland Bill (Fourth Day).
FRIDAY 13 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
Last week, I said that my hon. Friend the Minister for Women had asked for a debate, but that no date had yet been fixed. Her request was echoed by Conservative Members. I am pleased to be able to give early notice to the House that there will be a debate on women, on Friday 27 February.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement. I say again to her—I say it each week, but it is appreciated—that it is useful for the House to have notice of two weeks' business. I thank her for her response to our request for a debate on women. I also appreciate the fact that a thorough airing of devolution issues relating to Wales and Scotland is possible because of the amount of time allocated to the Bills' Committee stages on the Floor of the House.
I listened very carefully to what the right hon. Lady said, but heard no mention of a debate on the national health service, which I asked about last week. As I said then—I think that she did just acknowledge it—there have

519
been a number of statements and policy developments in the national health service. We have not had a debate on it since July, and the Opposition called that debate. We now await announcements on the future of London hospitals and on a public health Green Paper. I therefore hope that we can have a debate on the national health service quite soon.
I believe that the right hon. Lady's instinct is for openness in the House. Indeed, that attitude illuminates a great deal of the work that is being done by the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. Last week, she assured the House that there have been no changes to the ministerial code of conduct in respect of overseas trips for Ministers. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said the same—although he said it so irritably that the roof of the Chamber fell in overnight.
Given that the code uses the word "spouse" throughout; that, before 1 May, it was spouses who accompanied Ministers; and that Government sources have been quoted widely in the press as saying that Ministers are now free to decide whether their partners count as spouses, it was a bit disingenuous of the right hon. Lady, and perhaps against her instincts, to say last week that the code had not been changed. Would it not have been more open to admit that, while the wording of the code may not have been changed, Government practice has, without the House having been informed? Will she therefore make a statement on the new and changed practice in relation to the code, if only for the benefit of taxpayers, who, after all, are footing the bill? Will she also arrange for the House to be told whether that changed practice is to be extended, for example, to Her Majesty's forces' entitlement to travel, or whether, in their case, travel at public expense is limited—rightly, in my view—to serving personnel, their husbands, wives and children?
Will the right hon. Lady arrange for a debate on the public sector pay awards, which are being announced this afternoon? If, as has been widely trailed in the press, the pay awards are to be staged—they may not be, of course—will she arrange for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to explain to the House how it was last year that the then shadow Chief Secretary described such staging as a "deception" and an "admission of failure" and to tell us how he proposes to describe the Government's staging of the award this year?
On the subject of public sector pay, will the right hon. Lady arrange for a statement on the cost to the taxpayer of the early dismissal of Anne Bullen before her contract had expired, in the continuing saga of the Foreign Secretary's diary arrangements?
Finally, will the right hon. Lady arrange for the Minister of Transport to explain to the House why he is introducing a tax on new cars with effect from 1 April? That tax was not included in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget last July and, inevitably, its details have been announced by press release and not to the House. Although that demonstrates the Government's customary attitude towards the democratic process, it is nevertheless an abuse of the House.
Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Lady's first point was about the debate on women. I am pleased that we have been able to arrange that. As I said last week, the Minister for Women has requested such a debate and has suggested a date that we have now agreed. It is good that both sides of the House want such a debate.
520
I am glad that the right hon. Lady welcomes the progress that has been made on both devolution Bills and the airing that they are getting on the Floor of the House. We should also place on record our gratitude to those serving on the Business Committee, who make sure that the Bills are handled in the appropriate way.
The right hon. Lady asked for another debate on the national health service. As I explained last week, we have a packed parliamentary programme—however, we have much to say about the national health service. She mentioned the Green Paper and the fact that there may soon be an announcement on London hospitals. I shall consider the possibility of statements being made to the House on one or both of those issues.
The right hon. Lady then referred back to the point that she made last week and which the Leader of the Opposition—very unwisely, I think—made yesterday at Prime Minister's Question Time, in respect of the code of conduct. The issue is not worthy of the right hon. Lady, and I do not feel that anything needs to be said in addition to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday. As for the roof of this building, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is claiming credit for that. However, you, Madam Speaker, have assured us that everything is safe.
In respect of the public sector pay awards, the right hon. Lady is correct that the announcement is being made, as is usual practice, by way of a parliamentary answer this afternoon. There has been no reversal of previous policy. Last year, we opposed local bargaining, which was bureaucratic and administratively extremely difficult, and caused much resentment in the national health service.
In respect of the dismissal of the diary secretary of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, there is a debate on that next week, but of course the lady concerned was on a fixed contract, having been appointed from outside the civil service by a previous occupant of that office.
I can add nothing about tax changes. The right hon. Lady and her colleagues will have to wait for the Budget.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: There are at least two hon. Members who came into the Chamber at the end of the Leader of the House's statement. They will not be called to put questions because they did not hear the entire business statement
Mr. Derek Foster: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is rightly seeking to modernise the welfare state, to deal with the dependency culture and to encourage citizens to be more self-reliant. Could we have a statement next week on the issues arising from the case of my constituent who was self-reliant, took out an insurance policy and then found that the income that he derived from it was deducted from his jobseeker's allowance? He is left with only £3 a week to live on. There are 7 million people with similar insurance. Some £1.2 billion of insurance income is involved. Local authorities might have to reclaim more than £1 billion from claimants of housing benefit because of the new situation?
Mrs. Taylor: I recall that case from a few weeks ago. As I remember, there had not been a change in the rules.

521
The interaction of all those matters can be taken into account in the welfare reform debate. There will be a Green Paper setting out the principles underlying the direction of welfare reform. My right hon. Friend and others will have an opportunity to contribute their ideas then.
Mr. Paul Tyler: I welcome the Liberal Democrat Supply day, for which we are grateful, and the opportunity to debate our motion on the beef on the bone ban—an opportunity that is warmly welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that the motion will receive all-party support.
As the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) has just said, there is widespread concern about the operation of the jobseeker's allowance. There is a specific problem coming down the track. Early-day motion 689 has all-party support.
[That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations 1998, (S.1., 1998, No. 71), dated 15th January 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be annulled.]
I notice that the leader of the Conservative party and members of other parties have added their names to the motion. I hope that we shall have an early opportunity to debate that important issue.
The Leader of the House was in her place last night to hear the statement on the channel tunnel rail link and the points that were made after it. I am sure that she will acknowledge the importance of the issue. The Deputy Prime Minister said several times that he had come early to the House—we all welcomed that—with only a bald interim statement. Several hon. Members on both sides raised some very important issues, but we did not have the benefit of a detailed assessment of the situation.
Will the Leader of the House assure us that, during the 30-day consultation period with London and Continental Railways, we shall have an opportunity to understand the issues and the criteria that the Deputy Prime Minister will use to assess the options? The matter has great implications for other private and public institutions. We do not want a witch hunt back to 1990, to see what Lord Parkinson did or did not do, but it is important, given the huge sums involved, that the House should have an opportunity to understand the options for progress.
Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that we were able to provide the Opposition day that the Liberal Democrats wanted. I look forward to hearing the second topic for debate, which I shall announce next week.
The beef on the bone regulations are up for discussion. I know about the rivalry to get a name on such a prayer.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to find time for a debate on the statutory instrument on the jobseeker's allowance. As he knows, any such requests are discussed through the usual channels in the normal way.
The House appreciated my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister coming here as soon as possible after the news about the channel tunnel rail link was confirmed at 8 pm last night. Hon. Members on both sides were pleased that the fullest information available was given directly to
522
the House. My right hon. Friend said that he would try to keep the House informed as much as possible, although there could be delicate and difficult negotiations in the next 30 days. It may not always be appropriate for all the information to be in the public domain. Given my right hon. Friend's start in informing the House last night, we can be confident about his intentions to keep the House informed.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Having sat through every Welsh and Scottish devolution debate, may I be forgiven for asking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House a question of which I gave her office notice? Could not three hours be found for a debate that goes further than a private notice question—I thank Madam Speaker for Monday's question—on the desperate situation that might result in this country going to war in the Gulf? Could certain issues be made clear arising from Madeleine Albright's visit? In particular, what are the precise objectives of bombing biochemical and biological installations—assuming that they exist—in the light of my question, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence promised to reply shortly, on the specific issue of bombs landing on anthrax or botulinus installations? What would be the effects of released spores? Those problems ought to be discussed before we get into a mire that could cause endless difficulty in the middle east, where we seem to have no Arab support.
Mrs. Taylor: When my hon. Friend raised the issue last week, I said that we would keep the House informed whenever possible of any developments. We hope that diplomatic efforts will succeed. The Ministry of Defence has carried out theoretical modelling based on the worst case scenario of bombing installations containing anthrax, assessing the risk to military operations that might result from the destruction of enemy biological production and storage facilities. I repeat that we desperately hope for diplomatic progress. I know that my hon. Friend has different views on the importance of the issue, but I hope that he accepts that the Government will try to keep the House informed on that difficult subject.
Mr. Eric Forth: Could we have a debate on the Government's commitment to the principles of the social chapter? Could it be focused on their long-standing wish to protect people with short-term contracts, particularly women? Will the Leader of the House promise that the debate will be replied to by the Foreign Secretary?
Mrs. Taylor: I see no need for such a debate.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I welcome the plan for a debate on women. Perhaps it will concentrate on the real needs of women, not on cheap jibes about a tiny number of women who have been in the papers lately. I have a serious point. I am disappointed that the debate is to take place on a Friday. That does not seem to be a good choice. Is there a good reason why the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) chose a Friday and why the Government agreed? A normal business day would have been better for a discussion on the wide range of issues affecting women in Britain.
Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the debate in principle. I am not surprised, given the

523
interest that she has shown in women's issues for many years. I am sure that she will talk about the real needs of women if she is able to catch your eye in that debate, Madam Speaker. I am sure that, like me, she looks forward to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) being in his seat and perhaps participating.
The Friday in question is designated for Government business. As a Scottish Member, my hon. Friend will understand that there are constraints on time because of the need to debate the Scotland Bill.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Particularly in the light of the Prime Minister's sanctimonious words in answers to questions yesterday and on other occasions about the importance of issues relating to women in the workplace, will the Leader of the House consider not only a debate to address the specific issue mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but a statement from herself or one of her right hon. Friends, releasing Anne Bullen from the ban on her speaking, so that she is able to respond to the campaign of vilification that is being waged against her by the Foreign Secretary, his henchmen and Labour spin doctors?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not think that that comment is even worthy of an answer. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of next week's Adjournment debate.
Dr. Lynne Jones: May I also ask my right hon. Friend for a debate on the Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations? In doing so, I draw her attention to early-day motion 709.
[That this House notes that the Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) Regulations, which increase waiting days from three to seven, was proposed and announced by the previous Tory Government in November 1996; observes that the Social Security Advisory Committee has said the proposal 'would add unacceptably to the hardship experienced by unemployed people and their families' and that 'people will be less likely to take the risk of starting casual work or work of short duration' and has advised the Government not to proceed with it; regrets that the Labour Government is nevertheless proceeding with these Tory regulations in order to save £65 million but also notes that the Tory front bench has changed its position and is now opposing its own proposal; and therefore calls on the Government to withdraw these Tory regulations which even the Tories have now deserted.]
Many Labour Members are perplexed by why the Government are introducing the measure, which the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended against and which seems to be in direct conflict with the initiatives that the Government are rightly taking to encourage unemployed people to find work.
Mrs. Taylor: I think that I made it clear earlier that, when it comes to debating any such issues, there is a great deal of pressure on the House's time. We have discussions and consultations and, of course, I take them all into account. I cannot promise my hon. Friend the debate that she wants.
Mr. Graham Brady: Two weeks ago at business questions, I asked the Leader of the
524
House to look into a situation in which the Foreign Secretary had knowingly or otherwise given an inaccurate response to a question that I had asked him in the Chamber. I took the precaution of tabling a written question. The answer confirmed, in the words of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), that I did not receive an accurate response. About three hours ago, I received a letter from the Leader of the House, which simply says that she is satisfied that the Minister of State's answer accurately set out the position. That was not my point. My concern was that the Foreign Secretary had inaccurately answered my question, not whether his Minister of State has answered it.
I understand that, in 1956, Harold Macmillan described the life of a Foreign Secretary as for ever poised between a cliche and an indiscretion. It is clear that the Foreign Secretary has lost that poise. From his behaviour, it seems that he has also lost all respect for the House of Commons. Will the Leader of the House look again at the facts and ask the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to put the record straight?
Mrs. Taylor: I have nothing to add to what I said to the hon. Gentleman in my letter.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the tragedy that struck in my constituency on 15 December, when three elderly constituents died in a fire in a private care home. Can we have a debate on fire precautions in private care homes? Such accommodation is not subject to fire inspections because of its size. I consider the event in my constituency a marker for what could happen in many other constituencies. The rules should be changed, and a debate would help us to achieve the changes for which people are asking.
Mrs. Taylor: I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern at the tragedy in his constituency. I cannot promise him a debate on fire precautions in the way that he suggests, but perhaps he would consider applying to you, Madam Speaker, for an Adjournment debate. For my part, I shall certainly bring his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In view of the widespread interest in foreign affairs, will the Leader of the House grant us an early debate on the subject to allow the Foreign Secretary an opportunity to explain his relations with the Minister responsible for foreign affairs in Cuba? The matter relates to early-day motion 671.
[That this House warmly welcomes the visit of His Holiness the Pope to Cuba; and believes that his spiritual leadership and courageous personal example will be an inspiration to the people of Cuba now as they were to people behind the Iron Curtain during the dark days of the Cold War who similarly suffered too long under state-sponsored atheism and authoritarian Marxist government.]

525
The early-day motion was tabled following the visit of His Holiness the Pope to the island and refers to the issues and hopes that the visit raised.
Mrs. Taylor: We cannot have a specific debate on that in the near future, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to Ministers' attention.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: Given that the Government's policy to reduce value added tax on fuel is bringing many benefits to everyone across the country—to businesses, charities and pensioners—including 17,000 pensioners in my constituency, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on such benefits, and particularly the gains of reducing VAT on home insulation?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises an important topic, and one that is of benefit to many pensioners in his constituency and in mine, nearby. The fact that we kept our election pledge on VAT on fuel and reversed the Conservative party's trend of increasing it has been of great assistance to many, as are the payments to pensioners that are being made at present.
Mr. Donald Gorrie: Yesterday, during the Scotland Bill's first day in Committee, many amendments were not discussed. I know that that often happens, but the Scotland Bill is a constitutional Bill of great importance. Is it possible, either through the Business Committee that is considering the matter, or in other ways, for people with more knowledge and skill than I have in such matters to devise a method whereby all amendments are properly considered—either through better timetabling or use of time in the House, or even by having a separate Committee to mop up the amendments that are not discussed? It is very unsatisfactory that some amendments to a major constitutional Bill are never considered.
Mrs. Taylor: I think that the Business Committee has done quite a good job. In fact, most hon. Members have been very happy with the progress that has been made. It is always difficult to satisfy every hon. Member's desire to participate on every occasion, but we have been working quite well so far.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to have a debate on short-term contracts and so on, we should first get it clear in our mind that the Leader of the Opposition is at the head of the list, and that the debate is called "Waiting for Portillo"? Next, the debate should be broad enough to ensure that we deal with Tory explanations for sacking Clive Ponting—that civil servant of yesteryear—and Sarah Tisdall. Let the Tories explain that. They should also explain why they sacked thousands of customs officers—civil servants—which resulted in havoc at all Britain's ports. If we are to have such a debate, let it be broad enough to relate to all those sackings, including, some time ago, that of the secretary agent in the Richmond offices of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mrs. Taylor: Fortunately, I have no responsibility for the agent at the Leader of the Opposition's offices. From what my hon. Friend says, he would need more than one day for the debate that he envisages. I am glad that he has raised some of those important points, including the one about customs officers and the fact that we have reversed the cuts on which the Conservative party embarked. It is gratifying to notice some very good drug hauls recently, which are partly as a result of having in place extremely diligent customs officers. I do not think that I can find time to debate all the issues that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Can the right hon. Lady arrange an early debate on the flow of information to Members of Parliament? She kindly answered a question in the House a few days ago about the time that it takes to obtain answers from Ministers to hon. Members' letters. She may have seen on the Order Paper that, yesterday, I tabled questions to 19 different Departments asking about their record on replying. She will also see two questions about the contract of employment of Mrs. Bullen.
As the Opposition—and, I suspect, Labour Members too—are having great difficulty in getting answers in a timely manner, will the right hon. Lady ensure that that happens? If we do not have a debate, will she at least use her best offices to ensure that she looks after the rights of the House ahead of the embarrassment of the Government?
Mrs. Taylor: The Government have a responsibility to answer questions in as short a time scale as possible, but hon. Members also have a responsibility to bear in mind the cost of answering parliamentary questions, and they should table responsible questions.
Sir Patrick Cormack: May I refer the right hon. Lady to the final part of her answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)? Nobody could possibly expect her to know about everything that emanates from the Government, but may I draw her attention to the fact that on 15 January the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued a press release saying that there would be a new tax on motoring—in effect, a car ownership tax—from 1 April, set at "about £25"?
That tax was not mentioned in the Chancellor's Budget statement in July, and the next Budget statement is not expected for some weeks. Will the right hon. Lady please give clarification, and an opportunity to debate the matter?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman says that the press release gave some idea of the nature of the tax, not that it was a precise proposal. Indeed, he used the word "about" in his description of it. I shall look into the matter, but the hon. Gentleman will recall that Transport questions are scheduled for next Tuesday, and it may be possible to raise it then. I shall make further inquiries about the precise wording of the press release that he asked me about.

Points of Order
5.2 pm
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) raised a point of order of which he had given me notice, about the fact that I had not accepted a request from him to discuss the Hertfordshire structure plan. I could not be in the House yesterday, as I was on a bilateral visit to the Netherlands on United Kingdom presidency business.
I have written to the hon. Gentleman today to explain the position. It is a long-standing practice that Ministers with responsibility in planning cases do not meet individuals, whether they are Members of the House or not, to discuss local planning issues, whether those concern individual applications or wider issues such as development plans, that may come before them for decision.
That is because any such meeting could be held to prejudice the Secretary of State's decision making and render decisions liable to challenge in the courts. That is why I declined the hon. Gentleman' s request for a meeting to discuss the specific issues related to the Hertfordshire structure plan, as I would have declined, and consistently do decline, similar requests from Members of the House from all parties.
A request for a meeting about general policy issues, such as that which I received recently from a group of Labour Members on the green belt in general, is an entirely different matter. In the light of that, I have offered the hon. Gentleman a meeting to discuss general policy on the green belt.
Mr. Richard Page rose—
Madam Speaker: I am not allowing a debate, as the Minister spoke on a point of order, but the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) originally raised the matter and I recognise that fact.
Mr. Page: I accept the Minister's generous offer to debate the matter and the individual aspects of concern on planning, which I have raised several times before in my letters to him.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: No, no further points of order. That was a specific point of order related to the incident—
Mr. Wilkinson: This is specifically related to the planning matter that my hon. Friend raised.
Madam Speaker: That has been dealt with. If it is a different point of order—
Mr. Wilkinson: It is not a different point; it is the same.
Madam Speaker: In that case, the Minister has made the point of order—
Mr. Wilkinson: It is the same point, Madam Speaker.
528
I sought, on behalf of the London Green Belt Council, of which I am the elected president, to take a deputation to the Minister's parliamentary and Government colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—
Madam Speaker: Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman whether it was another point of order and he insisted that it was not, but was related to the first point. Does the hon. Gentleman's point relate to Hertfordshire?
Mr. Wilkinson: It does indeed, Madam Speaker. It relates specifically to Hertfordshire county council's structure plan, about which the London Green Belt Council has serious reservations, and wanted to make the general points of policy that are important to our membership to the relevant Minister. On both occasions when I made a request in writing well in advance, we were refused, not on the specific grounds that the Minister has now given—that a meeting would prejudice the quasi-judicial position of the Minister—but with an obfuscatory answer that provided no clarification whatever.
Madam Speaker: I am pleased that the Minister has now been able to clarify his position on such matters.
Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Standing Order No. 22(4) provides that
"Where a Member has indicated that a question is for written answer on a named day the Minister shall cause an answer to be given to the Member on the date for which notice has been given".
On Monday this week, I tabled seven questions for answer today by the Foreign Secretary. They are all simple factual questions, easily answered, yet I have received no answer. May I ask, Madam Speaker, what steps you can take to enforce the Standing Orders of the House?
Madam Speaker: Not having been given any indication that the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended to raise that point of order, I want an opportunity to look at the Standing Order. I am sure that he is correct about it, because he seems to have it in front of him, and I would like to do the same. I will let him know as soon as I have been able to look at it and at the questions that he put, and make inquiries.
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Madam Speaker: Is it a point of order?
Mr. Skinner: Yes, Madam Speaker. When you examine that business, will you take into account the fact that, during the past 18 years of Tory government, there were literally hundreds of occasions when Tory Ministers refused to answer questions on time? Let us have a level playing field and not give the impression that, somehow, something new has occurred, when the same thing happened over and over again. It was done even by that recidivist, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), when he was Home Secretary.
Madam Speaker: I am always grateful for advice and guidance.

Orders of the Day

  Scotland Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 28 January].
  MR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Clause 18

  PRESIDING OFFICER
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Donald Gorrie: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in clause 18, page 8, line 42, after "deputies', insert
  "or such other number of deputies as the Parliament may determine.'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 196, in page 8, line 42, after 'deputies', insert
  ", provided that the election of the Presiding Officer is carried by the votes of not less than two thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament and, within each region by the votes of not less than two thirds of the number of constituency members and not less than two thirds of the number of regional members of the Parliament.'.
  No. 13, in page 8, line 42, at end insert—
  '(1A) The Parliament may change the title "Presiding Officer" to such other title as it considers appropriate.'.
  Government amendment No. 218.
  No. 14, in clause 19, page 9, line 15, after "Parliament', insert
  ', who may be known as the Clerk of the Parliament or by such other title as the Parliament considers appropriate.'.
  No. 145, in clause 19, page 9, line 16, leave out "Corporate Body' and insert 'Estate'.
  No. 197, in clause 20, clause 20, page 9, line 23, leave out 'Corporate Body' and insert 'Estate'.
  No. 146, in clause 20, page 9, line 24, leave out first corporation' and insert 'Estate'.
  No. 147, in clause 20, page 9, line 24, leave out second corporation' and insert 'Estate'.
  No. 148, in clause 20, page 9, line 25, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.
  No. 149, in clause 20, page 9, line 27, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.
  No. 150, in clause 20, page 9, line 31, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.
  No. 151, in clause 20, page 9, line 35, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.
  No. 152, in clause 20, page 9, line 36, leave out "corporation's' and insert 'Estate's.
  No. 153, in clause 20, page 9, line 38, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.
  No. 154, in clause 20, page 9, line 40, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.
  No. 155, in clause 20, page 9, line 42, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.
  No. 156, in clause 20, page 10, line 1, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.
  No. 157, in clause 20, page 10, line 3, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.
  No. 158, in clause 20, page 10, line 6, leave out "corporation' and insert 'Estate'.
  No. 45, in clause 41, clause 41, page 18, line 5, leave out 'First Minister' and insert 'Scottish Premier'.
  No. 85, in clause 41, page 18, line 5, leave out 'First' and insert 'Chief".
  No. 15, in clause 41, page 18, line 10, at end add—
  "(3) The Parliament may change the terms "Scottish Executive" and "First Minister" to such other terms as it considers appropriate.'.
  Mr. Gorrie: As well as amendment No. 36, I shall speak to amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15. They all have the same purpose, which is to enable the Scottish Parliament to have the flexibility, once established, to change certain names. It is reasonable to set out the names before the Parliament starts, so that it at least has a starting point.
  However, if the Parliament is to be a worthwhile organisation, it must be able to decide whether it needs more than two Deputy Presiding Officers, whether it likes the title "Presiding Officer" or wishes to use some other title, whether it wishes to change the title "Clerk of the Parliament" and feels that it should have some other title. It should also be able to decide whether it likes the titles "Scottish Executive" and "First Minister".
  It is an essential minor point, to show the validity of the Parliament, that it should have the facility to change those titles. Some of us were disappointed yesterday by the statement in which the Secretary of State made it clear that the Parliament would not be as waterproof in the devolved areas as the general public in Scotland had been led to believe.
  Perhaps it is a token, but it is an important token, that the Parliament should at least have the ability to decide the titles of the various people and the numbers of people holding the various posts. There is considerable unhappiness in Scotland about the dictatorial way in which the site of the Parliament has been decided, and now we find that the Parliament will not have the powers that many people were led during the referendum campaign to believe that it would have. At the very least, it should have the capacity to make some of those minor changes, and I hope that the United Kingdom Parliament will see that it is essential to allow the Scottish Parliament to have that power.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I want to register the hope that we will not spend too much time on these amendments, because there are very important matters to deal with on clauses 28 and 29, and we may get into great difficulty on the guillotine. I concur with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie): surely to heavens we can leave these matters to the Scottish Parliament when it is set up; it is surely its business to decide on titles and on the way in which it wants to work.
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and we do not want to spend much time on these amendments, but certain of them must be spoken to.

  531
  We tabled amendment No. 196 essentially because the new Parliament will have a new political ethos, and the Presiding Officer will have considerable powers; one need only look at clause 31 to see the extent of those powers.
  It would be proper for the Presiding Officer to have the broadest possible endorsement, not only of the Parliament as a whole but by region and by category of Member, especially because, with the list system, if we are not careful, party considerations could come into play.
  I think that we will all agree that the new Parliament will not have the traditions of the House, which effectively trains its Members to accept that, if they take the Chair, as you have, Mr. Lord, they are above and beyond the normal party politics. That tradition may eventually grow in the new Parliament, but it is important that the Presiding Officer should have the widest possible respect and support from the beginning. The proposal is not unprecedented. The framework document for Northern Ireland contained the same provision.
  I tabled other amendments that may have puzzled hon. Members. They would replace the words "Corporate Body" or "corporation" with the word "Estate". "Corporate Body" has a Victorian ring to it, and I wanted something that was more Scottish and appropriate to the new body. The word that I came up with may come from the 18th century, but it is Scottish and constitutional. It should be spelt "Estaite", but I was informed by the Table Office that that was not a spelling that was recognised by the House, so to get the amendments tabled, I had to spell it in the more modem and English form. I wanted to use a little imagination to find something more exciting than the idea of a corporate body.
  Mr. James Wallace: I am fascinated to hear about that ruling. Did those who advised the right hon. Gentleman cite a ruling from Madam Speaker or a previous Speaker on what determines spelling that may be used in the House? Surely, in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Scots spelling is as legitimate as English.
  Mr. Ancram: We will deal with the Scottish language on amendment No. 118. When the Table Office staff tell me that I cannot table an amendment in a certain form, and I am up against the deadline, I normally take their advice, as I did on this occasion.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Amendment No. 45 proposes that the head of the Scottish Administration should be called the Scottish Premier, not the First Minister. "Premier" is simpler—for a start, it has half the syllables—and would cause less confusion, because "First Minister" and "Prime Minister" are almost identical. There could be confusion if, for example, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom visited the First Minister in Scotland. Scots are familiar with the word "premier", as we talk about the premier division and premier quality.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: With amendment No. 45, the hon. Gentleman is in danger of leading to more confusion. Those of us who are interested in sport and listen to the results on a Saturday afternoon expect,
  532
  whenever we hear the words "Scottish premier", to hear "division" immediately after. It would not be wise to confuse the electorate, who are far more interested in sport than in politics, by changing "First Minister", which is at least new and different, to something that everyone associates with football.
  Mr. Canavan: The man tipped to become the first First Minister—not a phrase that trips off the tongue as easily as "the first Premier"—is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure that we would all agree that he is in the premier division and of premier quality, although there is nothing divisive about him.
  Whoever gets the job, be it my right hon. Friend or somebody else—it might be a right hon. Lady—should have a title that is in keeping with the dignity and status of the office. "Premier" is French for first, so it might be indicative of the old alliance between Scotland and France if we referred to the leader as "Le Premier" or "La Première".
  The term is also used in many Commonwealth countries, including Australia and Canada, so it is not unfamiliar to Parliament, which set up dominion status for former parts of the empire, some of which eventually became independent states. The term "Scottish Premier" sounds more distinctive and prestigious, but, if my hon. Friend the Minister cannot accept the amendment, I hope that he will at least consider allowing the Scottish Parliament to decide such matters, as opposed to our going on about them endlessly in Committee.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: "Scottish Premier" is also the name of a well-known brand of beef products in the north-east of Scotland, so I suppose that, if the First Minister was not in his place in the Scottish Parliament, people would shout, "Where's the beef?"
  The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) informed us with a straight face that the Scottish Parliament might be vulnerable to party intrigue and division, whereas this Parliament has such marvellous long-standing traditions that such matters never enter hon. Members' heads.
  It is best not to take many of the Tory contributions to this debate too seriously—that is the right attitude to strike on the evidence of yesterday's debate—but underlying what the right hon. Gentleman said is an extraordinarily arrogant assumption that somehow the Scots Parliament must be protected from itself and from the Scottish people, and that rural Scotland must be protected from urban Scotland. The fact that the Conservative party cannot get elected in rural or urban Scotland seems totally to have escaped him.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman spends a lot of his time enjoying himself by attacking the Tory party. I wish to make a serious suggestion. In a Scottish Parliament, the broadest possible support for the first Presiding Officer might be a good thing. I am surprised to hear him suggest that it is not.
  Mr. Salmond: I was talking about what underlay the amendment. The House heard the right hon. Gentleman suggest that somehow the traditions of this House meant that things would be conducted in a perfectly orderly manner, but that the Scottish Parliament was an institution

  533
  without those traditions. Therefore, we would have to write into its Standing Orders at this stage some protection—the same language and logic we heard yesterday, when the Tories said that they would protect rural Scotland. Rural Scotland has fundamentally rejected the Conservative party over the past 20 years. The right hon. Gentleman said that I enjoy myself attacking the Tory party—with some success, I might add. Banff and Buchan has not a single Conservative councillor, and we have to import Tories.
  Mr. Ancram: Just wait.
  Mr. Salmond: I have been waiting for some time, and I suspect that we will wait some time more for a Conservative comeback. The great difficulty for the Conservatives in Scotland is the Conservatives who sit on the Opposition Front Bench in this House. Every time they make a speech—with the insulting and condescending attitudes that they represent—they put back their colleagues in Scotland. They know it, and their colleagues in Scotland know it.
  It is important for this Committee to take note of what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) said. We all may have ideas about what title is best, be it First Minister, Premier or Prime Minister. It may be that we should think about another title for the Members of the Parliament—whether they should be MSPs or Commissioners of the Scottish Parliament. I note what the right hon. Member for Devizes said about not getting the word "estaite" into his amendments. It is a strange institution which will accept Norman French but not the Scots language in its amendments.
  The fundamental point is that we are enabling the Scottish Parliament to get on with its business. The note struck by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West—reflected in a large number of speeches—is that we should leave these matters to the Scottish Parliament when it is up and running. If it wants to change the titles, change them it shall; basically, nothing we say or do in this place will make any difference.
  An excellent meeting of the consultative group to discuss the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament was marred only by the sole Conservative contribution, which seemed to be a last-ditch defence of the right to have 20 or 30 directorships while simultaneously serving as a Member of the Scottish Parliament—another attitude that will get short shrift from the people of Scotland.
  Basically, it was a good meeting—there was a good feeling at the first meeting of the consultative group. I hope that the Minister feels able to give some indication to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West that that attitude—of letting the Scottish Parliament decide these things—will be reflected in the Government's attitude today.
  Mr. John McAllion: First, I recommend to my hon. Friend the Minister that he reject amendment No. 196, tabled by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). It is an absurd proposition that a Speaker can only be elected on the basis not just of two thirds of the Members of the Parliament, but of two thirds of all the constituency Members and two
  534
  thirds of the regional list Members in each of the eight regions across Scotland. If the Tory party had applied that formula to its own elections, it might have done a lot of good; the Conservative party would not have its present leader.
  It would be almost impossible to elect anyone on that basis. I can think of no figure—with the possible exception of the Secretary of State for Scotland—who could command such widespread support throughout Scotland. In reality, amendment No. 196 is a wrecking amendment, which gives the lie to the idea that the official Opposition are being in any sense constructive in their approach to the Bill.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is making a great fuss about this. Why did the Labour party accept such a system for the proposed Assembly in Northern Ireland in the framework document?
  Mr. McAllion: I was quite unaware that my party had accepted it. If I had known, I would have said that it was an absurd proposition. It seems nonsense to me, particularly in a Parliament which will have not four parties, but six, seven or eight. That would give tremendous influence to smaller parties, which could block any agreement because of their strength in a particular part of Scotland. The Tories expect to be a very small party, embedded in only one little part of Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Certainly not in my part of Scotland, but there must be parts of Scotland where they vote Tory. There are 500,000 of them somewhere; I do not know where they are all distributed.
  I want to recommend to my hon. Friend the Minister the amendment tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie). My hon. Friend will recall that, when I was appointed to the Scottish Select Committee, the entire Committee was invited to the brand new civil service office in Leith to be shown the ropes by all the Scottish Office civil servants. During that very useful day, one of the civil servants responsible for drafting the Bill made the point that Westminster would, of course, have to draft Standing Orders, which would be there for the Parliament to use on its first day.
  However, those Standing Orders would be drafted in such a way as to allow the Parliament itself to shape the kind of Parliament which the Scottish Members wanted. They would not be proscriptive Standing Orders, and the Scottish Parliament would be left free to decide for itself what it should call the presiding Minister, how many deputies there should be, how the Speaker should be elected, and so on.
  My hon. Friend the Minister may point out that I have put my name to an amendment which seeks to tell the Parliament to call him or her not the First Minister but the Scottish Premier. Obviously, the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and myself is not consistent with the White Paper—which we supported in general—but the White Paper is not consistent with the convention document, "Scotland's Parliament, Scotland's Right," which states that the convention wanted the Speaker of the Parliament to be called the Speaker and the Head of Government to be called the Chief Minister. Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain why he has departed from the agreement in the convention document. He changed the proposal in the White Paper, and is continuing to do so in the Bill.

  535
  I understand that there could be confusion if the Heads of Government in Scotland and in the rest of the UK were both called Prime Minister, as people might not know to whom they were referring. I am happy for this House to retain the use of the term "Prime Minister". In the early 18th century, it was a very unofficial term—in fact, it was regarded as odious, and Sir Robert Walpole and Lord North repudiated it. If the British Parliament wishes to carry on with an odious title for its Head of Government, it is free to do so. I would like to see a better term for the Scottish Parliament, and that is why I believe that Scottish Premier is the best way forward.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: The hon. Gentleman may recall that, when the Secretary of State launched the White Paper in the House, I asked whether the term "First Minister" was written in tablets of stone. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a form of words used in the White Paper, giving the impression that, thereafter, we could choose the term to use.
  Mr. McAllion: I am greatly encouraged by the hon. Lady's intervention, and I shall now give the reason why I think the title should be Scottish Premier. Perhaps those who get to the Scottish Parliament should take note of what I say here, in case I do not get there myself.
  "Scottish Premier" is a shortened version of Premier Minister, which can be defined as Prime Minister or Head of Government. That would end the confusion, and would mean that the Scottish Premier would not be seen in way as secondary to the British Prime Minister. If there were a suggestion that the Prime Minister was "over" the Scottish Premier, it would be unfortunate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West mentioned Canada and Australia. I am concerned because, in Canada and Australia, the federal Head of Government is called the Prime Minister and the Heads of the state Governments are called Premiers. There is a clear indication that the Prime Minister is above the Premiers. I would not want that to be the case in Scotland. I want the Scottish Premier to be so called on the basis of the auld alliance, with the French interpretation of that term—that the Scottish Premier is in every sense equal to the British Prime Minister for the areas for which he is responsible.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that we can resolve all the issues mentioned in the debate. I tabled amendment No. 85, which suggests that instead of First Minister, we should call the new chap the Chief Minister. That is a sensible compromise, and would be a major step forward.
  I seriously suggest that the Government should not accept amendment No. 36, which would give the devolved Parliament the right to make such decisions itself. Hon. Members should be aware that it is a real possibility, as I have always suggested, that one of the strange, unusual parties—or perhaps even the Scottish National party—might get control and use names that would give the wrong impression.
  I hope that hon. Members who are celebrating in advance the great delights of the Scottish Parliament appreciate that terrible problems will almost inevitably arise. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) rightly said that people were misled in the referendum
  536
  about the powers of the assembly. The wholly wrong impression was given that a new form of self-government was coming in that would give unique power to the Scottish people to make their own decisions. Those who study the Bill know that it is a load of codswallop, that the powers are astonishingly limited, and that there will be less money because the cost of the assembly will have to be deducted. I hope that hon. Members understand some of the immediate problems that will arise.
  5.30 pm
  On the First or Chief Minister, what will happen when a Secretary of State from a different party uses powers in clause 33 to direct the Scottish Parliament that a Bill must be cancelled or that a Bill that it does not want must be introduced? Without a clear definition of the relationship between the First Minister and the Secretary of State, how would Members of the Scottish Parliament feel if the Secretary of State told the First or Chief Minister, "I am sorry that law you passed has to be cancelled, scrubbed, finished," or, "Whether you like it or not, I am going to demand that you pass this law."?
  Secondly, there is the position of the Secretary of State. I see that one hon. Member is smiling, but it is a serious situation: hon. Members know that problems could arise if the First or Chief Minister and the Secretary of State came from different parties. We must consider the status of the First Minister compared with that of the Secretary of State. The Bill envisages a direct relationship between the devolved Administration and the sovereign. That presumably means that the Secretary of State is no longer the sovereign' s representative in Scotland.
  The new Chief Minister will apparently have substantial powers. He will be the head of the Scottish Executive and Keeper of the Scottish Seal. He will have a direct relationship with the sovereign in the appointment of Ministers, junior Ministers, law officers, sheriffs and judges of the Court of Session, other than the Lord President, and the Lord Justice Clerk, in whose appointment he has a role directly with the Prime Minister.
  Hon. Members think that everything will be great, but, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West said, the people of Scotland have been misled about the powers of the new assembly. The impression was given that its powers would be much greater. There will be problems with money because the costs of the new Parliament will come off the money that is already there. There will be trouble and difficulties. That is why it is important to clarify the role of the person in charge.
  "First Minister" is not appropriate for a democratic assembly. What is wrong with "Chief Minister"? That achieves separation from the titles of "Prime Minister" and "Secretary of State". "Chief Minister" is a step forward. I hope that the Secretary of State will think carefully about my suggestion, which I make helpfully. I hope that he will play a part in not going along with what seems to be the general feeling in this place that everything will be great—that life will be a bed of roses and better in every respect for the people of Scotland.
  As a former Scottish Member who now has no right to represent the people of Scotland directly but cares greatly about Scotland and its people, I hope that hon. Members know that what they think will be exciting and innovative could well turn out to be an horrendous democratic mess.

  537
  It could result in deterioration of services for Scotland and widespread conflict between the government in Edinburgh and the Administration in Westminster, especially if different parties are in charge. I hope that hon. Members will approach the Bill asking how they can try to resolve problems, not make them worse.
  While I have been delighted at some of the contributions from both Government and Opposition Members, I have been horrified by Liberal Democrats' contributions, such as their comments yesterday about the need for plenty of farmers in the Scottish assembly to ensure that agriculture is well represented. I hope that the Liberal Democrats have made it clear that the Scottish Parliament will not control agriculture, and that to a large degree, this Parliament does not, either. I hope that the Government will accept my excellent, helpful and constructive suggestion in amendment No. 85, which is also supported by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd).
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I intend to support amendment No. 85 as a solution to the problem of the name, despite the intemperate contribution of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who tabled it. He sought to portray the parliamentary process as determined by conflict, which it need not be.
  Using the title "chief" rather than another does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it should be a man. Many of the old Scottish clans, which used the word, "chief", were matriarchal rather than using the male line. "Chief Minister" resolves the problem. "First Minister" suggests that it is something less than the Prime Minister, when, in the Parliament of Scotland, that Minister will be the most important and should be called "Chief Minister". In a Scottish context, we should think about that seriously.
  I reject the title "premier" because, like it or not, it is a French word. It has come into common usage. Sadly, as was pointed out earlier, the correct spelling of the word "estaite" has fallen out of use in English parliamentary language. "Premier" gives rise to problems, some of which are funny. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) referred to the premier division, although it is actually the premier league. If there were a Division in the House, would we be in the Premier Division or the Opposition Division, with the premier or against the premier? The word would be the butt of many jokes. It would not be a good solution.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said, in Australia "premier" is a state title. I went to Australia recently with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. There, they clearly distinguish between the premier of a state and the Prime Minister of the country.
  On the word "estaite", the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) could have been a little bit more Scottish in his interpretation, and used the word "commonwealth". "Common weal" is the modern word "commonwealth". The concept of corporation is not attractive. We should have had another word. Commonwealth would have been appropriate. It would be wholly appropriate if the Scottish Parliament wished to refer to the common weal of the body.
  538
  There are many things to be debated, but I do not think that this is the Chamber that should decide them. That is the fundamental point. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) is right to say that it should be left to the Scottish Parliament to decide how it sees itself, how it reflects the will of the people, how the people see it and how it is to take on the decisions and wishes of the people of Scotland. Amendment No. 36 is about the powers of the Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East made an unnecessarily divisive speech. He argued that, should another party ever control this Parliament, the Secretary of State would wish to overrule the Parliament of Scotland. That shows that he has not understood the purpose of the Scottish Parliament, which is to embody in a parliamentary institution the will of the people and to show respect to the people. In contrast to what happened in the past 18 years—and unlike the former Member for Stirling—the Secretary of State would have to show respect for the will of the people as set out in the Bills before the Scottish Parliament.
  That would be true regardless of party. If was not, it would be a recipe for the final break-up of the Union. If we had not devised the Bill and taken this route, the behaviour of the Conservatives over the past 18 years would have had only one outcome: the people of Scotland would have had to leave this United Kingdom to get respect. In this Parliament, we must show that respect.
  I hope that hon. Members will reject amendment No. 196 because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East so well put it, it is an unnecessary belt and braces, a veritable straitjacket for the Parliament. If it is necessary in the Parliament that people respect the other parties and accept votes decided by majority, the people will respect the democratic process. A two-thirds majority is not needed to ensure that the people adhere to the directions of the people who will look after the Parliament.
  You are currently chairing this Committee, Mr. Lord. It does not matter that you may have been selected to serve by a process carried out behind closed doors; the fact is that when people are chosen to sit in the Chair, Members of Parliament show them the respect they deserve. I hope that the Government will, in some way, take on board amendment No. 36 and leave to the Scottish Parliament the powers that will enable it to take the final decision on matters of symbolic importance.
  The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I must comment first on the wholly remarkable contribution made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). It is useful to remember that something described as an horrendous democratic mess and codswallop is based on 1.8 million Scots supporting the proposals in a referendum—that is 74 per cent. of the 60 per cent. of Scots who took the trouble to vote. It is important to put the Bill into the wider context of that endorsement.
  I recognise and understand the arguments advanced in respect of amendments Nos. 13 to 15. On the face of it, there are attractions in allowing the Parliament to decide for itself what it wishes to call its Presiding Officer, the First Minister, the Scottish Executive and the Clerk. However, the Government believe that consistency and certainty are essential for the Bill and for future

  539
  legislation. The titles proposed are clear and unambiguous and suit the purpose. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept those amendments.
  "Presiding Officer" was the title used in the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament". The title accurately describes the role of the individual concerned, even though it may lack the poetic aspects of "Speaker", which is used in this House.
  Amendment No. 14 would allow the Scottish Parliament to call the Clerk of the Parliament by any title it feels appropriate. We chose the title of Clerk for the senior official of the Parliament as that is a widely used and clearly understood title. Individuals may refer to the Clerk informally by some other title, but it is important that in formal proceedings and in other formal dealings involving the Clerk, the office should be referred to in a clear and consistent way, which does not confuse the office with any other office or position and which ensures that everyone, not least the Clerk himself, knows where they stand. Therefore, we see little benefit in amendment No. 14.
  The Government believe that the titles of the Scottish Executive and the First Minister need to be prescribed by statute to maintain consistency in references throughout the Bill and in future legislation. That will also relate to other formal documents through successive Sessions of the new Parliament. The Government are well aware of the speculation about what other titles might be used to describe the First Minister and his ministerial colleagues. We believe that the titles used in the Bill suit the purpose.
  We recognise that the Scottish public may well develop their own description for the First Minister and members of the Scottish Executive—[Laughter.] In anticipation of laughter, I was going to say that some of the names they come up with may not be much to our liking. That said, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) pointed out that what happens in Scotland will be entirely up to the Scottish press, Scottish media generally and the Scottish people. I recognise the arguments that hon. Members have advanced, but I am not persuaded by them.
  The Government believe that the title "First Minister" describes the role clearly and avoids confusion with any other office holder. The Scottish Parliament may, for working purposes, add to the titles of the Scottish Ministers so as to distinguish them according to their respective portfolios. Thus, the Parliament could refer to a particular Scottish Minister as "The Scottish Minister for Housing" or "The Scottish Minister for Education" and so on. Such matters will be dealt with later by the Scottish Parliament. That provides some discretion. Such titles could be used in the day-to-day operation of the Parliament, but would have no formal legal status. Collectively, the members of the Scottish Executive will be known as the Scottish Ministers.
  As regards amendment No. 36, the Government believe that one Presiding Officer and two deputies are more than capable of chairing Sessions of the Parliament and ensuring that business runs smoothly. I would ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Connarty: I have taken a particular interest in the running of the Australian Parliament, where a much larger number of people are entitled to serve in the Chair. From
  540
  talking to Members of that Parliament, I have learnt that it helps the smooth running of the Parliament to have large numbers of people rotating in that duty; it also helps to ensure that many Members gain experience of chairing the main Chamber. Have we looked further afield than this Parliament for examples?
  M. McLeish: In respect of the Presiding Officer and the deputies, I think that the position that we have put forward is the best one. I assure my hon. Friend that we have looked long and hard at several other models and considered several other options. The chairing of Committees in the new Parliament is a matter that has yet to be addressed, but that need not delay our consideration of the Bill.
  5.45 pm
  Amendment No. 196 would make the election of the Presiding Officer unnecessarily complicated and clearly we cannot accept it. The Government believe that the Presiding Officer and his two deputies should be elected from among Members at a meeting of the Parliament, without fixing in the Bill the majority required. It will be in Members' interest to be present and vote at that election for their Presiding Officer, and a simple majority should be sufficient, although the Parliament itself could provide in its Standing Orders for a higher threshold.
  The amendment would set a threshold for the Parliament, and indeed set it a very high level. It would effectively give a veto to a small number of Members in a particular region. I do not believe that there is a need to impose on the Parliament artificial thresholds in electing its own Presiding Officer. I again ask the Committee to reject the amendment. Some hon. Members have talked about the attractions of adopting the term "Speaker" to describe the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, but I invite the House to consider the genuine risk of confusion which could arise if both the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament used that term.
  I am sure hon. Members will not be surprised when I say that the Government do not accept amendments Nos. 145 to 158 and No. 197. We have consistently made it clear that we envisage the Parliament as being modern, forward-looking, accessible and relevant to today's generation of people living in Scotland. I am not quite sure what is being driven at in the amendments, but I presume that it is a reflection of the term used in the pre-Union Parliament. It seems quite inappropriate to look back in time for old titles when we are looking forward to a new modern Parliament.
  The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body—or the SPCB as it will no doubt be referred to—will look after the housekeeping and administration of the Parliament. Its concept is similar to the arrangements for this House under the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 which established the House of Commons Commission as a corporate body for the purposes of appointing staff of the House of Commons. The Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992 also established corporate officers for both Houses of Parliament with powers to hold property and enter into contracts for the respective Houses.
  The functions of the SPCB will be wide and varied, ranging from representing the Parliament in legal matters to the organisation of the provision of services such as cleaning services. As the corporate body of the Parliament, the use of the title "corporation" is

  541
  appropriate; it is a word recognisable to the public and it will be understood by those dealing with the corporation. "Estaite" on the other hand is neither appropriate nor easily understood in this context. The word estaite is an historical term formerly used in connection with the pre-Union Parliament. It actually referred to the constituents of that Parliament—the clergy, nobility and burgesses—not to its administrative functions. Arguably, there is a close analogy to the Members of the Scottish Parliament. The amendments are therefore misconceived as well as undesirable, and I ask the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) not to press his amendments.
  The purpose of amendment No. 218 is to allow a deputy to perform the functions of the Presiding Officer if that office is vacant or if the Presiding Officer is unable to act. As it stands, clause 18 requires the Standing Orders to make provision for a Member of the Parliament to exercise the Presiding Officer's functions if the post falls vacant during the period when Parliament is dissolved. However, that would not allow provision to be made covering a vacancy or incapacity that might arise when the Parliament is dissolved. My proposed amendment would allow the Presiding Officer's functions to be exercised by a deputy in such circumstances, as well as at other times when a vacancy or incapacity arises.
  The amendment ensures that there is at all times someone who can exercise the Presiding Officer's functions and it also makes it clear that it should be an elected deputy rather than any other Member of the Parliament who should exercise those functions in the event of the Presiding Officer's incapacity or if the office of Presiding Officer is vacant. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Mr. Gorrie: I am grateful to those hon. Members who have given support to the general thrust of our idea that the Scottish Parliament should be enabled to decide the matters that we have been discussing. There was support for the idea from hon. Members on both sides, although—as usual—none from Conservative Members. I take comfort in the fact that, whatever parents may choose to call their children and put on the baptismal certificate, when the child grows up he or she decides what he or she wishes to be called.
  I was very entertained by the suggestions of the "auld alliance" about going in for French titles, but I was pleased that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) had not strayed as far as Italy; it would not be helpful to have the premier, or whatever, of Scotland described as a prima donna.
  I believe that many hon. Members share my disappointment that the Government are persisting with their prescriptive attitude and preventing the sensible amendments to allow the Scottish Parliament to change the name officially as well as unofficially, but no one has ever prevented the Scottish public from saying anything about anything. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 218, page 9, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'if' in line 7 and insert
  "The Presiding Officer's functions may be exercised by a deputy'.—[Mr. McLeish.]
  Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

  CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENT
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: When the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body starts the process of selecting a Clerk and Deputy Clerk, will they be head-hunted from those who have expertise in the House of Commons? [Interruption.] They will not necessarily, because there are experts in Edinburgh who have been working in devolution and who were Clerks in the House. Are they to be paid on the same basis as Clerks in the House?
  Mr. McLeish: I think at this stage those details have not been worked out, but I reassure my hon. Friend that we are looking for both expertise and excellence. It will be up to the Parliament to seek the best person for the job, and my hon. Friend's comments show that he too wants that.
  Mr. Dalyell: But timing is important, because presumably the Clerk and Deputy Clerk must be in place before the Parliament sits, in 1999.
  Mr. McLeish: I think that the Government understand that. We are proceeding now to get the Bill on to the statute book. We have set up several committees to look at the nuts and bolts of the way in which the Parliament will work. Obviously, that level of detail—that type of very important issue—will be tackled at a very early day. If we are holding the elections on 6 May 1999, a tremendous amount of work must be done before then, and I think I can reassure my hon. Friend that attention will be paid to the matters that he has raised.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I appreciate what the Minister says, but it goes further than that, does it not? Who will make the appointment? For instance, in Northern Ireland, as I noted when we visited Stormont, there is a Clerk of a potential Northern Ireland assembly, who has been in residence for many years. Will the appointment be made by the House, by Ministers? Will it be done by the Secretary of State for Scotland or left to the Scottish Parliament? In any case, it will have to be done well before the Parliament starts sitting.
  Mr. McLeish: The obvious points have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and of course they are appreciated. The Parliament is a serious business, and indeed the Parliament will establish the post of Clerk. We are anxious to pass the legislation. In parallel with that, we are setting up several consultative groups and committees to ensure that we discuss those details. There is no ambiguity, and no one sitting anywhere has a locus on that job at present. We accept that expertise is important; we want the best in the Scottish Parliament. That will be the objective.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

  SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY CORPORATE BODY
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 118, in page 9, line 33, after 'purposes', insert
  ', including any simultaneous interpretation and translation staff and facilities required in order to give effect to paragraph 3A, of Schedule 3'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 119, in schedule 3, page 57, line 31, at end add—"The Gaelic and the Scots Languages—
  3A.— The standing orders shall provide that any member of the Parliament shall be entitled to use the Gaelic or the Scots language in the proceedings of the Parliament (including its committees), in official documents, and in correspondence with constituents.'.
  No. 35, in page 57, line 45, at end add—"The Gaelic Language—
  6. The standing orders shall include provision for facilitating the use of the Gaelic language, where appropriate, in the proceedings and the publications of the Parliament.'.
  Mrs. Ewing: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 118 and 119, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I am pleased also to note that amendment No. 35, in the name of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), is grouped with them.
  It is important to start by pointing out that, throughout the many years that I have served in this place, there has been a very broad consensus, spanning both sides of the House, on the protection and enhancement of the Gaelic language and, indeed, the Scots language.
  I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), is on the Treasury Bench. I hope that, in view of that consensus, we shall receive from him tonight a response that takes account of the sentiments and principles that are contained in the amendments. It is vital that our first languages are seen as very important in a new Scottish Parliament. It is appropriate that we are discussing these issues during the season of Burns suppers, which many hon. Members will be well aware of. We are all stappit to the gunnells with haggis, bashed neeps and champit tatties, washed down with a good wee nip of uisge beatha. It is appropriate that we should be using these words at this stage because they are natural words to all Scottish Members.
  I remember that, when I was a student at the university of Glasgow, where I read English language and literature, I found myself in a strange lecture in which the lecturer thought that he knew all the answers. He kept throwing out words at the students to see if we could understand what he was saying. I found myself in almost an isolationist position, because when he used phrases like "sneck the yett," or being "oot o kilter," or "It is a mochy day," I knew exactly what he meant. Those words were as natural to me as breathing.
  It is wrong for us ever to feel like indulging in mockery against the use of good Scots words or the Gaelic language. An element of mockery came back to me from that class, as though I were a strange person from another planet because I understood those words—as though that was inappropriate.
  544
  Similar mockery has often greeted the Gaelic language. Many hon. Members know that my predecessor as parliamentary leader of the Scottish National party was the very much respected Donald Stewart, the then Member for the Western Isles. His much respected wife, Chrissie, who did a great deal of work in a political context, told me that, as a youngster, she was forced to wear a wooden necklace as a punishment for speaking her native Gaelic as her first language in school. That mockery, and such demeaning of a language, is unacceptable.
  I do not claim to be a fluent Gaelic speaker or to be an expert on the language. I suspect that, like many others, I can say "slainte" and "slainte mhath" and manage to get through some conversations in the islands and other Gaelic-speaking areas—including Glasgow, where there are probably more Gaelic speakers than in some of the islands.
  I would just say to the House, "De ma tha daoine ag iarraidh bruidhinn anns a Gháidhlig," which means, "What if people want to speak Gaelic?"
  The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Lady goes further, perhaps I may read a brief extract from "Erskine May":
  "Speeches must be made in English, but quotation in another language has been allowed on occasion, though a translation should be provided."
  I trust that the hon. Lady will now give us the translation.
  Mrs. Ewing: I actually gave a translation: "What if people want to speak Gaelic?" I think, Mr. Lord, that you have made my point, because, to the vast majority of people in Scotland, Gaelic is not a foreign language but their native language—their first language. Amendment No. 118 would not compel anyone to speak in Gaelic. The issue is the right of native Gaelic speakers to use their language, in a Scottish Parliament, with translation facilities available.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Will the hon. Lady reconsider her statement that the vast majority of her fellow Scots can speak and understand Gaelic? That is not my impression. The vast majority of Scots may well be sympathetic to the position of those who can speak Gaelic and wish to continue to do so, but it is not correct to say that the vast majority can use it.
  Mrs. Ewing: As the hon. Gentleman probably understands, that was a slight slip of the tongue. The vast majority of native Gaelic speakers expect it to be their right to communicate in Gaelic. I have stated clearly that I am not seeking any form of compulsion. The hon. Gentleman must know that in a constituency such as his, there are many, many native Gaelic speakers who want their language to be used in the Scottish Parliament.
  The amendments do not seek any form of compulsion. Let me say to all the bluffelheids who do not understand either Scots or Gaelic that I will not force bluffelheids to learn Gaelic, or Gaels to learn either the Doric or the Gaelic. All I want is a recognition of all those languages in the proceedings of the new Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Connarty rose—
  Mrs. Ewing: I give way to the bluffelheid.
  Mr. Connarty: The hon. Lady started with a good argument for providing support for people who wish to

  545
  use Gaelic—I see the case for using it in reply to constituents, for example—but to argue that people should have the facility to use Gaelic in the debates of a Parliament, the majority of whose Members will be non-Gaelic speakers and will not understand Gaelic, is to demean the entire case. If Members want to stand up, speak to others and convince them in a debate, as the hon. Lady is doing now, surely they must speak in a language that everyone understands, so that the discussion can proceed. It will only mystify the process if a Member is allowed to ring himself round with a language that no one else understands.
  6 pm
  Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman has shown that he has not read the amendments carefully. Had he done so, he would realise that his comments are irrelevant to the discussion. Other countries use such facilities. I am asking for a policy that ensures the reasonable use of Scotland's languages, which would require only a tiny share of the operating budget of the Scottish Parliament.
  Parliaments around the world, both state legislatures—for example, in Switzerland, Ireland, Canada and India—and federal institutions such as regional Parliaments in Galicia and Catalonia, have adopted policies permitting the use of more than one language in legislative debates. I accept the complexities of achieving that, but I argue strongly that such facilities should be available to the Members of the Scottish Parliament and to their constituents when they wish to communicate with them.
  That would not necessarily require all speeches to be translated into Gaelic or Scots. We all accept that English would probably be the main language in the Scottish Parliament. The cost of making available a translation facility for native Gaelic or Scots speakers, compared with the translation costs of the European Union as it expands, would be minimal. It is not much to ask.
  The amendments seek simple and inexpensive ways to respect our languages. Any Member should have the right to use Gaelic or Scots in the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament, should she or he so choose. The Scottish Parliament should follow a formal policy of actively promoting the use of Gaelic and Scots in its documents, especially, but not exclusively, in documents intended for distribution to the public.
  Miss Anne Begg: I am a little confused. Will the hon. Lady clarify what she means by the Scots language? She has talked about the Doric and the dialect languages of Scotland. Is she referring to standard Scots, which does not yet exist, or exists only in history? What language will the simultaneous translation be in? Most people who live in Scotland do not speak a pure form of Scots. They may be able to read it, but they certainly cannot speak it.
  Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Lady has opened a debate which has defied many people who have tried to write their PhD thesis on the definition of the Scots language. She and I, both representing seats in the north-east of Scotland, would recognise that there are words that are difficult to translate into English, but which have a particular
  546
  significance for the people in our area. Lallans, the language from the borders, which was my father's language, is slightly different, but there are many nuances that are similar to the Doric. Such words encapsulate emotions and ideas, and the right to use them in a Scottish Parliament is extremely important to us. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that.
  Mr. Ancram: I am listening to the hon. Lady, and I understand that she is trying to provide for simultaneous translation machinery. How is it possible to simultaneously translate a word which, as she has just said, is incapable of translation into English? Also, how would she deal with the language of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who slips effortlessly between Scottish and English during most of his speeches in the House?
  Mrs. Ewing: That is a really silly comment from the right hon. Gentleman, given his Scottish roots. He must be well aware of certain words used daily in the Scottish context that do not stand easy, direct or 100 per cent. effective translation, but are meaningful to people.
  One of the few pleasures of working in this place for almost 18 years is to have listened to hon. Members from other areas of the United Kingdom, who have used particular words that were important to their areas and regions. All that I am asking for is the right of our people in Scotland to use words freely, without being interrupted by the First Minister, the Premier, or the Speaker. As we have heard, we are interrupted if we try to use words in Gaelic, Doric or Lallans because it is not the automatic language of this House.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve rose—
  Mr. Eric Clarke rose—
  Mrs. Ewing: I am sorry. I am trying to be brief, because there are important issues coming up. I have set out my argument clearly.
  Constituents should have the right to correspond with their MSPs in Gaelic or Scots without unreasonable delay. Gaelic and Scots should have high visibility in the Scottish Parliament—for example, on our notepaper and all the signs. There should be a structure for the provision and permanent employment of professional Gaelic and Scots translators. Simultaneous translation equipment should be available for MSPs who wish to use Gaelic or Scots. The Scottish equivalent of Hansard, which I assume we will have, should print any Gaelic or Scots spoken in the House, with the English translation of the text.
  Over many years in the House, I have worked with the cross-party Gaelic group. I have worked with many people from different parties. We have always argued for the support of our languages and cultures, irrespective of which Government were in power. Many of us spent long hours arguing the case. Together, and with support from the European Union, we have achieved a great deal for the languages.
  The amendments do not ask for anything unreasonable or unworkable. Past consensus and the aspirations for future consensus, about which we hear so much, can surely fuse in the amendments.

  547
  Policies to ensure that Scotland's traditional languages survive and flourish in the new millennium are essential. The opening of a new Parliament provides an historic opportunity to create an exciting role for our national languages in the life of our nation. A flexible approach that is open-minded, creative, realistic and practical is required. Sin e.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) has spoken passionately, seriously and sincerely. It being a serious amendment rather than a probing amendment, I make two points.
  I was a member of the indirectly elected European Parliament and I can promise the hon. Lady that the costs of simultaneous translation are mind-boggling. Does the Minister agree with the hon. Lady that we are talking about minimal costs? Like every other Scottish Member, I have increasing constituency demands for Gaelic tuition in central Scotland which turns out to be expensive. As a result, I have discovered that there is a shortage of Gaelic teachers and, doubtless, translators.
  Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman does the lottery or the football pools, he will be familiar with the concepts of permutations or combinations. In other words, if 15 languages are being translated into 15 other languages, that will require a lot of resources because it is 152. If one language is being translated, the costs will be much smaller. The European Parliament, which, by definition, has to translate many languages, is not a good comparison in terms of the costs of the amendment.
  Mr. Dalyell: I was the one who said that speeches should be short because there are so many other matters with which to deal, so I just ask what the Government view is of the hon. Lady's claim that her amendment will give rise to only minimal costs. I do not know the answer.
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I shall speak to amendment No. 35 standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends. It is similar in content, although perhaps more cautious, than that tabled by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). I should first congratulate her on her gallant efforts in using the Gaelic language and the Scots tongue in the debate. I assume that she has carefully written out the correct spelling of what she said for the benefit of the Official Report.
  My amendment would give a strong signal that the Scottish Parliament would seriously develop policies for the future of the language. It would give a lead by including in the Bill the words:
  "provision for facilitating the use of the Gaelic language, where appropriate, in the proceedings and the publications of the Parliament.
  The two words "where appropriate" are important, because, at this stage, I do not know, and I do not think that the Minister knows, how many Gaelic speakers there are likely to be in the Parliament. I hope that there will be a number, but, as the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), will not be there, there may not be too many. We need to nail the lie peddled by some, to which the hon. Member for Moray referred, that Gaelic will be forced down anyone's throat, Gael or non-Gael. Hours of compulsory evening classes for adults or mandatory teaching in schools are not on the agenda.
  548
  Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the Scottish Parliament to provide facilities for those who, for example, are called to give evidence, perhaps to a Committee, so that they can do so in their native tongue. That will not be a costly business. It may happen once every six months or so.
  If the Parliament had facilities for simultaneous translation, representatives from the Gaidhealtachd or from Europe would be able to speak in their native tongue. Someone from Catalonia might prefer to speak in Catalan and would be able to do so.
  I would expect a Parliament geared to the 21st century and using all the modern technologies available to be able to provide those facilities. We have heard from the Secretary of State how the Scottish Parliament will be modern, using high-tech communications, and so on.
  This is an important matter because, as is said from time to time, this may be the last chance saloon for saving the language from gradually declining into oblivion. Whether we succeed only time will tell. I am sorry that the Minister for—
  Mrs. Ewing: Gaelic.
  Mrs. Michie:—Gaelic, the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, is not here because he gave strong indications of his support, particularly for the status of Gaelic.
  I hope that Ministers will appreciate that I have not tried to complicate the Bill by including an amendment on the status of Gaelic, or the legal position of Gaelic as opposed to English, because that is a complicated matter. I hope that the Minister for Gaelic will come forward with ideas in the near future as he said.
  Mr. Ancram: Given what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) said in the previous debate, if ever there was a matter that should be decided by the Scottish Parliament and not by this Committee, is it not this one?
  6.15 pm
  Mrs. Michie: The right hon. Gentleman is right, but we want to put this small measure in the Bill so that it shows that the Government have taken on board a concern for the future of Gaelic.
  Good progress has been made in the past 10 years or so. The Minister for Gaelic paid tribute to the Conservative Government during the last 10 years because they did a lot to help the Gaelic language.
  Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Does the hon. Lady have any idea how many Gaelic speakers are not fluent and skilled in the English language? Who will decide what is appropriate? Does she have a definition of when it would be appropriate to use the Gaelic language. As far as I can see, the amendment is wide and would not be helpful to the Parliament.
  Mrs. Michie: Only a few now speak Gaelic, but it is not so long ago that my husband went to school as a five-year-old not speaking a word of English. However, he became a consultant physician, so it was not a deterrent to him in the end.

  549
  The hon. Lady says that the amendment is not helpful, but it would be helpful to people who speak Gaelic as their main language if they were to come to the Parliament. I am not saying that the proceedings in the Chamber should be conducted in Gaelic, but if such people were to speak to a Committee, they might wish to do so in their native language, not in a foreign tongue.
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Does the hon. Lady agree that the attitude evinced by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) of "Let them speak English" is precisely why the speaking of Gaelic has declined and has the status that it has today?
  Mrs. Michie: The hon. Lady makes a good point.
  I acknowledge that good progress has been made. There are some excellent Gaelic-medium units in schools, jobs have been created in the media and there is an increasing awareness of the urgent need for more teachers able to teach through the medium of Gaelic. It has been established beyond doubt that children who are bilingual by the age of five, six or seven find it much easier to learn another language. The Minister for Gaelic, who also has responsibility for education, said recently that he was disturbed about the poor standard of language learning in Scottish schools; he should endorse the fact that those who are bilingual are more likely to learn other languages. I believe that, if the Bill were amended, it would give a strong signal.
  There has been an expansion, too, in the Gaelic "economy" over the past decade, including jobs in education, broadcasting, publishing, administration, the arts, tourism, as well as in the various Gaelic agencies and, of course, the national Mod, which in 1995 attracted some 2,000 entries from home and abroad.
  The amendments show the need for the Bill to contain a commitment to the language. Some will ask, "Why?"—
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Why?
  Mrs. Michie: Because of its value and its worth, not just to Scotland but to the United Kingdom and Europe—indeed, the whole world; there are many Gaelic speakers in Canada, for example—and it has an historic obligation. I have paraphrased what the Minister for Gaelic said in the House.
  Since the 18th century—indeed, since the Union of the Parliaments—Gaelic has suffered enormously. People in power methodically set about eradicating Gaelic culture and consciousness. In many schools and playgrounds, the mother tongue was forbidden. It has a wealth of literature, music, poetry and song. Its culture and tradition enhance and enrich the heart and soul of this nation. We would be Philistines if we allowed that to die. That is why I hope that the Minister will give a favourable response to the amendments. I look forward to his reply.
  Mrs. McKenna: It is important to put on record my support for the Gaelic language. The last Gaelic language unit that the Minister opened was in my constituency, and I have long supported the provision of Gaelic for young children. At one time, there was a pre-school unit in my constituency. A neighbouring constituency still has one,
  550
  and the children, on reaching school age, come to the unit within a school in my constituency, so I support the Gaelic language, and have long done so.
  The point that I was making is that it will be appropriate for the Scottish Parliament to decide, as and when it feels necessary, to make provision for Gaelic, but there is absolutely no need for that at the moment. There is no need to amend the Bill.
  Amendment No. 35 is not helpful, because it says "where appropriate." There is no specific guidance on what that means. It should be for Members of the Scottish Parliament to decide. The hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) said that I was saying, "Let them speak English." That is not the case. However, it is a fact, as the hon. Lady admitted, that few people speak only Gaelic. Once they get to school, there are probably no people who speak only Gaelic. I understand the point that she is making, but if Members of the Scottish Parliament, or people who come to address the Parliament, wish to speak in the Gaelic language, it should be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to decide, not this House.
  Mr. Eric Clarke: I support the speaking of Gaelic. I encourage it, and if it is expensive, so be it. When I was youngster, I was annoyed that I was taught by teachers who told me—battered it into me—to speak properly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Proper."] Not proper, properly. One of those teachers was a highlander and a Gaelic speaker. She did not accept that, as far as we were concerned, we were speaking the Doric, the local language. I was bilingual. What I said at home and what I said in the playground were totally different from what I said to the teachers, because I learn the hard way—if we did not speak properly, we were thumped. [Interruption.] She might not have made a very good job of it.
  On a practical matter, will hon. Members who go to the new Parliament have to be bilingual, as they are in Ireland and Canada? If so, that will cut back on recruitment for the majority of people who I hope will get back into Scotland, or for those who are in Scotland itself. I was on the national executive of the National Union of Mineworkers, with Welsh-speaking members who thought in Welsh and had to translate into English. It is easy to say that they are bilingual, but I am thinking of someone who used to have to think it out and then translate it in his head, and, of course, there was a delay. He was not a computer—
  Mr. Canavan: Was that Scargill?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I would never have understood what Scargill said. I am being facetious. He is a good friend of mine. I am still friendly with him. I jumped at the bait there.
  We are not talking about a dialect; Gaelic is a language. I was thinking about the late Dai Francis, who was general secretary of the Welsh miners.
  I sympathise with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). I am sure that people who become Members of the Scottish Parliament will be sympathetic to Gaelic speakers. I certainly hope they will. I hope that she gets what she wants, but there will be practicalities and difficulties involved. It is really for the Scottish Parliament to sort it out.
  Mr. Grieve: I do not want it to be thought that no Conservative has said anything on this subject, because I endorse every word that has said by the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna), who spoke about the beauty of the Gaelic language. Although I understand it extremely imperfectly, I enjoy hearing it spoken when I am up in Scotland. I certainly enjoy trying to pronounce correctly the names of the mountains that I climb.
  It seems to me to be a matter for the Scottish Assembly to decide—
  Mrs. Ewing: Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Grieve: I apologise to the hon. Lady. That is what comes from going from the Government of Wales Bill to the Scotland Bill. It is for the Scottish Parliament to decide.
  I disagree with the point that was made about the Scottish tongue. My ancestors spoke Lallands, but having listened to a number of hon. Members—in particular the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham), who is not present—I have never had too much difficulty understanding what people from Scotland have to say. I can think of no occasion when someone speaking a Scots version of English in the House has ever been told that they are out of order. Indeed, the Secretary of State slips into "Scoticisms" frequently. I find it difficult to see the need for interpreters. It would simply be the case that in the Scottish Parliament, the note would be reproduced verbatim.
  Mr. Salmond: On the subject of notes, both the Secretary of State and myself, and any other hon. Member who occasionally slips in Scots words, will get notes from the Hansard reporters. The hon. Gentleman might claim to understand the words that we use, but the Hansard writers have some difficulty with them.
  Mr. Grieve: I am bound to say that, very occasionally, perhaps due to an excess of legalese in English, one gets a note from the Hansard writer who is unable to understand some use, or misuse, of the English language.
  Mr. Salmond: That is just the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Grieve: That may be so, but I have never considered that a serious problem. In these circumstances, I would leave that problem to the Scottish Parliament.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. McLeish: I must confess that I am not a Gaelic speaker. When I was a youngster, surviving in Fife and speaking English were major challenges, which I hope I tackled reasonably well.
  The Scottish Office team can claim an historic first because nearly 33 per cent. of Ministers there now speak Gaelic. We shall need some simultaneous interpretation ourselves if there are further developments on that front.
  552
  The proposed regional member system will give us seven new Members from the highlands and islands. Clearly, the prospect of having more Gaelic speakers in the Parliament will be enhanced by that.
  We sympathise with the spirit and most of the substance of the points made by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). We already have in mind interpretation and translation facilities for occasions when a visiting foreign dignitary wishes to address the Parliament in his native tongue. That is important for the spirit of internationalism that we want to bring to the new politics in Scotland. We also recognise that some Members may wish to use Gaelic or Scots, and that translation facilities could be required in that context.
  However, it would be best left to the Parliament, through the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, to decide the staffing requirements, and to decide whether we shall need permanent translators and interpreters, and to what extent they should be provided. Should the Parliament decide that, where appropriate, its proceedings could be in Gaelic and Scots, or that Members could use Gaelic and Scots, the Standing Orders could make the appropriate provision, and the SPCB could make the necessary arrangements.
  The Scottish Office supports use of the Gaelic language and is trying to promote it through education and broadcasting. It is providing £2.2 million in specific grants to education authorities for Gaelic-medium education. More than 1,700 pupils in 50 primary schools in Scotland receive Gaelic-medium education. In addition, more than 200 children in secondary schools receive some Gaelic-medium education.
  This is not the time to discuss that policy, but we are happy to take on board the suggestions that have been made. The consultative steering group, which I chair and which has representatives from all parties, would like an early opportunity to consider this issue. In that spirit, I should like the hon. Member for Moray to make a contribution to that steering group. Although we cannot accept the amendment, I hope that in the spirit of consensus and co-operation that is being offered, we can work together and take the matter forward. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment, in which case we shall be happy to enter into dialogue at an early stage.
  Mrs. Ewing: In the light of the Minister's comments, I am willing to ensure that substantial submissions are made to the Procedure Committee. They will be made not just by me, but by many organisations with a more extensive knowledge of the issue than I have.
  It was important to raise this issue and to reassure people that the door is not being closed on the possibility of having those facilities in our new Scottish Parliament. I was interested to note that 33 per cent. of the Scottish Office team claim to speak Gaelic. In the light of the very good comments made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), there is a Gaelic saying:
  "Not all the mischief lies with Bute; some of it is in Cumbrae hardby."
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

  SCOTTISH PARLIAMENTARY CORPORATE BODY
  Question proposed, That this schedule be the second schedule to the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: I wish to make a substantial point on this schedule in relation to the independence of Clerks. The schedule provides for the establishment of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which is broadly modelled on the House of Commons Commission, established by the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978. Schedule 2 makes further provision for the SPCB. It is uncontentious, except that the Clerks of the Parliament are referred to as "staff", while their opposite numbers at Westminster are referred to as "officers".
  There are two issues within the schedule. First, unlike the House of Commons arrangements, the Clerk of the Parliament and Assistant Clerks are to be appointed by the SPCB under clause 19(2) and paragraph 3(1) of schedule 2. Under the 1978 Act, the Clerk, any Clerk Assistant, the Serjeant at Arms and the Speaker's personal staff are not appointed by the House of Commons Commission. In practice, the personal staff of the Speaker have the 1978 Act applied to them, although the Speaker retains the power to appoint such staff and to determine their tenure of office.
  The Clerk of the House of Commons is appointed by the Crown for life, by letters patent; the Clerk Assistant is appointed by the Crown, under the sign manual, on the Speaker's recommendation, and is removable only upon an address of the House of Commons. The appointment of the Serjeant at Arms is a gift of the Queen under a warrant from the Lord Chamberlain, and the duties are prescribed by patent under the Great Seal. The significance of that is that the senior officers of the House of Commons have a degree of independence, which is an important consideration in giving advice on what may be politically contentious matters.
  Are the Government convinced that the same independence is guaranteed at Holyrood? The background may be arcane, but the nub issue is the independence of the Clerks.
  My second point is that, unlike the 1978 Act, no specific provision appears to have been made to apply employment legislation to those employed by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Are those employed by the SPCB employed at the pleasure of the Crown, under general employment law, or are they subject to instructions given to the SPCB by the Scottish Parliament?
  If the Minister wants to reflect on those complicated matters and give me an answer on Report, he will have no complaint from me.
  Mr. McLeish: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the independence that is required, and I want to reassure him on that point. Paragraph 3(3) of schedule 2 says:
  "It is for the corporation to determine the terms and conditions of appointment of the staff of the Parliament, including arrangements for the payment of pensions".
  554
  That is written into the Bill and that is what will happen.
  On my hon. Friend's second question about employment conditions, I think that what he said will apply, but I should like to get some details on the matter before responding.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 21

  STANDING ORDERS
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: Can the Government confirm that the sub judice rule will be the same in relation to proceedings of the Scottish Parliament as it is in the House of Commons? They may be unable to bind the Scottish Parliament because of Standing Orders. What are the Speaker's rights and privileges in relation to withdrawing the rights and privileges of a Member for a period of exclusion?
  That question is not purely hypothetical. As the Secretary of State may recollect, when he was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the late Anthony Crosland and I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the late Dick Crossman, I got into a great deal of trouble with the Privileges Committee over Porton, and chemical and biological weapons—even in those days. I got the rough end of the Privileges Committee. The question of exclusion has not just been whisked out of the air, and clause 21 gives us cause for reflection.
  Mr. McLeish: We shall discuss sub judice next. Clearly, there will be a duty on the Scottish Parliament. There will also be a duty on the Parliament to ensure that exclusions are dealt with under Standing Orders. It is an important relationship, which must be defined, and that will be taken care of.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

  STANDING ORDERS—FURTHER PROVISION
  Mr. McLeish: I beg to move amendment No. 219, in schedule 3, page 57, line 17, after 'for', insert "(a)'.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 220 and 221.
  No. 34, in page 57, line 45, leave out 'Cornwall' and insert Rothesay'.
  Mr. McLeish: The purpose of amendments Nos. 219 and 220 is to make it quite clear that the Scottish Parliament will be required to make provision in its Standing Orders for a sub judice rule.
  Paragraph 1(1) of schedule 3 already requires the Parliament to include in its Standing Orders provision for preserving order in the proceedings of the Parliament, including provision for preventing conduct that would constitute a criminal offence or contempt of court.

  555
  In reviewing this schedule, the Government have concluded that it does not impose a sufficiently clear requirement on the Scottish Parliament to make provision for a sub judice rule. Without such a rule, the Presiding Officer could be left in considerable doubt as to whether to make a determination to the effect that discussion would be likely to constitute a contempt of court and should therefore be prevented. Discussion may be justified on the grounds that it is incidental to a discussion in good faith of public affairs, and that would make it difficult for the presiding officer to act unless he or she had all the details and circumstances of the particular case. For that reason, there is a serious risk that discussion would take place and that criminal proceedings would be prejudiced before the presiding officer was able to make his or her decision.
  The Government are conscious that the solution to this problem must balance three factors: first, the legitimate discretion of the Parliament over the creation of its own Standing Orders; secondly, the importance of preventing public discussion of matters that would result in prejudicing court proceedings, thus damaging the workability of the judicial system in Scotland; and, thirdly, the need to maintain the right to freedom of speech in line with rights under the European convention on human rights.
  We have concluded that the best way in which to deal with this point is to require the Scottish Parliament to establish Standing Orders relating to sub judice, but to leave those Standing Orders to be developed in line with those three considerations. Account will, no doubt, be taken of the sub judice resolution that applies to proceedings of the House of Commons.
  Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 simply insert a requirement into paragraph 1(1) of schedule 3 that the Scottish Parliament must make provision in its Standing Orders for a sub judice rule. It will be left to the Parliament to determine the details of that rule. A responsible Parliament must make provision to ensure that proper discussion of public affairs does not prejudice court proceedings. The amendments will ensure that the Scottish Parliament has to make appropriate provision.
  Amendment No. 221 will allow the Standing Orders to make provision for the withholding of rights and privileges, including salary and allowances, from any Member of the Scottish Parliament in respect of any period during which he or she is excluded under Standing Orders relating to the preservation of order.
  6.45 pm
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I want to speak to my amendment No. 34, which would alter the clause so that it refers to the Duke of Rothesay instead of to the Duke of Cornwall in the paragraph referring to Crown interests and the requirement of royal consent for a Bill. One of Prince Charles's titles is that of Duke of Rothesay, and it would be more appropriate for that Scottish title to be used instead of the title Duke of Cornwall. It would be a gesture of some sensitivity, as Rothesay will this year celebrate the fact that 600 years ago, in 1498, King Robert III conferred the title on his eldest son, David, and it has been borne by the sovereign's eldest son ever since. It would be a tribute to the town of Rothesay, which in 2001 celebrates 600 years as a royal burgh.
  The title of Duke of Rothesay would also be a fitting tribute to the Prince of Wales. It is entirely appropriate that a Bill that re-establishes the Scottish Parliament
  556
  should refer to the heir to the throne as the Duke of Rothesay. I do not know whether the Minister will accept the amendment, but it is only small, and he has not accepted any amendments so far. He may say that he cannot accept it because of the archaic rules on titles, lines of succession, and heirs and successors, about which I know little and understand even less. Rules can be altered, however, particularly archaic rules. I ask him to seek an audience with the Queen.
  Mr. McLeish: And with the Keeper of the Seal.
  Mrs. Michie: Indeed. The Minister should ask the Queen whether it is in her power to change the rules. It would not lead to the end of the House of Windsor or to the demise of the Scottish Office and all its Ministers, no matter how close they will be to Holyrood house.
  I ask the Minister to give the amendment serious consideration. It would be better if the Bill referred to Prince Charles as the Duke of Rothesay. The town of Rothesay would be delighted if the Minister accepted the amendment.
  Mr. McAllion: Will the Minister explain why there has to be any reference to the Duke of Cornwall, to the Duke of Rothesay or to Her Majesty the Queen? Why should the strengthening of democracy represented by the establishment of a Scottish Parliament be watered down by making Bills passed by that democratic Parliament subject to the assent of people who are unelected?
  Mr. Dalyell: I think it pretty churlish of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) not to mention all those famous conferences of the Scottish Labour party that have taken place at Rothesay. Those of us who have braved the boat back in choppy waters feel quite strongly—[Interruption.] I do not know what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State just said sotto voce, but I think he remembers one of those occasions.
  What prompted the Government to table amendment No. 221? I am not saying that the drafting was bad or defective, but I should like to know whether there was a reason for the afterthought. It is not an unimportant amendment.
  Mr. Salmond: I associate myself with what was said by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I think that both of us have been victims in the sense of having our rights and privileges withdrawn.
  I am sure that the Scottish Parliament will appreciate that, if a Member's rights and privileges must be withdrawn—which they may well have to be—the matter must come before the whole Parliament rather than being disposed of by Whips, Committees or anything of that nature.
  Amendment No. 220 refers to a sub judice rule. I know that amendment No. 221 deals with the question of rights and privileges, but I should like to hear from the Minister that the Parliament will have the right to be protected from defamation actions. That is an essential prerequisite for any Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow spoke of braving the waters. I am certain that he knows the exact latitude and longitude and the direction of the boat, as he knows all about naval vessels at sea. The Scottish National party is

  557
  the party that most recently held an annual conference at Rothesay, and a tremendous place it was, too—and a tremendous conference.
  Just over a year ago, we attended a ceremony marking the return of the Stone of Destiny. Numerous people of whom I had never heard were higher in the order of precedence than the Secretary of State for Scotland—or, for that matter, the Scottish First Minister-to-be—and certainly higher than any lowly Member of Parliament. There was for instance, the Gold Stick for Scotland, who I had always thought was the snooker player Mr. Hendry.
  Mr. Dalyell: The Gold Stick in Waiting.
  Mr. Salmond: The Gold Stick in Waiting as well. I learn something every day.
  I wish that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) had drafted her amendment No. 34 more widely, to establish whether the Scottish Parliament could dispose of some of these unnecessary titles of which no one has heard, and which should not clutter up the scene in case anyone mistakes their holders for people who have been elected or have a democratic mandate, or a right to carry a gold stick or anything else.
  As for the Government amendments, I hope that the Minister can reassure us that he will not be sending all the bad boys and girls away for two weeks without due process, and that Parliament will be protected from defamation actions, as any genuinely inquisitorial Parliament must be.
  Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister explain why schedule 3(5) is needed? Why would some Bills require the consent of Her Majesty, the Prince and Steward of Scotland or the Duke of Cornwall—who, I have now learnt, is also the Duke of Rothesay? I know who Her Majesty is, but who on earth is the Prince and Steward of Scotland? When did the people of Scotland ever elect any prince or steward for Scotland, and why does that person's consent have to be sought before a Scottish Bill becomes the law of the land?
  Mr. McLeish: I can tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that the MSPs will be covered in regard to defamation. I believe that we shall be having further discussions about privilege at a later stage.
  Let me reply to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about amendment No. 221. Clause 76 requires the Parliament to
  "make provision for the payment of salaries to members of the Parliament",
  but it does not expressly make provision for the withdrawal of any salary when a Member is excluded. In view of the powers that the Parliament has to make provision in the Standing Orders for excluding a Member, under schedule 3(1), it is considered that those powers should be supplemented by a general power providing that such a Member should lose his rights and privileges, including his salary. That reinforces the nature of exclusion as a punishment and a deterrent, and is similar to the powers relating to Members of this Parliament. Let me tell the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, as a
  558
  postscript, that it will be a matter for the Parliament; nothing will be done behind closed doors to the disadvantage of natural justice.
  The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) complemented that of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who made such a compelling case that it troubles me greatly to have to disappoint her. Of course we all celebrate the 500th anniversary of the first application of the title Duke of Rothesay to the sovereign's eldest son, but I am afraid that that is not a satisfactory basis on which to accept her amendment.
  The provision in schedule 3(5) places Bills of the Scottish Parliament in the same position as Bills of the Westminster Parliament in terms of their requirement to obtain the consent of Her Majesty, the Prince and Steward of Scotland or the Duke of Cornwall when a provision in a Bill impacts on certain Crown interests. There is no duty in Westminster to obtain the consent of the Duke of Rothesay, and I therefore cannot accept the amendment, which would place an unnecessary duty on the Scottish Parliament. To delete the reference to Cornwall would remove that duty to obtain consent, and would subject Bills of a Scottish Parliament to different arrangements in respect of Crown interests from those pertaining at Westminster.
  Mr. Wallace: What interests, if any, has the Duke of Cornwall in Scotland?
  Mr. McLeish: The point is being made in relation to what exists, but also in relation to what could happen in the future.
  Mr. Grieve: Could we not just refer to "the Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay"? I think that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) had a point. I also appreciate the need to stay on a par with procedure in this Parliament, but I wondered whether the Minister would consider my suggestion, which would reflect the status of the heir to the throne in Scotland.
  Mr. McLeish rose—
  The Chairman: Order. I understood that the Minister was still making his speech, and had given way. Is that correct?
  Mr. McLeish: I had finished my speech, Sir Alan.
  A serious point is involved here. We are trying to achieve consistency in the submission of Bills. Of course we are talking about a similar person, but, ultimately, I do not think that it is for us to depart from the present arrangements, although there may be good historical and other reasons, which other hon. Members have advanced.
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan rose—
  The Chairman: Order. The Minister has just sat down; is the hon. Gentleman trying to catch my eye?
  Mr. Morgan: Yes, Sir Alan.
  Instead of making an intervention, I shall make a very short speech.

  559
  It strikes me that, as the Duke of Rothesay is the Duke of Cornwall, it really does not matter which title is in the Bill, and I therefore do not understand why the Government are unhappy about using the words "Duke of Rothesay". Do they fear that at some future stage the two titles may separate, and not be held by the same person? That is an interesting diversion on which we could speculate, but I do not think it likely. As the Duke of Rothesay is the Duke of Cornwall, what on earth is wrong with using that title in the Bill?
  Mr. Canavan: The situation is becoming more confusing as the debate continues. Since my earlier speech, I have been informed, albeit informally, that the Prince and Steward of Scotland is also the Prince of Wales, and the Duke of Cornwall, and the Duke of Rothesay. Why on earth should he get two mentions when even his mum gets only one—and now it is suggested that he should have three mentions?
  Mr. Ancram: There is obviously some concern. The Minister is not known for being particularly flexible on occasions such as this, but on this occasion, will he take the proposal away and look at it?
  Mr. McLeish: Some interesting comments have been made, but we are not inclined to accept amendment No. 34.
  Mr. Salmond: The Minister is being rather inflexible. Several points have been made in the debate, and the Bill still has a few stages to go. Without giving a commitment, perhaps he and his officials will examine the matter. It does seem that there is rather a surfeit of titles for the Duke of Cornwall, and perhaps a slimming down or the addition of "Rothesay" will satisfy the concerned hon. Members. Perhaps the Minister will re-examine particularly the point made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).
  Dr. Liam Fox: I fully appreciate the position that the Minister now finds himself in—he probably does not have a contingency note for the constitutional crisis now engulfing him. However, I believe that it is unnecessarily brittle to reject out of hand the comments of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). To make matters easy for him—and if the hon. Lady does not press her amendment—the official Opposition will attempt to reintroduce it in the other place, to give the Government time to think about it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 220, in page 57, line 18, at end insert
  "and
  (b) a sub judice rule.'.
  No. 221, in page 57, in line 20, at end insert
  "and for withdrawing his rights and privileges as a member for the period of his exclusion'.—[Mr. McLeish.]
  7 pm
  Mrs. Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 57, line 40, at end insert—
  '(4) The standing orders shall include provision to allow members of the European Parliament to sit on any committee or sub—committee charged with the scrutiny of European Commission documents or European legislation.'.
  560
  The amendment is simple. I tell hon. Members who are interested in the European issue that there will be opportunities later in the Bill's passage to examine the complexities of the relationship between European institutions and the proposed Scottish Parliament, and that perhaps they should not try to fire all their ammunition now.
  In moving the amendment, I am trying to discover what Ministers believe should be the link between Members of the European Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament. I am not saying in the amendment that MEPs should sit on Committees and have automatic voting rights, merely that they should be enabled to be in the Scottish Parliament and to assist any Committee that will be established to scrutinise European legislation. If the principle of involvement were conceded, I am sure that the Scottish Parliament could itself examine how such Committees might evolve.
  I have studied other Parliaments and how their Members link in with Members of the European Parliament. I am specifically dealing with scrutiny committees—not policy committees—examining proposals from the Commission.
  In Belgium, for example, the scrutiny committee consists of 10 MEPs and 10 MPs. In Denmark, MEPs can attend the scrutiny committee if they have a dual mandate. In Germany, in the Bundestag, 50 MPs are involved in scrutiny, 39 of whom are directly elected to the Bundestag and 11 of whom are MEPs. There is provision in the Bundesrat, composed of members from the various Lander, to allow MEPs to sit on scrutiny committees. In Greece, 31 members scrutinise European legislation, including 10 MEPs. Spain has provided for joint meetings.
  In France, MEPs are invited to give evidence on technical measures. In Ireland and Italy, there is provision for MEPs attend such meetings. In Luxembourg, MEPs attend in an advisory capacity. There are regular meetings with MEPs in the Netherlands. Austria has no formal arrangements. Finland's MEPs are heard as experts. Portugal provides for regular meetings. In the United Kingdom, there are no formal arrangements and no direct links.
  I accept that scrutiny committees work in different ways in different countries. As we establish the Scottish Parliament, we should consider how important Europe is to the electorate of Scotland, because many issues are now dealt with in European legislation.
  With other hon. Members, I serve on the Select Committee on European Legislation. In one year, our Committee scrutinised 1,356 documents. Of those, 50 were recommended for debate—12 on the Floor of the House, and 38 in Standing Committees. That substantial amount of legislation—the gamut of European legislation—has an impact on the Scottish economy, on Scottish society and on the Scottish environment.
  I should like us to consider the possibility of the Scottish Parliament immediately opening its doors to the expertise and knowledge of those who work within the European Parliament, enabling us to examine the impact of European proposals on our country of Scotland. That would be logical.
  For a long time, MEPs have not had freedom of access or easy access in the House to telephones, for example, or to fax machines or to Brussels. It was a long and

  561
  hard-fought campaign. Hon. Members are now eligible for one trip per year on Commission business to either Brussels or Strasbourg. There is an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to say, "Let's examine how other Parliaments in the European Union operate, and consider some of their ideas."
  The amendment will not tie us into granting any rigorous rights or means of domination. It will merely open doors to ensure that those who are elected—only a month after the Scottish Parliament elections—by our electorate in Scotland are given the right to come to our Parliament and to be involved in discussions affecting us. That is the amendment's underpinning ethos.
  The European Parliament is the most democratic of all European institutions. MEPs are not appointed or delegated—they are elected by the people. In a newly elected Scottish Parliament, we should involve those who are directly elected. The expertise that MEPs could bring to our scrutiny would be to the benefit of us all.
  Mr. Dalyell: Having been a member of the Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of that clever man Julius Silverman, I find myself extremely sympathetic to the aims of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). Incidentally, gently and without malice, I think that she may have scored a little bit of parliamentary history or a parliamentary first. I doubt whether—in the whole history of this Parliament's 700 years or whatever it is—anyone has ever before proposed a "co-opt my mother-in-law" amendment. I do not know whether we should call it the "co-opt Winnie Ewing" amendment.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): My hon. Friend is supposed to be supporting the amendment.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to do it any harm, because I certainly do support it, having been a Member of the indirectly elected Parliament and also a member of the Scrutiny Committee. My only trouble is that, if we co-opt Members of the European Parliament, where will it end? Should Members of the European Parliament be co-opted to the Council, or vice versa? However, using Members of the European Parliament for European legislation is a special case. Speaking for myself, I should like to think that, if there is to be an assembly at Holyrood, David Martin, the distinguished MEP for Lothians, will be able to play a part in it. I support the amendment.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I share the hon. Lady's warmth of feeling about the potential that Members of the European Parliament can offer the process of scrutiny. I, too, have sat on Scrutiny Committees. We are told that we have one of the best systems of pre-scrutiny of draft European legislation. To use a phrase in a foreign language, "Cela laisse un peu à désirer."
  There is scant evidence that our deliberations have much influence on the process of drafting and negotiating European legislation. However, such proposals must be welcome if they create a community of ideas between different levels of government within the European Community.
  562
  We do not support the amendment, however, as we believe that it should be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Just as we decide whether to bring Members of the European Parliament into our proceedings, that should be for the Scottish Parliament to decide, and not something that we should impose on it.
  Mrs. McKenna: I sympathise with what the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, but her proposal is too prescriptive. The Standing Orders provide a framework within which the Scottish Parliament can operate, but many issues have been unexplored or misunderstood, as the Scottish Parliament will be in a much stronger position within the European Union than the Scottish National party has suggested.
  For example, the Scottish Parliament will be able to appoint a Member to the Committee of the Regions. The Committee of the Regions comprises members of any parliamentary or Government organisation below the level of national Government. Clearly, the Scottish Parliament will fall into that category. As a result, when the Scottish Parliament is involved in pre-legislative consultation, it will be in a strong position. It will be able to make representations and to scrutinise European legislation as it is being prepared.
  The amendment is far too prescriptive, as it leaves a host of possibilities in the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and Europe unexplored. The Parliament should have wider powers than the amendment would provide. I hope that it will be a listening and involved Parliament, that it will operate quite differently from this place, and that its Members will be invited to attend Committees and participate in decision making. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn, because it should be a decision for the Scottish Parliament—once all the avenues have been explored, it should decide how it will operate.
  Mr. Gorrie: We support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). My hon. Friends and I have been airing other possibilities whereby the Scottish Parliament could experiment with Committees with full Members who were not Members of the Scottish Parliament. Instead of MSPs talking to deputations, people outside the Scottish Parliament who knew about or worked in a particular field—whether it was health, education or transport—as deliverers or users of services could join MSPs on Scrutiny Committees. The amendment is an extension of that.
  We hope that the Scottish Parliament will experiment with much more flexible Committees than those in the House. Whether that is achieved through its Standing Orders or by accepting the hon. Lady's amendment, I believe that it would be a move in the right direction.
  Mr. McLeish: Once again, we are sympathetic to the spirit and the concept of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). We want to make the Scottish Parliament different, and everyone in Scotland has accepted that it should have different machinery and procedures. There has been particular emphasis on pre-legislation discussions before Bills are published, and great play has been made of the fact that European legislation should have much greater scrutiny than it does in the House.

  563
  The hon. Lady referred to Europe. We are learning from Europe as we develop policies for the Scottish Parliament. That is part of the work of the consultative steering group, and it is important that we accept that the spirit of doing things differently and learning from Europe is fundamental to what we want to achieve.
  7.15 pm
  There may be occasions when contributions by MEPs might help in the consideration of EU proposals. However, how best to achieve that is a matter that should be left to the Scottish Parliament to decide.
  Hon. Members must appreciate that the Scottish Parliament's Committees and sub-Committees will be composed of MSPs. It is obviously right and proper that only elected Members should have the right to vote when Committees take decisions. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is not suggesting anything to the contrary. Special provision is made in the Bill for the case where the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General are not Members of the Scottish Parliament. However, that does not prevent the Parliament from deciding whether and how to make provision in its Standing Orders on arrangements for inviting non-Members of the Parliament to attend Committees and participate in their deliberations, so that the benefit of their knowledge and experience is available to the Parliament. Again, I anticipate broad agreement that that is a sensible and constructive proposal.
  I suggest that the matter might be taken up by the all-party consultative steering group, which has been established to look at the detailed Standing Orders for the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Lady smiles, but that is a genuine expression of sympathy for the points that have been raised. We have the opportunity within the consultative steering group and subsequently within the Standing Orders of the new Parliament to establish a proper precedent and procedure.
  In view of that, I should be grateful if the hon. Lady withdrew her amendment, so that we can discuss how best the matter can be taken forward in the forum that we have to examine the pre-Standing Order position, and in the Parliament itself when it is established.
  Mrs. Ewing: I have listened with interest to the comments in this short debate, and I shall not detain the Committee for long. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) seems to be personalising almost every amendment. Last night we had the "Sean Connery enabling amendment" and tonight it has been the "co-opt my mother-in-law" amendment. I was not proposing co-opting my mother-in-law, although she would be most effective in any Committee dealing with European legislation. However, it was important to explore the proposal in the context of the Scottish Parliament.
  The exchanges that I have had with the Secretary of State about derogations and who takes the ultimate decision, and the long letters that were sometimes very difficult to comprehend, suggest there is a need for co-ordination between elected MEPs and MSPs
  Mr. Dewar: Just to clarify a matter of some interest and importance, is it not true that the hon. Lady's mother-in-law has announced that she will not be a Member of the European Parliament after the next election?
  Mrs. Ewing: The Secretary of State is not following matters carefully, because consultation is currently under
  564
  way in my mother-in-law's constituency. I know that the Secretary of State has addressed the issue through the Highlands and Islands Convention. Because of the changes in the elections to the European Parliament in Scotland, whereby eight MEPs will represent Scotland, the Highlands and Islands Convention is having to address proper representation and co-operation. In the context of the Scottish Parliament, there could be an extension of that argument, on which he and I agree.
  Dr. Fox: As a matter of interest, is the logic of the hon. Lady's case that there would be circumstances in which she would envisage benefit being achieved from co-opting Scottish Members here to Committees of the Scottish Parliament, for the same reasons that she has given in respect of European legislation?
  Mrs. Ewing: That does not apply to the schedule. You would rule me out of order, Sir Alan, if I carried on. There is a case for the Scottish Parliament to consider new ways of dealing with the information that comes to it and bringing in expertise. None of us wants to be narrow on that. That was the attitude behind the amendment.
  Although I shall seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment, the Minister of State is beginning to give the steering committee a lot of hard work. I gave a very short precis of how other Parliaments work with their MEPs. The steering committee may be in danger of taking issues away from the House and not bringing them back at an effective stage. Perhaps he could ensure that that is given serious consideration on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22

  MEMBERS' INTERESTS
  Dr. Fox: I beg to move amendment No. 159, in page 10, line 33, after 'person', insert
  ", organisation or trade union'.
  The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 160, in page 10, line 38, after 'person', insert
  ", organisation or trade union'.
  Government amendment No. 222.
  Dr. Fox: We want to get through a great deal of material this evening. I hope that the Committee will understand that the length of time that I take on the amendment does not detract from the seriousness with which we regard the issue.
  The White Paper says that the Parliament must be open, responsive and accountable. It confirms that Standing Orders will cover Members' pecuniary interests. The Bill says that the Standing Orders must prohibit Members from advocating a matter
  "on behalf of any person by any means specified"
  or from urging any other Members to do so in return for payment or benefit.

  565
  I shall not detain the Committee by going over recent history, the traumas that Parliament has been through, and the measures that we put in place to deal with such matters, or mentioning any of the on-going sagas involving hon. Members on both sides. That is irrelevant. However, it is important that the Scottish Parliament should have an opportunity for clarity and transparency with the new measures to be put in place.
  Given the current and past political culture in Scotland, the Minister should consider our amendment, which would add "organisation or trade union" after "person". We know about the close relationship between the trade unions and the Labour party, which remains the largest party in Scotland. The relationship is stronger in Midlothian and Sedgefield than in Islington, where the Labour party probably attracts the appropriate residents. Without the amendment, the Government may be open to the charge of having one rule for their friends and other rules for the rest.
  Mr. Canavan: Does the definition of "organisation" include limited companies and lobbying organisations, from which many Tory Members of Parliament have accepted huge amounts of money to further their cause?
  Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman belittles the debate. I do not want to get involved in the petty accusations that tend to bedevil such debates. I hope that it will be made clear from the outset that the definition includes companies and lobbying organisations. If the Government do not accept the amendment, I hope that they will come up with their own.
  The House has always had a tradition that declarations of interest are not made during oral questions because of the time that that would take. Why do the Government think that there should be different arrangements for the Scottish Parliament?
  I also wonder whether the Bill should include a provision to prevent or restrict participation in the proceedings of the Parliament by a Member with a registerable interest. Surely the important fact is that the Member should register and declare the interest. That should guarantee that the Parliament knows whose case he may be advocating. If that is transparent, I do not know why there is any need for a power to prevent or restrict.
  Mr. Salmond: Let us say that a Member of this House declared that he was paid by Westminster Communications—a lobbying company with hundreds of clients. How would the House know for which, if any, of those hundreds of clients the Member was making a case?
  Dr. Fox: The best way would be by asking questions openly in a democratic debate. I do not understand the benefit of preventing or restricting the participation of a Member. Declaring and registering an interest should be enough. There is a chance to avoid some of the pitfalls that we have had here in recent years. The Minister should take the opportunity to make matters clearer and more transparent from the outset. If he cannot accept our
  566
  amendments, he should give a commitment to consider similar amendments to ensure that there is not one rule for one and another rule for others.
  Mr. Dalyell: I hope that this is the right time to make these points. The Law Society of Scotland is of the view that important matters such as the Register of Members' Interests, being in primary legislation, should be subject to adequate parliamentary scrutiny, and should not be formulated in Standing Orders, which could be subject to simple amendment procedures. It is also concerned that the clause creates the framework for an offence provision but delegates the scope of that offence to the Scottish Parliament in its Standing Orders. Is it appropriate that the Standing Orders should contain provisions creating offences as provided for in subsection (6)?
  Sir Robert Smith: We support the amendment, because the public's concern about paid advocacy extends beyond the individual to organisations of any description. We hope that the definition extends to private limited companies. People should not be advocating causes on behalf of a financial interest. They should represent the people whom they were elected to serve.
  Will the Minister tell us the legal definition of "person"? It would also be helpful if the Conservatives could give us a definition of "organisation". There is some debate about the legal definition of "person". The book provided by the Scottish Office does not extend the definition, leaving the impression that a "person" is an individual. The public would like it extended to cover organisations and other bodies.
  Mr. Salmond: For consistency, the Conservatives must withdraw the amendment. They have argued on other amendments for matters to be left to the Parliament. The issue can and should be dealt with in the Standing Orders of the Parliament. We had a brief preliminary discussion at the consultative committee, when the subject was raised obliquely. I am not sure whether anyone has the full answer, but we all recognise that the public believe that there is a huge problem in this place. That problem remains; it has by no means been settled or solved.
  We should have a few guiding principles. Members of the Scottish Parliament should be full-time, not part-time. There is a case for someone with a family business still needing to be present in that business, but that is different from someone having 20, 25 or 30 directorships littered around. Even if those directorships are declared, the Member is still cheating his or her constituency and the public.
  We had a debate about standards when some hon. Members were embroiled in what became known as the "cash for questions" scandal. One member of the Committee inquiring into that made a speech. It was regarded as acceptable—I checked the Register of Members' Interests—that he had almost 30 directorships.
  There is a fairly narrow dividing line between cash for questions and that scandal, and somebody—albeit openly—declaring almost 30 directorships. The new Parliament will have to agree not only that everything should be declared, but a little more. People who have the privilege of serving a constituency should be expected to work full time and devote their time and energy to that job, not serve other interests.

  567
  I sympathise with those who represent voluntary organisations. Indeed, one of my colleagues represents one of the nurses' unions, for very little payment. There may be a case—I have mentioned two of them—for specifying such interests, to ensure that access to Members of Parliament for those who are in difficult circumstances and who are often dispossessed in society is declared. We cannot and must not have a range of allowances whereby people can cheerfully accept salary cheques from 30 or 40 different sources as well as picking up the pay of a Member of the Scottish Parliament.
  I have two points for the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). First, given his previous arguments, should we not leave this matter to the Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament? Secondly, I shall reverse an argument that I have been making. At times during the passage of the Bill, I have tried to protect the Scottish Conservative party from the English Conservative party. Given the contribution of the Scottish Conservative party representative on the consultative committee, I am not certain whether the Scottish Conservative party is fully on board with the spirit of non-advocacy and total declaration that has been presented from the Tory Front Bench. Perhaps the communication lines are not operating between Scotland and Westminster. I suggest that Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen inform their Scottish colleagues of the far more rigorous attitude being adopted—at last—by the Conservative party in Westminster.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. George Galloway: I sense that Committee members do not want to be detained for long on this matter. I had not intended to speak, but I am tempted to do so by a few of the points raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). It may have been a slip of the tongue, but the hon. Member said that this Parliament has "a huge problem" of Members accepting cash for questions. I do not think that that is true. The problem of public perception of Parliament is bad enough, without that comment being allowed to pass unchallenged on to the record.
  Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will see that I mentioned cash for questions and said that Parliament had a huge problem in its public perception and standing as a result of the many incidents over the past few years, which have certainly created public disquiet and damaged the reputation of this place. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, of all people, does not recognise exactly what I am talking about.
  Mr. Galloway: The hon. Gentleman should not be surprised, because, a couple of years ago, I was falsely accused on such matters, and entirely cleared by the Standards and Privileges Committee. I am extremely sensitive to such false or reckless allegations or imputations that we have a huge problem. I do not believe that we have a huge problem. In so far as we have a problem at all, it is certainly made worse by people carelessly, recklessly, tossing around such talk. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but it is no laughing matter.
  More importantly, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, rather contradictorily, raised the issue of Members' outside interests. He said that it is all right if a
  568
  Member has a family business or a family farm, but it is not all right if a Member has directorships. He did not deal with the issue of newspaper columnists, for example. I declare an interest as a newspaper columnist—as is the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Jenkin: Is he paid for it?
  Mr. Galloway: I am certain that he is paid—but not as well as I.
  Will Members of the Scottish Parliament be allowed to write columns for The Herald in Glasgow and remain MSPs? It is preposterous to say that they could not. Where do we draw the line—at newspaper columnists, farmers, participants in a family business? This fraught area deserves more careful consideration.
  Mr. Wallace: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the line might be drawn by the electorate? Candidates should make it clear whether they intend to engage in any other activities, and voters will decide whether it should be dealt with
  Mr. Galloway: The hon. and learned Gentleman anticipated exactly what I was going to say. Who sits in the Scottish Parliament ought to be a matter for the electors. Electors are fully aware when a candidate goes before them of the profession, business interests and jobs in which the candidate will continue to be involved. If the electorate were not aware, it would be the job of the opposition parties to draw it to their attention. It is easy to take a cheap, populist line in this area, but if it is not thought through, very many people will be precluded from standing for the Parliament.
  There is an argument with which we are all familiar. I heard it from a Conservative Member, who very persuasively made the point that, as a dentist, he had to keep his hand in. It was rather an apt pun, but it is absolutely accurate. I do not know whether he is still an hon. Member.
  Dr. Fox: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as a former obstetrician, I would not like to go down that line.
  Mr. Galloway: I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman down that line. [Laughter.] When one is in a hole, it is best to stop digging. [Laughter.] The hon. Member in question may have lost his seat in the interim.
  Mr. Ancram: He is still with us
  Mr. Galloway: He is still with us.
  The hon. Member in question made the point that politicians are here today and gone tomorrow, so it is good to have a trade on which to fall back. As I explained to the right hon. Gentleman last night, I am a jobbing politician. None the less, I think it important that people keep their hand in, in some trades, because, if they do not, they will lose the ability to practise them if they ever have to return to them.
  Hon. Members may laugh, and it has been an amusing little exchange, but the point is valid. In some jobs and professions, people are required to continue work. There might even be some benefit in people having some limited outside interests which they can bring to bear in Parliament—as long as nothing is hidden from the elector

  569
  and as long as the elector is not, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, in any way cheated. I cannot see how electors would be cheated if total transparency were observed.
  Mr. McLeish: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) that we need balance. We are talking about a very important matter. It is set in the context of Westminster, but it concerns a huge public interest issue. We are trying to achieve a balance in laying down important requirements for the Parliament to pursue, and at the same time leaving it to develop in its Standing Orders the very details that will govern Members' interests. That is the right balance to strike.
  We do not depart at all from openness and transparency. We want a Parliament that works normally and effectively, but one in which MSPs by their actions can illustrate a new way of working which reflects the new politics about which we have often talked. Of course, we will not have a chance to implement the new politics until Members are elected on 6 May 1999, powers begin to be transferred from Westminster and we become actively involved. Nobody should infer from the debate anything other than the seriousness with which the Government view the matter.
  I shall make a few comments about the background to clause 22 before responding to the Opposition amendments and talking about our amendment, No. 222. The Government are committed to ensuring that the highest possible standards apply to elected members at whatever level. In the case of the Scottish Parliament, the provisions in clause 22 are intended to ensure that certain essential elements of the regulation of Members' interests are set in place. That is essential so that the Scottish electorate can have confidence that its representatives are not being unduly swayed by external influences.
  The provision will therefore ensure that the Parliament provides for a register of Members' interests, which will be published and available for public inspection. Any Member who has a financial interest in a matter, or another interest of a type specified in the Standing Orders, must declare that interest before taking part in the proceedings of the Parliament. The Standing Orders must also prohibit Members from advocating any matter on behalf of a person in return for payment or benefit in kind.
  The clause goes on to create a criminal offence—
  Mr. Dalyell: Are the Standing Orders to be subject to simple amendment procedures?
  Mr. McLeish: As I said earlier, we are laying down important requirements in statute on the face of the Bill. It will then be up to the Parliament itself to look at its Standing Orders and develop further the position on Members' interests. That is a wholly reasonable position for us to adopt at this stage, as I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate.
  Dr. Fox: Will the Minister tell us the definition of the word "person" as used on the face of the Bill?
  Mr. McLeish: I shall deal with that specifically when I deal with the amendments.
  570
  Clause 22 goes on to create a criminal offence where a Member is found to be guilty of contravening those Standing Orders.
  The Bill establishes a framework that will be fleshed out in the Parliament's Standing Orders. That is an area that the Government—and, I am sure, the Parliament in due course—will want to keep under continuous review. It will wish to apply the best practice available, which will include taking account of the work in that area by the Nolan committee and the continuing activities of the Neill committee and the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege.
  The argument for Government amendment No. 222 is similar to that for amendment No. 221, which has just been accepted by the House. It reinforces the powers available to the Parliament to deal with Members excluded under subsection (5).
  Amendments Nos. 159 and 160 seek to insert a reference to "organisation or trade union" into the relevant parts of subsection (4). That is the part of the clause that would prohibit a Member of the Parliament from advocating or initiating, either himself or by urging another Member to do so, any matter in return for payment or benefit in kind.
  I have to tell the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) that his amendments are unnecessary. Clause 22(4) mentions only "any person", but I am advised that, in accordance with the normal rules for interpreting statutes, "person" includes a body of persons, corporate or unincorporate. The provision would therefore cover paid advocacy on behalf of any organisation or trade union, so it is not necessary to add the suggested words to the Bill. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
  Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, and also to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) for giving a balanced view of how registered interests ought to work in the Parliament. He is right to say that what we really require is transparency. I understand why the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has his own interest in trying to blacken the name of this Parliament, but I do not think that there is a huge problem here, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 222, in page 10, line 41, at end insert
  "and for withdrawing his rights and privileges as a member for the period of his exclusion'.—[Mr. McLeish.]
  Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill
  Mr. Dalyell: My question may be more appropriate to this debate than to the previous one. It is: is it appropriate that Standing Orders should contain provisions creating offences as provided for in subsection (6)? I remind the Committee that that subsection reads as follows:
  "Any Member of the Parliament who—
  (a) takes part in any proceedings of the Parliament without having complied with, or in contravention of, any provision made in pursuance of subsections (1) to (3), or
  (b) contravenes any provision made in pursuance of subsection (4),
  is guilty of an offence."

  571
  I am advised by the Law Society that that is a matter of some substance.
  Secondly, should the offence provisions apply to the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General, given that they will not be taking part in proceedings, or in advocating or initiating any cause or matter on behalf of any person in the Parliament? The ministerial advisers will know that that question, too, came from the Law Society.
  Thirdly, will there be any corresponding requirement for the Advocate General for Scotland to be registered in the register of interests at Westminster?
  One could ask the question—although it may be more appropriate on clause 82—what happens if there are two strong-willed lawyers in the position of Lord Advocate and Advocate General? Obviously, that could be a difficult relationship
  Mr. McLeish: In the context of the points made earlier about balance, yes, we are happy about the provisions in subsection (6) that place that requirement on the Parliament. It is in pursuance of subsections (1) to (3), and the point is appropriate.
  It is right to remember that we must lay down those important requirements for the Parliament. I think that the Committee would regard that subsection as vital for the overall conduct of the Standing Orders. It will, of course, be for the Parliament itself to develop further details within the Standing Orders covering a wide variety of Members' activities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to subsection (8). Again, we believe it highly appropriate that such measures should apply. The holders of the posts specified need not be external to the membership of the Parliament. As for the Advocate General's being on the Register in this House, I shall write to my hon. Friend on the subject.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

  POWER TO CALL FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in page 11, line 8, after 'Parliament', insert 'by a two-thirds majority'.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 223 and 224.
  Amendment No. 43, in page 11, leave out lines 16 to 21.
  Amendment No. 102, in page 11, leave out line 17.
  Amendment No. 161, in page 11, leave out line 18.
  Amendment No. 162, in page 11, line 21, at end insert—
  "(3A) The power in subsection (1) is not exercisable in relation to a Minister of the Crown'.
  Amendment No. 103, in page 11, leave out lines 23 and 24.
  Government amendment No. 225.
  Amendment No. 164, in page 11, line 25, leave out
  "which exercises the judicial power of the State'.
  Amendment No. 165, in page 11, line 29, after "otherwiser)", insert
  "and if two thirds of more of its membership so resolve'.
  Amendment No. 166, in page 12, line 3, after "Scotland', add
  "or in a court exercising jurisdiction in those parts of the United Kingdom in which the person resides or works'.
  Government amendment No. 226.
  Amendment No. 167, in clause 24, clause 24, page 12, line 8, after 'refuses', insert
  "or fails without reasonable excuse,'.
  Amendment No. 249, in clause 24, page 12, line 8, after "refuses' insert
  'or fails without reasonable cause.'.
  Government amendment No. 227.
  Amendment No. 168, in clause 25, clause 25, page 12, line 29, after 'oath', insert 'or affirmation'.
  Government amendment No. 228.
  Amendment No. 104, in clause 83, clause 83, page 38, line 21, at end insert—
  "(3A) The Parliament shall be entitled to require any representative of a cross-border public body—

  (a) to attend its proceedings for the purpose of giving evidence, or

  (b) to produce documents in his custody or under his control, in respect of matters within the responsibility of that body which relate to or affect Scotland.'.

  New clause 2—Power to request witnesses and documents—
  '(1) The Parliament may request any person—

  (a) to attend its proceedings for the purpose of giving evidence, or

  (b) to produce documents in his custody or under his control, relating to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).

  (2) The matters to which subsection (1)(b) applies are reserved matters in so far as they affect Scotland.
  (3) In the event of a person to whom this section applies declining to give evidence or produce documents, he shall inform the Clerk in writing of the reasons for his refusal.
  (4) The power contained in subsection (1) may be exercised by a committee or sub-committee of the Parliament only if the committee or sub-committee is expressly authorised to do so (whether by standing orders or otherwise).
  (5) The Clerk shall give the person in question notice in writing specifying—

  (a) the time and place at which the person is invited to attend and the particular matters relating to which he is requested to give evidence, or

  (b) the documents, or types of documents, which he is to produce, the date by which he is requested to produce them and the particular matters to which they relate.

  (6) Such notice shall be given—

  (a) in the case of an individual, by sending it, by registered post or the recorded delivery service, addressed to him at his usual or last known address or, where he has given an address for service, at that address, or

  (b) in any other case, by sending it, by registered post or the recorded delivery service, addressed to the person at the person's registered or principal office.

  (7) A person is not obliged under this section to answer any question or produce any document which he would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce in proceedings in a court in Scotland.'.
  Mr. Jenkin: I shall endeavour to explain to the Committee what the amendments are about, for the benefit of those who do not understand—a category which, until a little while ago, included me.
  We are referring the power to summon witnesses and documents. This Parliament's power to summon witnesses and documents is absolute; it is one of our absolute prerogatives. It is not recorded in any statute, but is something that we inherited, so to speak, from the Crown. It is referred to only in "Erskine May", which has no statutory authority but is one of the sources of our constitution.
  The power is extremely draconian, and it is one that we rarely use. If the Scottish Parliament is to have analogous powers, they will have to be granted by this Parliament by statute. That is what the clause is principally about.
  It is proposed that the Scottish Parliament's powers will be prescribed, rather than unlimited like the powers of this Parliament. The debate will be about what prescriptions and limits for those powers exist, and how they are likely to be applied.
  The amendments reflect two main concerns: first, that the extremely draconian power should be exercised carefully, not lightly or wantonly; and secondly, that the power should not extend to summoning people and documents that are not the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.
  Amendment No. 163 would limit the use of the power to circumstances in which a two thirds majority of the Parliament votes to exercise it, and Amendment No. 165 would apply that principle to Committees. The exercise of the power could be left entirely to the Scottish Parliament's discretion, but it is rarely used at Westminster, mainly because, when people are invited to attend Parliament or a Committee, they regard it as a privilege and an opportunity to present their views. Even the most reluctant witnesses are encouraged to attend voluntarily by a Clerk merely saying that we have the power. Nevertheless, the power is available for use.
  Making the power explicit in the Bill makes it seem a more everyday power than it should be. Our contention is simply that the draconian power should be used only when there is consensus in the Scottish Parliament. In this Parliament, it would be unlikely for even the majority party to require the attendance of a witness or require documents to be produced against the wishes of, for example, the main Opposition party. We want to reflect in the Bill, for the Scottish Parliament, that natural tendency to consensus.
  Amendments Nos. 161, 162 and 164 are concerned with who should be subject to the power. Matters are not made any simpler for us by Government amendment No. 224. It appears that the Government want to trim the Parliament's right to summon Ministers of the Crown from the original intention as expressed in the Bill, because under the amendment Ministers would not be subject to compulsion on questions relating to functions exercisable under joint responsibility, but would still be subject to it on devolved matters in which they have a direct involvement.
  574
  I look forward to a full explanation of the reasons behind amendment No. 224 and of the distinctions intended in the wording. My fear is that the natural lines of accountability will still be blurred. The principle should surely be that United Kingdom Ministers are responsible and answerable to the United Kingdom Parliament, and that Scottish Ministers should be responsible to the Scottish Parliament.
  Where their responsibilities overlap, we should not expect Scottish Ministers to be responsible to this Parliament or United Kingdom Ministers to be responsible to the Scottish Parliament. They must explain their functions and their relationships with each other to their own respective Parliaments.
  Obviously, as we are a sovereign Parliament, we would have the power to summon Scottish Ministers to appear here; but I would suggest that we would want to use it extremely sparingly. Our intention in amendments Nos. 161 and 162 is to create clear lines of accountability, so that United Kingdom Ministers are not automatically expected to be answerable to the Scottish Parliament for what they do in the United Kingdom Government, although of course one would expect them to make themselves available as a resource for informing debate in the Scottish Parliament and to give evidence and information there when asked to do so. I should be interested in the Government's view of that principle.
  Amendment No. 164 is designed to widen the exclusion of those acting in a judicial capacity. I am interested to see that—perhaps in the spirit of the new politics, which is finally beginning to touch the Conservative party—the Liberal Democrats are supporting our amendment.
  It is obvious that judges should not be called to account to a legislature for their decisions, but the same surely applies to those who act in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, even if it is not a state capacity: for example, the heads of self-regulatory organisations; ombudsmen of private industries; arbitrators, who might be dealing with contracts or insurance matters; and—this may be a matter dear to the hearts of Liberal Democrats—the Church courts, which are non-state courts but have a judicial capacity none the less.
  Amendments Nos. 167 and 168 are intended as clarifications and suggested improvements. The former would tighten the requirement for people to attend if summoned, and the latter would allow for an affirmation as an alternative to an oath.
  The Government, I fear, have the luxury of a middle course, because the amendments tabled by the Scottish National party suggest that anyone in the United Kingdom should be subject to the power. That reminds us that we are dealing with United Kingdom legislation that has the force of law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as Scotland. The nationalists would like to make any person in the United Kingdom who is concerned with the functions set out under subsection (2) subject to summons by the Scottish Parliament. One might say, "They would say that, wouldn't they?"
  Judging by amendment No. 43, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) shares our view that Ministers of the Crown, who are answerable to the United Kingdom Parliament, should be immune from compulsion to attend the Scottish Parliament. If he does not, I should be interested to hear what he says.
  Mr. Canavan: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). Yet again, we have heard

  575
  a clear implication from the Tory Front Bench that the Scottish Parliament cannot be trusted with the powers proposed for it both in the White Paper and in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman admitted that Westminster has unlimited and untrammelled powers to summon any person or to call for any papers. The powers are not limited at all in statute, and apparently derive in some mystical way from the Crown; but the Scottish Parliament's powers to summon people and call for papers are clearly defined in the Bill. Yet the Tories somehow cannot stomach that, and say that a majority of two thirds of the Parliament is needed before the powers are used.
  Mr. Jenkin: The distinction is that, whereas this Parliament has absolute power, we are delegating powers to the Scottish Parliament. It is incumbent on us to make it clear in the Bill how we expect those powers to be used. We heard from the Secretary of State yesterday about supremacy, and he made it clear that this Parliament remains sovereign. Therefore, although we are delegating powers for which the Scottish Parliament will be responsible, we remain indirectly responsible for the way in which they are exercised. In that respect, it is not an insult to the Scottish Parliament to suggest that this Parliament remains sovereign and ultimately responsible for exercising the powers of the Scottish Parliament. It is a practical fact that, if the Scottish Parliament were to misuse its powers, the democratically elected representatives of the Scottish people might well come here to ask us to address the situation.
  8 pm
  Mr. Canavan: It is not a true delegation of powers to give a body certain powers while making so many conditions and ifs and buts that the body itself wonders whether it can use them. What lies at the heart of the matter is the Tories' love of and trust in this place and their distrust of the proposed Scottish Parliament. They imply that Members of the Scottish Parliament will not be responsible enough to use those powers in a reasonable manner. To describe the powers as "draconian" frankly shows either a misunderstanding or a misuse of the English language.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is directing his argument towards me, but the Secretary of State drafted the clause; we are merely proposing one or two amendments to it. It is the Secretary of State who has all sorts of limits as to how the powers should be used. The hon. Gentleman should have his argument with the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State and the Opposition are arguing this point from the same perspective, but the hon. Gentleman is, frankly, arguing from a nationalist perspective—he is saying that the Scottish Parliament should exercise absolute discretion.
  Mr. Canavan: The Secretary of State can speak for himself, as can the Minister, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend would state that the Bill proposes a reasonable limitation. The Opposition are proposing to shackle the Scottish Parliament absolutely—not just on this matter but on many others.
  I wish to refer to amendment No. 43, standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). Clause 23(3) proposes to give a
  576
  form of exemption or immunity to certain people so that they cannot be summoned to appear before the Scottish Parliament or any of its Committees. I am not too happy about that, as it could lead to a situation in which the efforts of the Scottish Parliament and its Committees to uncover the truth or to pursue justice in certain cases could be thwarted.
  The Scottish Parliament could decide to set up a Committee of Inquiry into someone who had allegedly perpetrated a great injustice against the people of Scotland. The Committee might decide to summon the person or people allegedly responsible. However, those people might simply cross the border to England, or go to Wales. From my reading of clause 23(3), I understand that the Scottish Parliament could do nothing about that, unless the person or people were covered by the condition referred to at the end of clause 23(3).
  The Scottish Parliament should, in certain circumstances, have powers to call Ministers of the Crown. My hon. Friend the Minister is, unquestionably, a Minister of the Crown. Could he define what is meant in the Bill by a "Minister of the Crown"? The Bill proposes that Ministers in the Scottish Administration should also have Crown approval. Does that make them Ministers of the Crown also? If so, it is absurd that Ministers of the Crown—especially Ministers in the Scots Administration—should be exempt from being summoned before the Scottish Parliament or its Committees.
  The Bill proposes that UK Ministers will continue to have certain powers relating to Scotland on certain reserved matters, but also—this is important—on matters for which there is some joint or shared responsibility. I am not absolutely certain that the wording of my amendment is correct, but I would like to try to clarify that grey area of shared responsibility between this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, and between the UK Government and the Scottish Administration.
  The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Administration will be responsible for industrial development and inward investment. However, the Department of Trade and Industry will retain some responsibility for these matters within a general framework covering the whole of the United Kingdom. There may be legitimate circumstances in which the Scottish Parliament could be able to summon a Minister and/or civil servants from the DTI to clarify matters on a subject under inquiry by the Scottish Parliament or one of its Committees.
  Mr. John Swinney: After the Bill's enactment, a number of concordats will be created to regulate areas where the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament will have some interest. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that would be a legitimate area in which the Scottish Parliament would have an interest in examining—in a wider sphere than simply the activities of the Scottish Parliament—the way in which other parties were influencing areas of policy, which might involve asking UK Ministers to appear before the Committees of the Scottish Parliament?
  Mr. Canavan: That is precisely the point I am trying to make. The grey areas are not all that well defined, but there are areas where there will be joint responsibility. In the circumstances, the Scottish Parliament should have the power and the opportunity to summon UK Ministers, as well as Ministers from the Scottish Administration.

  577
  The Select Committees in this place will retain their right to summon virtually anyone. They can summon a Scottish Office Minister, the Scottish First Minister, civil servants from the Scottish Administration, people from north of the border and people from other parts of the UK. I fail to see why there should not be some degree of that ability in the Scottish Parliament.
  I am not asking for complete reciprocation, because we are not talking about a completely independent state and a Parliament serving it. However, there are areas of joint responsibility, and I am not sure whether clause 23(3) covers all such circumstances. It states that the power is not exercisable in relation to a person
  "unless he discharges functions relating to matters within subsection (2)",
  which refers to "devolved matters" and
  "matters in relation to which statutory functions are exercisable by the Scottish Ministers."
  Does the phrase
  "unless he discharges functions relating to matters within subsection (2)"
  cover the categories in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (3), or does it cover only the category in paragraph (c), a person in Crown employment? Could a person outside Scotland or a Minister of the Crown who is a UK Minister who discharges functions relating to matters within subsection (2) be summoned by the Scottish Parliament or one of its Committees?
  I note that the present tense is used in line 21 of clause 23:
  "unless he discharges functions relating to matters within subsection (2)."
  What about someone who used to discharge a function, such as a former UK Minister or a former civil servant? We have had cases in this Parliament that have involved more than summoning members or civil servants of the existing Administration.
  When I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee's inquiry into the Belgrano, Francis Pym came. We did not have to summon him, but, if he had refused to come, we could have. Geoffrey Howe is another former Secretary of State who has been summoned. In the inquiry into the Pergau dam, George Younger came to give evidence as a former Secretary of State. I am not sure that line 21 of clause 23 would be enough to cover such circumstances, because it uses the present tense. It should say:
  "unless he discharges or used to discharge functions relating to matters within subsection (2)."
  That is why I have tabled the amendment.
  I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister replied on those points because it is very important that the Scottish Parliament and its Committees have adequate powers to summon people and call for papers to uncover the truth and give helpful reports to the Scottish Parliament and to the people of Scotland. That should include, in certain circumstances, calling people from south of the border, including UK Ministers and civil servants.
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I have listened with interest to the debate. I am sorry that we have had yet another example of what I can only describe as an emergent Anglo-Saxon supremacist lobby that seems to see everything in terms of asserting its supremacy over us poor folk north of the border who clearly will not be capable of dealing with such nasty, complicated issues.
  It is evident from the number of amendments tabled to clause 23 that there is concern about several aspects. If the Conservative Front-Bench team had examined it more carefully they might have seen why. It appears to be a retreat from what was contained in the White Paper. That gave rise to several of the amendments and to new clause 2.
  The issue of clause 23 arose on Second Reading when we discussed the reservation of broadcasting. My attention was directed to it by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), who is a colleague of my mine in another capacity in the Faculty of Advocates. I am sorry that he is not in his seat; he was here briefly earlier. Later in that debate, he graciously accepted that he was wrong in some of his comments, but he wanted to point out that I was equally wrong. I freely admit that, so focused was I on broadcasting, that I was partially wrong, although only in so far as I had not appreciated the extent to which the legislation differed from the White Paper on cross-border public bodies. I am grateful to him, although he may wish that he had kept quiet.
  I want to discuss amendments Nos. 102 to 104, which deal with the power of the Parliament, especially in relation to cross-border public bodies, which I suspect may become a vexed question when the Parliament is in operation. Amendment No. 103 aims to open up a discussion on the precise meaning of clause 23(4)(a) in the context of the whole clause. We recognise that Government amendments Nos. 224 and 226 turn previous negatives into positives, but I am not sure that, in reality, they change much. The Government's attention may also have been drawn to clause 23 by the Second Reading debate.
  8.15 pm
  Government amendment No. 225 is tortuous in the extreme; it not only sheds no new light but further obscures matters. Clause 23(4)(a) states that the power in subsection (1) is not exercisable in relation to
  "a person discharging functions of any body whose functions relate only to reserved matters".
  What is that meant to do in the context of subsection (2)? Amendment No. 225 would make it read:
  "That power is not exercisable in relation to a person discharging functions of any body whose functions relate only to reserved matters in connection with the discharge by him of those functions."
  That further obscures the matter.
  Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be helpful to hear from the Minister what he thinks his amendments are intended to do, so that we know where the Government want to go before we decide to what parts we might object? I find the amendments hard to follow.
  Ms Cunningham: I expect that the Minister will have some comments to make.
  I have three questions. First, why was it felt that clause 23(4)(a) had to be inserted, especially as clause 23(2)(a) already confines the power to devolved matters? Secondly, what does Government amendment No. 225 mean? I simply do not understand it. It would not win any plain English awards in its totality. I shall not enter into what the Scots or Gaelic might be.
  Amendment No. 225 may be aimed at an individual with more than one capacity—one devolved and one reserved—so that, if he was called about the one, he could not be questioned about the other by the sneaky people who will be elected to the Scottish Parliament. It is not clear. Perhaps the Minister could give examples of the sort of people that the provision is meant to catch. I cannot see what the Government are so nervous about. Clause 23, with clauses 83, 84 and 85 as drafted, seems to be designed to give a narrow interpretation of the people whom the Scottish Parliament can call before it.
  On the comments of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), an independent Parliament would of course have no jurisdiction to summon people from outwith its borders to give evidence on the activities of a body affects Scotland. We are all well aware of the international dimension and the fact that many things happen outside a state's boundaries that can profoundly affect what happens within them.
  There really is not much that we can do. Much as we might like to have President Clinton called here to explain his activities in Iraq or elsewhere, we know we cannot do that. However, as the Government are so fond of reminding us, the Scottish Parliament is not an independent Parliament, but a devolved Parliament, so I do not understand what objection there can be to our calling from outside Scotland those people who operate in some capacity that directly affects Scotland, albeit not necessarily in purely devolved matters.
  Amendment No. 104 builds on the sentiments contained in paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper, albeit inserting the word "require" rather than "invite", so that people cannot simply refuse to come. The Scottish Parliament will be hedged about with restrictions vis-a-vis representatives from bodies dealing with reserved matters, even where those bodies have an enormous impact on Scotland which is of social or economic significance—the phrase used in the White Paper. We shall return to aspects of this question when the Committee reaches clauses 83 to 85, so I shall not stray too far.
  However, I shall quote the entirety of paragraph 2.11, because it is important that people are reminded of what was promised in the White Paper. It says:
  "In certain reserved areas the activities of other UK/GB bodies which are accountable to the UK Parliament will continue to be significant in the economic or social life of Scotland, and therefore likely to be of interest to the Scottish Parliament. The Government propose that the Scottish Parliament should be able to invite the submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence before its committees from bodies operating in reserved areas in relation to their activities in or affecting Scotland."
  580
  The White Paper goes on to list some examples of those bodies:
  "energy regulators such as the Office of Electricity Regulation and the Office of Gas Supply; the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Office of the Rail Regulator; the Health and Safety Commission; the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission; the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency; broadcasting and telecommunication organisations such as the BBC and the Independent Television Commission; and the Post Office."
  Between the White Paper and the Bill being published, that has all disappeared. The promises made in paragraph 2.11 are not allowed for in clause 23 or in clause 83. None of the examples given in the White Paper of cross-border public bodies have found their way into annexe E of the guidance notes, which is the indicative list of what the Government regard as cross-border public bodies. Therefore, we face a gaping hole in what was promised.
  I note, in passing, that the Scottish Law Commission does appear in annexe E as a cross-border public body, which is an interesting concept. Under the legislation as it stands, the Scottish Parliament would be unable to require a representative from the Scottish Law Commission to appear before it and give any sort of evidence. At the same time, two bodies named in the White Paper are conspicuously absent from the annexe E list—the broadcasting bodies, the BBC and the ITC, which triggered my contribution on Second Reading. Obviously, I shall return to that subject when the Committee debates the amendments to clause 83 and schedule 5.
  I want to know where precisely we can find the commitment given in paragraph 2.11 of the White paper implemented in the legislation. Why have the Government turned their backs on their promise?
  Mr. McAllion: I hope that, when the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) made her allegation that Anglo-Saxon supremacists sat on the Government Benches, she excluded me from their number.
  Ms Cunningham: Absolutely.
  Mr. McAllion: If there is one thing no one can accuse me of, it is of being an Anglo-Saxon anything. No doubt the Opposition Front Benchers will accuse me of making a nationalist contribution to the debate; but I would remind the House that all hon. Members are nationalists of one sort or another. There are all sorts in the House: English nationalists, such as the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who speaks for the Conservative party on Scottish affairs; British nationalists, which probably encompasses the majority of hon. Members; Welsh nationalists; Scottish nationalists in the Scottish National party and the Labour party; Irish nationalists—
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Glasgow nationalists.
  Mr. McAllion:—and Glasgow nationalists, who sit next to me. "Nationalist" is used as a term of abuse by the official Opposition, but it is a loose term and often used inaccurately. I wish that the official Opposition would use it with greater precision, so that people could understand that nationalism is something which every party in this country believes in—it is just a question of which sort of nationalism a party supports.

  581
  During earlier debates, a whole series of amendments were rejected—especially by Labour Members—on the basis that they were too prescriptive and were trying to tell the Scottish Parliament how it should run its business. It was said that we should leave the Scottish Parliament to decide for itself how it should conduct its own affairs. I agree with that view, but clause 23, especially lines 11 to 21, is highly prescriptive about what the Scottish Parliament can do in pursuit of its own devolved affairs. That is where I find the problem lies.
  The hon. Member for North Essex described the powers in clause 23 as draconian, but they are not draconian if one is exempted, and lines 11 to 21 ensure that a whole swathe of people are exempted from the powers that should be available to the Scottish Parliament to summon documents and witnesses to give evidence before their Committees on devolved issues.
  The first category of exemptions is "a person outside Scotland". That is a very wide definition—there are all sorts of people outside Scotland whom the Scottish Parliament might ask to produce documents or to appear as witnesses in inquiries into devolved matters. As far as I know, Mr. Sean Connery would fall into the category of a person outside Scotland. Perhaps he intends to remain a person outside Scotland, but he certainly takes a close interest in Scottish affairs and Scottish politics—indeed, he takes a close interest in the Scottish National party and its funding. In inquiries into the way in which political parties are funded in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament might well want to summon him as a witness; but, as a person outside Scotland, he will be able to tell them to get lost. I do not think that that is a clever position for us to get ourselves into. The same would apply to Hong Kong drug traffickers, who have been known to fund the Conservative party in Scotland.
  Mr. Salmond: Mr. Sean Connery would be delighted to appear before a Scottish Parliament, either as a witness or perhaps in another capacity.
  Mr. McAllion: I take it that by "in another capacity" the hon. Gentleman means as a Member of the Scottish Parliament. Clause 4, which sets out the details of who can stand as a candidate, does not say that one actually has to live in Scotland. I suppose that it would be possible for Mr. Sean Connery to stand for a Scottish Parliament as an SNP candidate, get elected and then, because there is no requirement that MSPs should stay in Scotland, he could still be beyond the power of the Scottish Parliament to require him to attend and give evidence before one of its Committees. It is nonsense.
  In an earlier debate, we discovered that Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Cornwall, the Duke of Rothesay, the Prince and Steward of Scotland, both of whom can be described as persons outside Scotland and who have the Crown interest which requires the Scottish Parliament to seek their approval before its Bills can become law, cannot be required to come before a Scottish Committee and give evidence on why the Crown interest requires them to give their assent to Scottish Bills before they can become law. The whole thing is complete nonsense.
  582
  I am especially worried about the part of the clause that says that
  "a Minister of the Crown, or … a person in Crown employment"
  does not have to come before the Scottish Parliament's Committees. That is a serious issue.
  Let us consider the financing of a Scottish Parliament. The bulk of the Scottish Parliament's expenditure will come from the Westminster Parliament through the Scottish block grant, which is determined under the Barnett-Goschen formula. We were continually told in debates in the House that that formula would be subject to review as soon as the Scottish Parliament was set up and the Westminster Parliament began to realise how much power had been given away to the Scottish Parliament.
  In fact, we were told that the formula would be subject to radical review and that that review would be carried out in Westminster by UK Ministers and civil servants. They would decide how the Barnett-Goschen formula should be altered, which would have huge implications for the Scottish Parliament, and the settlement would be imposed on the Scottish Parliament.
  On page 27 of "Scotland's Parliament, Scotland's Right", the Scottish Constitutional Convention recognised that the Barnett-Goschen formula would have to be reviewed. However, it was established in the convention that that review would have to be conducted jointly by the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament.
  If the Committee in a Scottish Parliament that is responsible for financial matters cannot summon any Treasury Minister, cannot ask for any Treasury documents and cannot ask any Treasury civil servant to appear before it to take part in an investigation into how the Barnett-Goschen formula might be reviewed, that is a very sorry state of affairs indeed, and one which we should not be legislating for.
  Mr. Wallace rose—
  Mr. Swinney rose—
  8.30 pm
  Mr. McAllion: I give way to the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
  Mr. Wallace: Perhaps the Minister will clarify this when he replies to the debate. The hon. Gentleman may have put it too widely when he said that the Scottish Parliament could not ask. I suspect that a Scottish Parliament could request. What it cannot do is to compel, with all the accompanying criminal sanctions. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, if there were to be a debate in the Scottish Parliament on the future of the Barnett-Goschen formula, it would be very helpful indeed to have the attendance of Treasury Ministers and officials, but I believe that it would be permissible for them to come, although they could not be compelled under threat of criminal sanction.
  Mr. McAllion: I hope that that would be the case, but I do not have a great deal of confidence. If one watches closely the way in which these debates are conducted, one sees that hon. Members continually assert the supremacy and the sovereignty of this Parliament over the Scottish Parliament. They, and they alone, will decide the funding and the finance of the Scottish Parliament through the

  583
  Scottish block. I do not know whether the Scottish Parliament can request them to produce documents and to give evidence in person.
  I do not want to alarm Ministers, but they will not always be there. At some time, there will be a Tory party back in power and back in office in this country, and then there could be real problems.
  Mr. John Hayes rose—
  Mr. Grieve rose
  Mr. McAllion: I give way to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee—West, is it?
  Mr. McAllion: East.
  Mr. Hayes: East, yes. I only said that to annoy the hon. Gentleman, actually. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned supremacy, but, as we tried to explain earlier in Committee—I intervened on the hon. Gentleman then—the whole nature of sovereignty is the implied supremacy that sovereignty grants. When it comes to delegation of political power—I would go as far as to say division; there is some semantic difference between my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and me in this, but the principle is the same—one can divide political power but not sovereignty, because sovereignty implies supremacy. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that, given the comments that he has made on previous days in Committee and tonight.
  Hon. Members: Speech.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.
  Mr. McAllion: I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) will be more upset at my being described as the hon. Member for Dundee, West than I was, if the truth be known.
  The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings does not grasp the reality of sovereignty in the modern world. His is a public school idea of sovereignty—nanny and the housemaster and headmaster. There can be only one headmaster in the school, and so on. It need not be like that in the real world: different groups can share sovereignty.
  When we are setting up a Scottish Parliament, we must establish its right to conduct its affairs, just as the Westminster Parliament can conduct its affairs. Surely the Scottish Parliament must have the right to summon
  584
  witnesses, and require documents to be provided, when they affect the Scottish Parliament's interests. That is the key.
  Mr. Hayes rose—
  Mr. Grieve rose—
  Mr. Swinney rose—
  Mr. McAllion: I give way to the hon. Gentleman with the glasses.
  Mr. Grieve rose—
  Mr. Swinney: I thought it was me.
  Mr. Grieve: In the House, we have a merger of the Executive and the legislature, so Ministers of the Crown belong to the party that commands the majority. Therefore, only in exceptional circumstances would a power to summon Ministers before the House be exercised. When one has a separate legislature, two different parties may be in power—one in each place. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in those circumstances, Ministers of the Crown at Westminster may require some protection from being summoned arbitrarily to—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Interventions must be brief.
  Mr. Canavan: Sit down.
  The First Deputy Chairman: Please take a seat. Interventions must be brief. We cannot have a speech. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is addressing the Committee.
  Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman does not grasp the significance of the issue. We are trying to set up a constitutional settlement that will allow a Scottish Parliament to continue to function within the United Kingdom in tandem with a Parliament at Westminster. I agree that party politics can wreck that relationship, and I accept that, if one of the parties decides to wreck that relationship, it will lead to the severing of the United Kingdom. However, I know that my party is not out to wreck that relationship; and I should have thought that the Conservatives, of all people, would not be out to wreck the Union.
  Of course, members of the Scottish National party are out to wreck the Union; they have every right to wreck it, because they believe in independence. They should not be condemned for that—it is a different point of view, and when the Scottish people accept their argument, every Labour Member will accept the argument as well, because we are democrats. We accept that, if we lose the argument, we have to move with the people. I wish that the Conservative party would understand that and begin to move with the times as well and stop tabling wrecking amendments, as Conservative Members have done tonight.

  585
  I have great sympathy with the arguments made by the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) about broadcasting, because there are serious anxieties about it. Earlier, we had a debate about whether the Scottish Parliament should facilitate the use of Gaelic as a language in the Scottish Parliament. If Gaelic is to survive, it must be encouraged on television and radio; yet broadcasting is a matter reserved for the Westminster Parliament.
  The Scottish Parliament may set up a Committee to promote the use of Gaelic. It would have no power to require people from the BBC or ITV or BBC radio to produce documents or to appear as witnesses to talk about how they treat Gaelic in their broadcasting. That is very serious.
  There is also the question of listed events. The Scottish cup final is very dear to many of us, although it is a long time since Celtic won it. It matters to many people in Scotland. Some time, the BBC and ITV may decide that they do not want the cup final to continue to be a listed event—that it costs too much and must be dropped, to go to Sky Television. The Scottish Parliament would be unable to summon anyone from the BBC to hold them to account for that decision. That cannot be right.
  We must start thinking seriously about the implications of the way in which we keep trying to hedge the Scottish Parliament in with qualifying clauses—especially clause 23.
  Finally, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister, in all sincerity, that one of my great hopes for the Scottish Parliament is that its Committee structure will not minor that in Westminster. Our Committee structure makes a mockery of Committees. Our Select Committees are very good—they are successful, in the main, and they work well—but the Standing Committees are a joke. Committee members from the Government party are told, "Do not speak. Sit there; answer your mail. You need not even listen—just vote on the amendments." Opposition Members waste time all day, talking nonsense, simply trying to reach some sort of agreement. Most Committee members know nothing about the Bill that they are speaking about.
  I hope that a Scottish Parliament will set up hybrid Committees, which are Select Committees and Standing Committees, and deal with the legislation within their remit. The Committee members would become expert on their subject. Not just the Executive, but those Committees, should have the right to initiate legislation. The Chairman of the Committee, if he could achieve a majority on the Committee, could do so as well.
  Such Committees will be essential to the success of the Scottish Parliament, and they will set precedents which I believe the Westminster Parliament will belatedly have to follow because the Scottish Parliament is so good. In those circumstances, we cannot hem in the Committees by denying them the powers that every ordinary Committee at Westminster has.
  I plead with Ministers to think again about lines 11 to 21 of clause 23, and about the whole clause. It is too prescriptive and hems in the Scottish Parliament far too much.
  Mr. Wallace: Clause 23 is important, not least because those of us who were involved in the constitutional
  586
  convention, and who argued the case for a Scottish Parliament in the referendum campaign, hope that the Parliament will lean heavily on a Committee structure. We want Committees to go out and take evidence; we want pre-legislative Committees; we want Committees that will try to give substance to our avowal that the Parliament would include the people of Scotland. We said that it would be inclusive and consultative, and the Committees' powers will make an important contribution to that.
  I do not agree with amendment No. 163, which was moved by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), or with the reasons that he gave for it—the idea that a two-thirds majority was necessary before the Parliament could exercise the powers to compel witnesses or seek the production of documents. Especially if power was exercised by Committees, Parliament might never get off the mark if it constantly had to put together two-thirds majorities.
  If the Committees are working as we expect, the one-party concern expressed by the hon. Member for North Essex would have no basis. The Committees should work on a cross-party basis. The experience in this House, especially in Select Committees, is that, when they do so, they are far more effective than when they become narrowly partisan.
  The hon. Member for North Essex said that the powers were not appropriate because they were far too draconian. He pointed to the fact that in this House people seized the opportunity to give evidence to Select Committees, and that the powers were there as a backstop. That is precisely what is proposed. I do not believe that powers of compulsion would regularly be used. The important point is that they should exist.
  If we accept, for the purposes of the debate, that power is devolved, it must be expressly set down in the Bill that the Scottish Parliament has the power to compel witnesses and to compel the production of documents, or it could be challenged by anyone who did not turn up. I do not believe that, because it is written into the Bill, the powers would regularly be used.
  I support amendment No. 164, although I do not interpret it in the same way as the hon. Member for North Essex. It would not necessarily exempt regulators, as he said. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and I signed up to it because it is a probing amendment to find out what was meant by the phrase
  "exercises the judicial power of the State."
  Would the provision apply, for example, to members of a children's hearing, who exercise quasi-judicial powers? Would a judge of the European Court of Human Rights or of the International Court of Justice be covered by it? Can the Minister tell us more precisely what is meant by that phrase?
  Mr. Dalyell: This is rather an important matter affecting, for instance, Judge David Edward. As he is based at The Hague, is he outside or not?
  Mr. Wallace: That is extremely pertinent. Judge David Edward would be resident in Scotland and in other respects could come within the ambit of the powers. That is why it would be helpful if the Minister could specify the scope of the provision.

  587
  Amendment No. 249 provides the defence of reasonable excuse if a person fails to answer a question posed by the Parliament under the powers permitted. As there are sanctions attached, some defence should be available if there is reasonable excuse. I hope that the Minister will be minded to consider the amendment.
  New clause 2 reflects the points made by the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) with regard to the fulfilment of the Government's commitment in paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper. That is a helpful paragraph, which acknowledges that there will be reserved areas where activities are carried on that have a direct effect on Scotland.
  The White Paper provided that the Scottish Parliament would be entitled to invite the submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence by various bodies. As the hon. Lady read out the list, hon. Members could readily recognise how relevant those might be—the work of the Post Office, for example, and the Health and Safety Commission. Rail franchising has particular relevance, given the history of rail privatisation and its effect on Scotland, with the proposed withdrawal of sleepers and Motorail. The Scottish Parliament would have been keen for evidence to be given by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the Office of the Rail Regulator.
  In broadcasting, the merger of Grampian Television and STV recently took place. Under the terms of the franchise, Grampian has requirements in relation to local content in its news broadcasting. The Independent Television Commission is required to enforce those requirements. I am not suggesting for a moment that Grampian will not continue to fulfil them, but if there were a concern that it was falling short, it would be helpful if the ITC could give evidence to the Parliament.
  8.45 pm
  New clause 2 reflects the terms of the White Paper, which states:
  "the Scottish Parliament should be able to invite the submission of reports and the presentation of oral evidence before its committees".
  New clause 2 does not make that a requirement, but allows the Parliament to request the attendance of a person or the production of documents in reserved areas.
  The only potential sanction is that, if a person declined that request, he would be required to inform the Clerk of the Parliament in writing of the reasons for that refusal. We are not trying to impose any legal sanctions, but it is a legitimate political point to require the person to explain his refusal. It would be a matter for political debate, but it would not mean that the Parliament was trying to exert power over reserved subjects.
  The rest of the new clause is modelled on clause 23. I hope that it will commend itself to the Minister. If the present wording does not do so, I hope that he will tell us whether it is covered by a provision elsewhere in the Bill, which has escaped the notice of my hon. and learned Friend, the hon. Lady and myself, or whether, at a later stage in the passage of the Bill—new clause 2 will not be voted on until much later, if it comes to a vote—the Government intend to table a clause to give substance to the valuable provisions set out in paragraph 2.11 of the White Paper.
  Mr. Dalyell: I freely confess that I was one of those who supported the Government decision to take the Bill
  588
  on the Floor of the House, but I hope that colleagues are beginning to realise how it came about that, in 1978–79, debates took 47 days on the Floor of the House. Contrary to general mythology, there was not much filibustering, but there were many, many problems. Time is receding, and I can only hope for injury time for important clauses.
  Few things are more important than the exercise of the judicial power of the state. I shall be brief on amendments Nos. 164 and 167. Clause 23(4) provides:
  "That power is not exercisable in relation to…
  a judge of any court or a member of any tribunal which exercises the judicial power of the State."
  I repeat the question that was put by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). It is an urgent question concerning the children's hearings. Do they exercise the judicial power of the state? The point was made about Judge David Edward. What about the courts of the Church of Scotland—for example, the kirk sessions? They are courts, but appear not to be exercising state power. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
  Amendment No. 167 provides a reasonable excuse defence in relation to a failure to answer a question posed by the Parliament under the powers permitted under clause 23. Although Parliament is being treated as a court, and solicitors will be able to claim legal professional privilege, there is in general no public interest defence that would apply to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, unless it is anticipated that public interest would be within the bounds of a reasonable excuse to refuse or fail to attend proceedings. There is, however, no reasonable excuse provision in respect of answering questions by the Parliament, and the amendment takes account of that issue.
  Do the terms of clause 24(1)(b) constitute a strict liability offence? Is there no defence to a charge of failing to answer the Parliament's questions? In any case, for a defence provision, the terms are vague. Who is entitled to ask questions and demand an answer? Is it a Member of the Holyrood Parliament? Is it the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General or a Clerk of the Parliament? All those questions must be answered, because of the imprecise wording.
  If Select Committees are to be effective, they may have to have different rules for those tight situations when witnesses have no intention of answering. I attended both sittings when Sir Leon Brittan and Sir Robert Armstrong, as he was then, appeared before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. If the rules had been different, the House of Commons might have got a bit further on those occasions. Therefore, this is not just a theoretical question; it is a very real question about the effectiveness of a parliament.
  Mr. Tim Collins: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that clause 23(3) was too wide, but I think that it is too narrow.
  Why is there no specific mention in clauses 23 or 24 of the status of ordinary Members of this United Kingdom Parliament? Are we or are we not covered by the powers that are being given to the Scottish Parliament to have people summoned before it? It may be said that this United Kingdom Parliament will, by definition, have responsibility only for reserved powers, but we all know from our postbags that we are often asked to intervene with a range of public and private bodies, national and

  589
  international, which have no direct accountability to the House. I have had letters in my postbag this week asking me to intervene with the Governments of Iran, Indonesia and Tunisia.
  It is hardly surprising that we must expect that Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, particularly Scottish Members of this Parliament, will be invited to opine upon, write letters to or perhaps intervene directly in affairs that are reserved under the Act for the Scottish Parliament.
  Is there any prospect that Members of this Parliament could under any circumstances be summoned before the Scottish Parliament under these provisions? We have talked about Ministers of the Crown, but what about ordinary Back-Bench Members? In particular, what are the implications for parliamentary privilege? Nothing in clauses 23 or 24 specifically exempts Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from addressing matters relevant to the Scottish Parliament or says whether, if we raise matters on the Floor of the House, we might be summoned before the Scottish Parliament when we next visit Scotland. I should like a clear answer, please, to those questions.
  Mr. McLeish: This has been a good debate and I shall try to answer most, if not all, of the questions that have been put.
  Mr. Ancram: It will be the first time.
  Mr. McLeish: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to my reply. He may enjoy the experience.
  The amendments to the clauses relating to the Parliament's powers to call for witnesses and documents address the issue from a number of different standpoints. It may be helpful if I first make three points to clarify the intention of the provisions.
  First, the purpose of these provisions is to give the Scottish Parliament the right to require oral and written evidence relating to devolved or executively devolved matters. That is the basic principle underlying these provisions. Those outside Scotland and Ministers and civil servants of the United Kingdom Government can be summoned only if they have responsibilities for devolved or executively devolved matters, and they can be summoned only to speak about those matters. Those are, of course, the matters for which the Scottish Parliament will be responsible. We take the view that it should not have powers of compulsion in relation to matters where it does not have responsibility.
  Secondly, some of the amendments tabled suggest some confusion about the definition of a cross-border public body. I remind hon. Members that cross-border public bodies are bodies which have functions in or as regards Scotland in relation to devolved matters as well as other functions. Those other functions may relate to reserved matters in Scotland or to matters elsewhere in the United Kingdom. They are not bodies that deal with reserved matters only.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister clarify what exactly is meant by the term "relating to Scotland"? For example, the Scottish Parliament has a responsibility for foreign
  590
  policy because it is free to discuss foreign policy. Therefore, could it summon the Foreign Secretary to give evidence on the question of, say, foreign policy as it affects Scotland?
  Mr. McLeish: I shall deal with that point in a minute. The legislative competence is at Westminster. The Foreign Secretary could be invited, but not summoned.
  Thirdly, those who are responsible only for reserved matters cannot be summoned in connection with those matters. They can, however, be invited to attend and to submit documents in relation to reserved matters. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Scottish Parliament from inviting evidence about anything from anyone, and that is as it should be. I hope that that captures some of the concerns expressed by hon. Members in relation to matters in which the Parliament might be involved.
  Mr. Canavan: I accept that people can be invited rather than summoned, but some people might want to refuse the invitation. If someone in England or Wales had been trying to bribe a Member of the Scottish Parliament, the appropriate Committee of the Scottish Parliament might want to summon that person to give evidence before it. If he refused to come, we would have no powers to force him to do so.
  Mr. McLeish: There is a distinction, on which I shall expand, between the devolved matter and the reserved matter. It is important to establish that as a principle. We are keen to have a common-sense, balanced view of the Parliament's responsibilities in devolved matters. The central principle is the distinction between reserved and devolved matters. My hon. Friend will see that as I develop my contribution.
  Mr. Wallace: The Minister is seeking to answer the point about calling witnesses over matters that are reserved powers, but which have an impact in Scotland. Does he agree that there is nothing in the legislation to make it clear that Parliament can do that by the very nature of it being a request? Might not it be helpful if the existence of that power were put beyond doubt? It would be helpful if it were in the Bill.
  Mr. McLeish: We take the opposite view. Many matters raised in debate could be put into the Bill. Parliament can invite anyone to contribute on anything to the Parliament. On that basis, it is assumed that that will happen. We see no particular need to write that into the Bill.
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I am interested in what the Minister says, and I am glad to hear it in so far as it goes because, as I understand it, the Minister is saying that anyone can invite anyone, and explicit permission is not needed to do so. The issue concerns not so much the invitation, as the response to the invitation. Would the Scottish Parliament prefer to invite or compel the Director-General of the BBC to explain his decision on "Panorama"?
  Mr. McLeish: There clearly cannot be an element of compulsion to what is merely an invitation. If a person who is part of an organisation does not respond to an invitation, clearly the Parliament cannot discipline that

  591
  person. The BBC is not regarded as a cross-border public body because, in terms of the regulatory framework, legislative competence is based at Westminster.
  Mr. Salmond: Anybody can invite anybody to do anything. Any hon. Member has the power of invitation. The Minister is right to say that it does not need to be written into legislation, but if the Scottish Parliament has competence—if the Minister wants to stay faithful to the White Paper, he must recognise that the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) is perfectly apposite—it should be able to compel an organisation such as the BBC, with interests in Scotland, as mentioned in the White Paper, to give evidence in so far as those interests affect the Scottish people and what the Parliament will be discussing.
  Mr. McLeish: That is simply not what should happen. We seem to be stuck on a point about inviting anyone on anything. That power will be available to the Parliament, but that is not the important issue behind clause 23. If I could make some progress, I could start to address some of the issues that were raised.
  The power to require evidence should relate directly to the Parliament's responsibilities and to those who are accountable to it for exercising them. That seems straightforward and there is an element of common sense in that. Those who are not formally accountable to the Parliament, however, will be able to attend and give evidence, assuming that they are willing to do so.
  9 pm
  I should like to consider the Government amendments to clauses 23 and 24, and to schedule 4. These are in line with the principles that I have just noted. I shall then respond to the amendments proposed by other right hon. and hon. Members.
  Amendments Nos. 223, 224 and 225 will clarify the matters in relation to which the Scottish Parliament can exercise its power of summons, and in particular the circumstances in which Ministers of the United Kingdom Government and their civil servants may be summoned.
  Amendment No. 224 is the main amendment of the group. Its purpose is to amend clause 23(3). It was not intended that the clause should enable the Parliament to summon United Kingdom Ministers and their civil servants unless they, rather than the Scottish Executive, were responsible for functions concerning devolved matters. As the clause stands, however, it would enable the Parliament to compel the attendance of Ministers of the Crown, and United Kingdom civil servants, where they were exercising functions that they were permitted to exercise concurrently with the Scottish Ministers—for example, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is permitted under clause 52(f) of the Bill to continue to provide financial assistance to industry in Scotland, such as by giving grants to particular industry sectors.
  To subject United Kingdom Ministers and civil servants to the Scottish Parliament's power of summons in such cases constitutes a form of double accountability. Ministers of the Crown and United Kingdom civil servants exercising these functions will use resources voted by the United Kingdom Parliament and should be accountable to it and not to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament will, however, be able to—I use the phrase again—invite them to attend.
  592
  The amendment also clarifies a related point by providing that United Kingdom Ministers and their civil servants cannot be summoned before the Scottish Parliament just because it is provided in, say, an executive devolution order under clause 59 that the Scottish Ministers must be consulted or their agreement sought about the exercise of a function by a United Kingdom Minister that concerns a reserved matter.
  Mr. Salmond: Let us take as an example the concordat that the Minister and his hon. Friends are seeking to arrange between the Scottish Office, Locate in Scotland and the Department of Trade and Industry. If the Scottish Parliament wanted to examine the concordat to see whether it met its requirements, it would certainly want to summon its own Ministers, but would it not also want to summon the other half of the bargain—Department of Trade and Industry Ministers? Why is that summons not allowed on the face of the Bill?
  Mr. McLeish: Returning to first principles, the concordats will be concluded between Scottish and Westminster Ministers. I just explained that one of those groups will be covered. The fundamental point is that there will be an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to invite hon. Members of the Westminster Parliament to participate in the Scottish Parliament if they want to accept the invitation. There is no summoning. It is clear that, in terms of the split between devolved and reserved powers, double accountability should not exist.
  Mr. Swinney: May I put another scenario to the Minister, where a one-way street might be difficult? The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) mentioned revising the Parliament's funding mechanism. If, in the circumstances, this House were to proceed with a review of the need for public expenditure, as the Treasury Select Committee suggested the House might wish to do in the future, the Westminster Parliament would be able to compel Scottish Members to make representations, but the Scottish Parliament would not be able to compel Westminster Ministers to take account of the fact that there were imbalances in spending in the rest of the United Kingdom, but not in Scotland. That would be totally unfair.
  Mr. McLeish: The Government are not trying to conceal anything—we have been open. The point is obvious in terms of devolved and reserved powers, and invitations and summonses. I cannot be clearer in response to the point made by the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) a few minutes ago.
  Government amendment No. 225 seeks to amend subsection (4) to make it clear that the power to summon does not apply to a person in connection with discharging functions of a body that is concerned only with reserved matters. It takes account of the fact that someone might have two sets of responsibilities—one reserved and one devolved—or that the Parliament might want to call someone living in Scotland in connection with a devolved matter.
  Mr. McAllion: I accept the distinction that my hon. Friend has drawn between reserved and devolved powers. He will remember, however, that the Labour party, under the Scottish Constitutional Convention, gave

  593
  a commitment to a joint review of the Barnett-Goschen formula between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments. It seems to be a serious watering down of that commitment to say that the Scottish Parliament should not have the power to summon Treasury Ministers so that they can take part, on an equal basis with the Westminster Parliament, in the joint review of the Barnett-Goschen formula.
  Mr. McLeish: I do not want to get involved in a substantive discussion about the Barnett formula. The matter is simply not on the agenda, politically or in terms of the Bill. Where reserved matters are being discussing at Westminster, the Scottish Parliament will have the right to invite, not to summon. It is as clear-cut as that.
  Mr. Swinney: The Minister is distinguishing between devolved and reserved powers. If the distinction is so clear, why do we have so many concordats to cover the grey areas, which seem to be the matters on which the Scottish Parliament should have the right to question UK Ministers and to compel them to answer?
  Mr. McLeish: I am not aware that the matters that we are discussing are littered with concordats. I do not want to go over the points that hon. Members have raised.
  The purpose of Government amendments Nos. 226 to 228 is to remove any doubt about when procurators fiscal may decline, in proceedings of the Scottish Parliament, to answer questions or produce documents relating to particular criminal cases.
  Clause 26(3) enables the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland to decline to answer questions or produce documents relating to the operation of the criminal prosecution system in a particular case if he considers that answering the question or producing the document might prejudice criminal proceedings in that case, or that it would otherwise be contrary to the public interest. In proceedings in this House, the Law Officers may also decline to answer questions on similar grounds.
  The problem that we have encountered is whether that provision would entitle a procurator fiscal to decline to answer on the same grounds. In solemn proceedings, a procurator fiscal acts on behalf of, and in the name of, the Lord Advocate and would be entitled, under clause 26, to refuse to answer questions about any prosecution decisions on the basis that the Lord Advocate had instructed him not to answer. It would then be for the Parliament to decide whether to summon the Lord Advocate to pursue the matter.
  However, there is room for doubt about whether a procurator fiscal would be so protected in respect of other proceedings, such as summary proceedings or petition procedure, where complaints run in the name of the procurator fiscal and prosecution decisions are taken by the procurator fiscal rather than in the name of, or by, the Lord Advocate. The amendments remove the scope for doubt.
  Government amendment No. 226 adds subsection (9) to clause 23, to provide that a procurator fiscal in proceedings of the Scottish Parliament may decline to answer any question or produce any document relating to the operation of the criminal prosecution system in a
  594
  particular case where the Lord Advocate considers that prejudice might be caused in that case, or that to do so would otherwise be contrary to the public interest, and has authorised him to decline to do so. If the Parliament is not satisfied, it can, of course, call the Lord Advocate to appear before it.
  Amendment No. 43, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), would extend the Parliament's power to call for witnesses and documents in relation to devolved matters to include UK Ministers, and public servants and persons generally outside Scotland. In the Government's view that would go too far.
  Under the clause as it stands, United Kingdom Ministers and civil servants may be required to give evidence if they have responsibilities relating to devolved matters concerning Scotland, or executively devolved matters. The same applies to anyone else outside Scotland who has such responsibilities. My hon. Friend's amendment would enable the Parliament to summon anyone, wherever they lived in the United Kingdom, irrespective of whether or not they had responsibilities relating to devolved matters. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the clause strikes the right balance, and I ask him not to press his amendment.
  Amendments Nos. 163 and 165 would require the Parliament, and its Committees, to vote by a two-thirds majority before exercising the power of summons. In our view, the way in which the Parliament reaches a decision to use the power should be a matter for the Parliament itself. It is not appropriate for the Bill to impose such a requirement.
  The Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 161 and 162. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) does not want the Scottish Parliament to be able to call Ministers of the Crown to give evidence to the Scottish Parliament in any circumstances. That would not be right. The Scottish Parliament should be able to call for evidence from Ministers of the Crown who discharge functions in relation to fully or executively devolved matters in Scotland. Such a situation may arise if a United Kingdom Minister continues to discharge functions relating to a public body in Scotland that is concerned with devolved as well as reserved matters, and which has been listed under an order under clause 83. We shall obviously deal with that procedure later. On that basis, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press those amendments.
  Amendment No. 164 seeks to delete the reference in clause 23(4) to the exercise of the judicial power of the state. The phrase is self-explanatory: it refers to those courts and tribunals whose functions are judicial in character. There are bodies called tribunals that do not exercise the judicial power of the state—a phrase previously used in legislation—and they ought not to be excluded from the Parliament's power to summon persons to give evidence. Given that clarification, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment.
  Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister clarify the position of children's hearings? Are they covered by this clause?
  Mr. McLeish: My judgment is that they are not covered by this subsection, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is a judge of the European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights or the

  595
  International Court of Justice a judge of a court that exercises the judicial power of the state? My hon. Friend may want to say something about the Church of Scotland courts.
  Mr. McLeish: On my hon. Friend's first point, I think that such a judge would be excluded. I shall extend him the courtesy of sending him details on that point, and on the other matter of the Church of Scotland.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister send a copy to the Opposition?
  Mr. McLeish: Of course, as a courtesy, the letters will be copied to the Opposition.
  The Opposition raised the issue of the judicial power of the state, but the phrase is self-explanatory. However, I have agreed to provide letters of clarification on outstanding points, which I hope will deal with the matter.
  Amendment No. 166 would add to subsection (8) a reference to a court in that part of the United Kingdom in which the person lives or works. At present, the clause affords a person who is required to give evidence or produce documents the same opportunity to refuse to answer a question or to produce a document as he would have if he were in court in Scotland. Given that the legal system in Scotland differs from that in other parts of the UK, not surprisingly the privileges recognised there are not identical to those recognised in Scottish courts. We do not consider that it would be either helpful or appropriate for the Scottish Parliament in its proceedings to attempt to recognise rights and privileges available in courts in other parts of the United Kingdom.
  Amendments Nos. 167 and 249 would amend the provision that makes it an offence for a person not to answer a question put to him when he is attending proceedings of the Parliament. Although clause 24 provides that it is an offence to refuse to answer a question, a person is not obliged to answer questions unless they are about devolved or executively devolved matters.
  Mr. Salmond: We discussed the matter of the concordat being examined by Committees in the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments. The Scottish Parliament will be allowed to summon its Trade and Industry Minister, but, under existing powers, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in the Westminster Parliament will be able to summon both United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry Ministers and the Scottish Minister. That is not fair, and it is a weakening of what was understood to be the commitment. I recommend that the Minister thinks again.
  Mr. McLeish: It is not a weakening of the commitment in relation to anything that we have said, including what was said in the White Paper. This brings us back to the central point that I have made in answering hon. Members' questions about matters reserved and matters devolved. When a concordat has been reached between Ministers at Holyrood and Ministers at Westminster, it should be about co-operation, and it will be about
  596
  dialogue. Let me make it clear, however, that the Minister involved in the Westminster Parliament can be invited, but cannot be summoned.
  Mr. Swinney: The Minister talks of the advantage of basing concordats on dialogue and discussion, but how can there be a discussion if someone refuses to turn up?
  Mr. McLeish: It is a question of first principles. I am in danger of repeating myself a great deal, but it is no great secret that, in relation to the concordat and the dialogue, the Scottish Executive—the Minister—will be accountable and responsible to the Scottish Parliament. At Westminster, the Minister involved in the discussions will be responsible to Westminster—and, of course, to Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster who are participating in the continuing work of the House of Commons.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Dalyell: May I ask a rather important question about amendment No.167? Do the terms of clause 24(1)(b) constitute—
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am worried about the hon. Gentleman's interventions. He seems to be reading items on to the record, which is not in the spirit of interventions. Interventions are supposed to relate to matters that a Minister has raised.
  Mr. Dalyell: I have been asking very precise questions relating to the amendment. I was going to ask whether there was no defence to a charge of failing to answer the Parliament's questions. Moreover, I am told that the question of who is entitled to make demands for an answer is of some legal importance. Will that person be a Member of the Scottish Parliament, the Clerk of the Parliament, a Minister in the Parliament or someone else?
  Mr. McLeish: I am about to come to that.
  Under clause 23, the notice requiring a person to attend must set out the matters relating to which he is required to give evidence. A witness is not guilty of an offence if he refuses to answer a question about something else. Clause 23 also says that a person is not obliged to answer a question that he would be entitled to refuse to answer in a court in Scotland—for example, if he might incriminate himself. I trust that, following that explanation, hon. Members will agree that the only reasonable excuses or causes that a person might have for not answering a question are already covered, and that the amendments are therefore unnecessary.
  As for amendment No.168, under the provisions of the Oaths Act 1978, a person who objects to being sworn in has the right to make a solemn affirmation rather than take an oath. Accordingly, no express provision is required in the Bill. In the light of those explanations, I invite those concerned not to press amendments Nos.161 to 168 and amendment No. 249.
  I think that amendments Nos.102 to 104 should also be rejected. I doubt whether, as drafted, they will achieve what those who tabled them wish—to empower the Parliament to compel Ministers of the Crown and representatives from "reserved matters" bodies, such as broadcasters, to give evidence about reserved matters. It would be wrong for the Parliament to have such a power.

  597
  Clause 23(1) and clause 23 (2) specify the matters in relation to which the Parliament should be able to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. Those matters can be summarised as fully or executively devolved matters. They are the matters for which the Parliament and the Scottish Executive will be responsible. As I said, the Parliament should not have powers of compulsion in relation to matters over which it has no responsibility.
  Even if the amendments were acceptable—which they are not—such persons would still be caught by the conditions in subsections (1) and (2) that any person can be compelled to give evidence and produce documents only about fully or executively devolved matters. I should stress that the fact that a function in a reserved area is relevant to a devolved function does not mean that it relates to it in terms of the Bill. I therefore hope that those amendments will not be pressed.
  New clause 2 would confer an express power on the Scottish Parliament to request the attendance of witnesses and submission of documents on reserved matters as they affect Scotland. I tell the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), in the spirit of his speech, that such a provision is not necessary. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Scottish Parliament from inviting evidence about anything from anyone. I am repeating a point that I made earlier, but it is worth restating.
  New clause 2 would limit the Parliament's powers by erecting a requirement that the evidence or documents requested should be on matters affecting Scotland. I envisage circumstances in which the Scottish Parliament would want to debate or investigate events overseas that, although of interest and concern in Scotland, could not be said to affect it. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland will agree that the new clause is unnecessary and that its precise wording is undesirable. I ask him not to press it.
  Mr. Jenkin: We have had a most interesting and useful debate, which has clarified the issues surrounding clause 23. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the amendments tabled by Conservative Members and, because of his explanation of the clause and the Government's amendments to it, we shall not press any of our amendments.
  I particularly welcome the tighter restrictions that amendment No. 224 will impose in the clause, thereby neatly avoiding what the Minister called the "problem of double accountability", which was the main concern of our amendments. I believe that he has responsibly addressed the issue. He is, of course, aware that the Scottish National party and others are looking for a row on the issue. Specifically, there are those who will deliberately misunderstand the nature and scope of concordats, how they will be negotiated and what they mean. I assure him that he will have our support in ensuring that those matters are dealt with responsibly.
  The Minister made it clear that United Kingdom Ministers can be summoned only on issues for which the Scottish Parliament is responsible. It can invite evidence from anyone, but it cannot compel the Foreign Secretary to give evidence on foreign affairs. From what the
  598
  Minister was saying, I do not believe that the Parliament could compel the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give evidence on the Barnett formula or on arrangements that the UK Parliament was making—he seemed to confirm that—to determine Scotland's need and Scotland's block grant. He confirmed that the Scottish Parliament would not be able to summon people from the BBC about a programme broadcast in Scotland.
  We regard those assurances as properly consistent with Ministers' comments in the White Paper. Those matters should be held to account on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom, and are therefore properly the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament. It seems absurd for someone now to say that democracy is somehow being denied because those matters will not be dancing to the tune of what we hope will be a minority in the Scottish Parliament.
  I listened carefully to the speeches in the debate. The Secretary of State dealt well with the intervention of the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham).
  I tell the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) that those who supported devolution on the basis of this Parliament not being sovereign are destined to be disappointed. Both today's debate and yesterday's debate have been clear on that point. If the relationship between the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish Parliament goes wrong, Conservative Members will be the last to blame. We warned that exactly that type of misunderstanding would lead to the possibility of a breakdown in the relationship.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East had an opportunity to vote for the status quo—so that Scotland's influence was maximised in the House, and so that the favourable number of Scottish Members could negotiate on the favourable funding formula that he now wants to protect—using the full powers of the Secretary of State and the full complement of Scottish Members.
  In the light of the decision taken by the Scottish people, it is to the Government's credit that they are dealing with those matters rationally and responsibly. Where appropriate, we shall give them support. We welcome Government amendment No. 224.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made: No. 223, in page 11, line 14, at beginning insert 'other'.
  No. 224, in page 11, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
  "(3) The power in subsection (1) is exercisable in relation to a person outside Scotland only in connection with the discharge by him of functions relating to matters within subsection (2).
  (3A) That power is exercisable in relation to—

  (a) a Minister of the Crown, or

  (b) a person in Crown employment, within the meaning of section 191(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, other than a person mentioned in section 47(2) of this Act,

  only in connection with the discharge by him of functions relating to matters within subsection (2) which are not functions mentioned in subsection (3B).
  (3B) Those functions are—

  (a) functions exercisable in or as regards Scotland by a Minister of the Crown as well as by the Scottish Ministers, and

  (b) in relation to matters within subsection (2)(b), functions exercisable by a Minister of the Crown with the agreement of, or after consultation with, the Scottish Ministers.'.

  No. 225, in page 11, line 24, after 'matters', insert
  'in connection with the discharge by him of those functions'.
  No. 226, in page 12, line 3, at end insert—
  '(9) A procurator fiscal is not obliged under this section to answer any question or produce any document relating to the operation of the system of criminal prosecution in any particular case if the Lord Advocate—

  (a) considers that answering the question or producing the document might prejudice criminal proceedings in that case or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest, and

  (b) has authorised the procurator fiscal to decline to answer the question or produce the document on that ground.'.—[Mr. McFall.]

  Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

  WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS: OFFENCES
  Amendment made: No. 227, in page 12, line 15, after '23(8)', insert 'and (9)'.—[Mr. McFall.]
  Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

  ACTS OF THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT
  Amendment proposed: No. 23, in page 13, line 31, at end add
  "in relation to reserved matters'.—[Mr. Salmond]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 24, Noes 239.

  Division No. 144]

  [9.27 pm

  AYES

  Ballard, Mrs Jackie

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burnett, John

  Rendel, David

  Burstow, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Salmond, Alex

  Cotter, Brian

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

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Swinney, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Tonge,Dr Jenny

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Wallace, James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Willis, Phil

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Mr. Andrew Welsh and

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Mr. Donald Gorrie.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Alexander, Douglas

  Austin, John

  Allen, Graham

  Banks, Tony

  600

  Battle, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bayley, Hugh

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Beard, Nigel

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Grogan, John

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Hain, Peter

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Bercow, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hanson, David

  Best, Harold

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Betts, Clive

  Heald, Oliver

  Blackman, Liz

  Healey, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Heppell, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Browne, Desmond

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Burden, Richard

  Hurst, Alan

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Hutton, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cawsey, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Clelland, David

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Khabra, Piara S

  Collins, Tim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Connarty, Michael

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Lansley, Andrew

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Linton, Martin

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davidson, Ian

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lock, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Love, Andrew

  Dawson, Hilton

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  McCabe, Steve

  Dismore, Andrew

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Dobbin, Jim

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Doran, Frank

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dowd, Jim

  McDonnell, John

  Drew, David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Drown, Ms Julia

  McIsaac, Shona

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  McLeish, Henry

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Edwards, Huw

  McWalter, Tony

  Efford, Clive

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Evans, Nigel

  Mallaber, Judy

  Fisher, Mark

  Marek, Dr John

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Flint, Caroline

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Merron, Gillian

  Foulkes, George

  Michael, Alun

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Milburn, Alan

  Galbraith, Sam

  Miller, Andrew

  Gale, Roger

  Moffatt, Laura

  Gapes, Mike

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gardiner, Barry

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Godman, Norman A

  Morley, Elliot

  Godsiff, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mudie, George

  Green, Damian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  601

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Norris, Dan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Olner, Bill

  Soley, Clive

  O'Neill, Martin

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Spellar, John

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Paterson, Owen

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Plaskitt, James

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pond, Chris

  Swayne, Desmond

  Pope, Greg

  Syms, Robert

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Timms, Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Touhig, Don

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Radice, Giles

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rooker, Jeff

  White, Brian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Salter, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wise, Audrey

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Wood, Mike

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wyatt, Derek

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Singh, Marsha

  Mr. John McFall.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

  LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE
  Mr. Wallace: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 13, line 32, leave out 'so far as' and insert
  "only to the extent that'.
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 170, in page 13, line 32, leave out 'so far as' and insert 'to the extent that'.
  No. 173, in page 14, line 3, at end insert—
  "(f) it is incompatible with any international treaty obligation'.
  No. 171, in page 14, leave out lines 15 to 18.
  No. 172, in page 14, leave out lines 19 to 22.
  Mr. Wallace: I shall try to be brief, because the important function of this group of amendments is to give the Minister the opportunity to reply, and perhaps to explain precisely what the clause means.
  Amendment No. 8 would leave out the words "so far as" and replace them with the words:
  "only to the extent that".
  602
  If so amended, clause 28(1) would read:
  "An Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law only to the extent that any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament."
  The purpose of that is to make it clear that, if an Act had 20 sections, one of which went beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament, the whole Act would not fall. Instead, it would not be operative only to the extent of that one section. [Interruption.]
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. May we have a bit more quiet in the Chamber, please?
  Mr. Wallace: I am sure that my explanation accords with what was intended, and if we could have that on the record, it would be helpful. The Secretary of State laughs, but he knows that there may be someone somewhere down the line who would try to suggest otherwise—and no doubt would make a small fortune from doing so.
  Our other aim is to try to elicit some elaboration of the provisions of the clause. As I understand it, if, for example, an amendment to Scots private law trespassed on, or had implications for, a reserved subject, so long as it did not materially go too far, it would be allowed, despite the fact that the subject was reserved.
  The wording, however, is not entirely transparent, and our understanding is not helped by the notes on clauses, which say:
  "Subsection (6) makes clear that a provision does not relate to a reserved matter merely because it makes provision for purposes relating to devolved matters which incidentally affect reserved matters. It is intended that this should give statutory effect to the common law doctrine of respection."
  I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) knows what "respection" means, but I am sure that I do not.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: In St. Andrews we think of nothing else.
  Mr. Wallace: Quite so. But seriously, the Committee would be helped if we could be given some elaboration of what was intended. I think that the provision was intended to be helpful, and I am sure that the Minister of State, or even the Secretary of State, would be delighted to tell the Committee how helpful it is.
  Mr. Salmond: Like the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), I am looking for assistance from the Minister. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, subsection (6) reads:
  "A provision does not relate to reserved matters merely because it makes provision for purposes relating to devolved matters which incidentally affects reserved matters unless it makes modifications of Scots private law or Scots criminal law, or of any enactment, as it applies to reserved matters."
  I have gone through many Bills and there are always some clauses that cause difficulty, but that is one of the most confusing subsections that I have come across. I know that the Minister of State has such matters under his full command and will be able to elucidate and elaborate—[Interruption.]—thanks to the Secretary of State? That simply proves how difficult the clause is, because we are calling in the heavy artillery to try to elucidate. The Committee would be grateful if we could be given a fairly concise description.

  603
  We are talking about matters of competence. We saw in the previous vote the Labour and Conservative parties join each other in the Lobby, delighted with the idea that they could box in the Scottish Parliament but leave it open to the Westminster Parliament to intrude on devolved matters.
  We have also had a debate on competence this evening, in which the Conservative party was delighted with the idea that the Scots Parliament could not summon a United Kingdom Minister, but a United Kingdom Parliament could summon a Scots Minister. To many of us it looks as if we are seeing the beginning of a one-way street—a retreat from understandings and commitments.
  I hope that, in his explanation of clause 28(6), the Secretary of State will be able to give us some reassurance on wider matters of competence, which are causing many of us considerable concern.
  9.45 pm
  Dr. Fox: Amendment No. 170 was suggested by the Law Society. Its reasoning was that subsection (1) appears to provide that the provisions of an Act of the Scottish Parliament may not be severable, in that, if any provision of an Act is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Act is not law. Its feeling was that, if the Scottish Parliament were to enact a miscellaneous provisions Act, the legislation could be challenged, not on the section issued but on another totally unrelated section, as not being legislatively competent. If the Secretary of State is unable to reply immediately, we would welcome a written answer.
  Amendment No. 173 is consistent with clause 33. It would be more logical to put the provision in clause 28, because clause 33 gives the Secretary of State discretion to make the decision, and the amendment would state at this part of the Bill that the matter does not lie within the legislative competence of the Parliament. That would be a neater arrangement.
  I, too, do not think that the clause will win the plain English award this year. If the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) found it impenetrable, the Secretary of State can imagine what a non-lawyer made of it. In subsection (4), it seems as though the legislation is competent if it deals with reserved matters, in which case the Bill would bring Scottish law into line with United Kingdom law. I wonder whether that interpretation is correct.
  Subsection (5) allows the Scottish Parliament to make "incidental or consequential" amendments to United Kingdom law where it relates to devolved matters. What does the Secretary of State have in mind? Can he give us examples of when that would happen? Why is it necessary, and does it not make nonsense of the concept of legislative competence in the clause?
  Many of us found it difficult to understand the clause, so I look forward to the Secretary of State's detailed explanations.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I am glad to know that I am not the only Member of Parliament who finds the clause puzzling. I should be very grateful for some clarification, especially as the clause relates to schedule 5, on which I have tabled some amendments.
  Equal opportunities is a reserved power, except for a couple of minor modifications set out in the Bill; but would it be acceptable if the Scottish Parliament wanted
  604
  to legislate on equal opportunities in relation to its own devolved powers? I am not sure whether the Bill as it stands means that the Westminster Parliament would legislate on everything to do with equal opportunities, even though it could not enforce equal opportunities in relation to powers that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We need clarity about that before we debate schedule 5.
  Mr. Dalyell: Subsection (8) says:
  "An Act of the Scottish Parliament may modify a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament, whenever passed or made, if the modification is otherwise within its legislative competence."
  The phrase "whenever passed or made" suggests that a Scottish Act can modify even an Act of Parliament passed subsequent to the enactment of the Bill. Given the mutually exclusive approach to vires, is it not difficult to imagine where it would be competent for both bodies to legislate and for the subsection to be applicable?
  A narrow possibility is that the answer is the minor area of overlap mentioned earlier in the clause, but a wider possibility is that the subsection permits the Scottish Parliament to respond when Westminster uses its overriding power under clause 27(7). Surely that could set up the possibility of endless oscillation between the two Parliaments, which would be difficult to resolve. Will my right hon. Friend comment on what might be endless oscillation?
  Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) could never be accused of endless oscillation. He goes forward with a steady pace, fixing his beam on one objective, and pursuing it relentlessly.
  I shall deal briefly with amendments Nos. 8 and 170, which have the enormous advantage of being simple and understandable. I can confirm to the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that his understanding of our intention is correct. Very simply, if there is a challenge to the vires of a provision in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, and if that is upheld, clearly the specific provision falls, but not the rest of the Act. That is the clarity which we are all anxious to establish. The argument is whether the phrase "so far as" is the proper way to do it.
  I have never made myself out to be a draftsman—occasionally a barrack-room lawyer, but never a draftsman. I am advised—and I wish to take the advice that I have been given—that this is the right way to do it. Clearly, that is the interpretation that would be put upon it, and the interpretation that is intended. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not want to pursue that matter.
  I am rather telescoping all the amendments, because we have only a few minutes to go. I wish to refer to some amendments which I concede are not quite so easy. Amendment No. 173 is sensible, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) suggested, because it puts in the matter of international treaty obligations at a more convenient point. I am advised, and I think that the Committee will follow the argument, that it would be wrong to treat this as a vires matter.
  The courts are not normally in a position to assess the compatibility of our domestic law with our international obligations unless those international obligations have

  605
  been incorporated into our law. There are a number of international obligations which are not in that position. I accept that the position will, to some extent, be simplified when rights under the European convention on human rights and certain other matters of European Community law are imported into our law, but there will still be extensive areas which would not be justiciable, and therefore not suitable for the vires provision.
  I do not need to stress to the House that I do not expect that machinery to be used in these particular circumstances. I would expect a Scottish Parliament—as with the UK Parliament—to recognise that, if we have international treaty obligations, our domestic law must not infringe and defy those obligations. If we accepted the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Woodspring—in a fair and probing spirit—and if we did get such a case, we might be in a situation in which we had no fail-safe arrangement of the kind anticipated. I have simplified the matter, but, for that reason, I invite him to withdraw that amendment.
  We now come to one or two amendments which are a little more complex. Perhaps it would be appropriate if I said a word or two about the impact of clause 28. I must tell the House—not in a patronising or mocking spirit—that it is a difficult clause. It took me a long time to begin to see the shape of it through the technicalities of the language, which are complex and make easy reading difficult—there is no doubt about that.
  The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland gave us the benefit of the doubt by assuming that the clause is intended to be helpful, and I think it will be helpful. A lot of genuine political argument has been—I will not say raging—present in the Chamber about what the Bill is essentially trying to do. This is another example where we have tried to make sure that there is a proper balance of responsibility between Westminster and the Parliament in Edinburgh.
  There is an understandable tendency for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to establish criteria for the propriety of the Bill or its virtue which can be met only by a total independence solution. That is unfortunate, because he is a man of some skill, who, I have no doubt, read the White Paper many times before he came to his decision to advocate a yes vote. I recognise that he had reservations and would have liked the scheme to go further, but it is not proper for him now to come forward and establish his reservations as the test, as he consistently tries to do.
  We are the ones who have tried throughout to be consistent, which means that we have had on occasion to defend principles that are important in terms of the proper responsibilities of this House. We are determined that we will continue to do so, because that is what Scotland endorsed in the referendum—if we are to take the White Paper seriously, as we are constantly encouraged to do.
  Mr. Salmond: The right hon. Gentleman's argument is plainly wrong. In the vote that we have just had, we were supported by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). It is legitimate for him to support that, given his position. It is clear that many Labour Members were disturbed by the nature of our last debate and the idea of a one-way relationship. It is untrue to suggest that
  606
  it is only from an independence viewpoint that people are detecting a retreat from aspects of powers which it was widely assumed would be given to a Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Dewar: This is where I deeply disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He says that we are retreating from principles that were widely assumed. Anyone who read the White Paper carefully can see that we are delivering exactly on it. I shall not strain your patience, Mr. Martin, by re-fighting the battles of the past couple of hours, in which I was not involved, but it is clear that there are areas that are the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament. Scotland is represented in that Parliament.
  Those areas of responsibility will have to watched from a Scottish point of view. They will be watched by Scottish Mps. Westminster Ministers will be accountable to them, as they are to representatives of other parts of the kingdom. Similarly, there are areas of responsibility where we will arm the Scottish Parliament with all the full powers of the Westminster Parliament. It is for those areas that it will be entrusted with responsibility when the Bill reaches the statute book.
  Let me move to the theory of clause 28. I may be reaching more difficult ground, but it is in a sense a departure from the neat division to which we have been applying our minds in recent times. That division assumed that, by and large, there would be a reserved area of responsibility and the rest, which would be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
  In the area for which the Scottish Parliament is responsible, its writ runs, and it has the right to legislate. However, there will be terms in respect of which, if we had made the boundary absolute and held to it hard, we would have run up against the fact that there were areas of devolved responsibility where legislation would impact on reserved areas.
  If we took an inflexible and pedantic view, we could argue that it would not be possible to use the power in the devolved areas, and could legislate on that basis. In so doing—I endorse the word that was fortunately happened on by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—we would be trespassing on the reserved areas. That would have created a difficulty that we were anxious to meet.
  I do not recommend it for a relaxing Sunday afternoon, but clauses 28 and 33 must be taken together. They are complex, linguistically dense, provisions, but they are designed to ensure that, if a Scottish Parliament legislates properly in devolved areas of responsibility but trespasses on the reserved areas, we can ensure that it can be done, subject to a number of safeguards and definitions. Obviously, we cannot have people riding as if on a border foray of yesteryear into the territory of the other Parliament, but we must deal with the area covering the debatable lands, to continue the historic metaphor, without having a declaration of legislative civil war. That is the story of clauses 28 and 33. I hope that that explanation is helpful.
  Amendment No. 171 deals with the common law doctrine of respection. It recognises that legislative provision does not relate to a reserved matter merely because it makes provision for purposes relating to devolved matters that incidentally affect reserved matters. That is the general principle that I have been trying to enunciate for circumstances where there is an incidental

  607
  effect on a reserved matter. As long as there is a steady thrust within the devolved principles and the effect is purely incidental and consequential, it can survive that test.
  I think it was either my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow or the hon. Member for Woodspring who raised the point, but, in the same way, we are applying the test that there should be proper cohesion—in other words, not that we are bringing Scots law into line with English law, but that the impact is even and equivalent on both sides of the border as between reserved and devolved powers. That is right and helpful.
  What subsection (6) does and why it should not be taken out is that it provides the legislation—
  It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution [28 January], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
  Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
  THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
  Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

  PROVISIONS OF THE ACT NOT PROTECTED FROM MODIFICATION
  Amendment made: No. 228, in page 58, line 31, at end insert—
  "procurators fiscal,'.—[Mr. McFall.]
  Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29

  RESERVED MATTERS
  Amendments made: No. 229, in page 14, line 35, leave out 'Subordinate legislation may' and insert
  "Her Majesty may by Order in Council'.
  No. 230, in page 14, line 36, leave out
  "the person making the legislation'
  and insert 'She'.
  No. 231, in page 14, line 37, leave out 'subordinate legislation' and insert "Order'.—[Mr. McFall.]
  Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 30 to 40 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.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that your predecessors in the Chair, the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Second Deputy Chairman, would agree that, in the past five or so hours, there has been no time wasting or filibustering by any hon. Member on either side of the House, and that all the discussion was relevant and serious.
  In the circumstances, surely it is deeply unsatisfactory—I shall not use the word "travesty" or anything of that kind—that crucial clauses of this constitutional Bill, covering matters such as changes to the list of reserved powers, scrutiny of Bills in relation to legislative competence and, for heaven's sake, the power of Secretary of State to intervene, have gone undiscussed in the House of Commons. That cannot be right.
  I do not doubt for a moment that the business managers produced the schedule in good faith. However, I doubt that they anticipated that there would be a statement of 55 minutes by the Prime Minister on the events of 1972, in addition to business questions. I suppose that I am asking, is there no possibility of injury time of some kind if this happens again? I realise that these clauses have been overtaken, but none of us can be proud of the fact that the House of Commons has not looked at crucial clauses on a constitutional issue.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair is in the hands of the House in these matters, because Committee stages are programmed. It is therefore up to the Committee to use the time wisely. I do have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has to say, because he may recall that, last night, I made the point that, if people spent a certain amount of time on one set of amendments or clauses, other matters would be neglected—but these are matters for the Committee, and I am sure that the Committee has heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say.

  Fireworks Bill [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed:
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Fireworks Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

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

  (a) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department in consequence of any provision of the Act, and

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

  (2) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. McFall.]

  10.6 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I hope that it will by no means be controversial if I say that money resolutions attaching to private Members' Bills if anything deserve more consideration than those attaching to Government or public Bills; that is because of their origin and contents. I hope that we shall be treated to an explanation of the implications of the money resolution before us, and of those that we are to discuss later tonight. I say that especially with regard to the Fireworks Bill, because several elements in the Bill would give rise to expenditure about which the House should be told before we are asked to proceed further with these measures.
  For example, clause 5 refers to prohibition of the supply, purchase and possession of fireworks of a specified description. I assume, although I confess that I am not acquainted with the details of the Bill, that that provision refers to functions of the type usually carried out by a trading standards officer—I can think of no one else who would perform them. Immediately, there is the clear implication that the number of trading standards officers would need to be increased to implement that part of the Bill.
  The Bill also refers to prohibiting persons who are not satisfactorily trained or experienced in the use of fireworks, and are not covered by accident insurance, from purchasing or possessing fireworks. That also causes us to consider who would be in a position to police the Bill. It may indeed be the police, if not trading standards officers.
  Clause 7 mentions licensed premises. The implication is that, if fireworks can be supplied or used only in licensed premises, someone, somewhere, must be policing—in the broadest sense of the word—the premises that are to be used.
  Throughout the Bill runs the assumption that its rather tight regulatory provisions will be policed—I know not whether by trading standards officers, as I have suggested, or by Customs and Excise officers. If that is the case, and depending on the extent to which it is the case, the Bill clearly has substantial spending implications.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: As my right hon. Friend will have seen, considerable penalties are to be levied on people who contravene the provisions of the Bill, which implies some public education or training programme for the citizen. No doubt, for example, there will be an increase in the
  610
  number of people working in the citizens advice bureaux so that advice may be given before Guy Fawkes; that will end up as a charge on local authority finance.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Not only is he right to point out a possible increase in the number of people, say, in the advice bureaux, but he implies that there would have to be an advertising effort. This Government, like the previous Government, are keen to inform people about the implications of legislation of this kind, especially if people will be subject to a financial penalty or something worse. Therefore, there is an implication in the Bill of a likely expenditure on informing the public of its provisions and possible penalties.
  That would be bad enough, but there is still the matter of compensation. However, I can find no reference to it in the Bill. I assume that we will get a detailed explanation of the matter before the House is asked to approve the money Resolution. Will the Government tell us what compensation is envisaged for small retailers carrying stocks of fireworks in good faith, that may overnight be rendered illegal by the provisions of the Bill?
  Those are the smallest of businesses, family businesses and community businesses, which have stocked up with fireworks. Those are perfectly in order within the existing regulations, but may be quickly rendered illegal and subject to penalties by the Bill. Before we can contemplate approving the money resolution, we need to know how much money might be involved in the payment of compensation to those small retailers as a direct result of the Bill.
  I am merely sketching out the possibilities. Goodness knows what would be involved, were I to go into detail, which I suspect that the House may not want at this stage. I simply wanted to give a flavour of the difficulties that I see arising from the Bill, however well-intentioned it may be. Numbers of police, trading standards officers and staff in citizens advice bureaux may have to be increased, and there will be expenditure on informing the public. As if to rub salt in the wound, under the heading "Financial effects of the Bill", we are told:
  "The financial effects of the Bill will depend on the content of such regulations and cannot at this stage be predicted."
  That is not good enough. It is not good enough for legislation, particularly private Members' Bills, to be brought before the House and for us to be asked to give a blank cheque or a rubber stamp. When we come to the next items on the agenda—after we have thoroughly considered this one—hon. Members will see that the same argument applies with even more force. Time and again, under the heading money resolutions, the House is asked to vote indeterminate or unspecified sums for unspecified purposes contained in private Members' Bills.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At this stage we are debating a money resolution—singular. We are not dealing with money resolutions, just the money resolution before us, relating to the Fireworks Bill.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Martin. I am grateful for that guidance. I had strayed a little because I wanted to reinforce the point about the additional importance, as I

  611
  saw it, in private Members' Bills generally for us to be fully aware of and properly to scrutinise the money implications.
  Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend is right to consider general matters, but there is a particular matter that requires comment. Under the heading, "Effect of the Bill on public service manpower", it is stated:
  "The Bill will have no effect on central government staff numbers."
  However, clause 10 includes provision
  "for the Secretary of State to recognise or license bodies for the purpose of providing training in the use of fireworks." Unless—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must be firm. We are discussing the money resolution, not the Bill.
  Mr. Forth: I imagine that my hon. Friend was implying that the provision of additional training personnel would have financial implications. [Interruption.] We need guidance on whether and how far the increased numbers of personnel—police, trading standards officers, training personnel or whatever—have financial implications. It is no good implying—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must appeal to Members on the Treasury Bench to be quiet when an hon. Member is addressing the House.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assume that Members on the Treasury Bench are discussing the detailed response to the questions that my hon. Friends and I have raised. I look forward, therefore, to a more detailed and comprehensive reply as a result of their discussions, which I forgive.
  I hope that I have persuaded the House that it is a key part of the Opposition's responsibilities properly to scrutinise such measures and to seek an explanation at this stage of what is in the Government's mind when they are asking us to vote this money before we proceed to approve it. That is what I am asking for in order that I may make my own judgment.
  Mr. Robert Syms: I have similar concerns. If this measure has a monetary effect, will the Government compensate Poole borough council, which has a capping limit?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend raises an important point—the implication for local authorities of this measure. After all, trading standards officers are employees of local authorities, and many of the other enforcement mechanisms hinted at in the Bill will also fall to local authorities. In so far as they are capped, that suggests that at the very least there would have to be a reordering of priorities within local authorities. Which of the other local authorities' activities will have to be curtailed in order for them to implement the Bill? There may not be an increase in expenditure—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for
  612
  pointing that out: it may simply be that schools will have to be closed or refuse not to be collected in order for the legislation to be enforced.
  There, in brief terms, are some of the questions that occur to me about which I want to be satisfied before I even consider giving the money resolution my consent.
  10.18 pm
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): People who know the Conservative Government's record on fireworks will know that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) should hang his head in shame. Some five years ago, he stood at this Dispatch Box in my job and did absolutely nothing to promote firework safety.
  The right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors presided over a doubling of the number of fireworks injuries. The sad fact is that even in 1998 the Opposition have not learnt that money is not everything. We have had a tirade from the right hon. Gentleman, sadly supported by the new hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who I hope will learn better—
  Mr. Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand from your ruling that we are discussing the money aspect of the Bill, not the merits of the Bill. May we ask that the Minister addresses the money aspect?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a valid point. The Minister should keep his remarks to the money resolution.
  Mr. Griffiths: All my remarks were concentrated on money—on an Opposition who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
  If the right hon. Gentleman, when he was adding up the so-called costs of the measure, had done as I did in the last firework campaign and visited people in hospital who had lost their fingers through firework injuries, he would not be talking now of the burdens of money. No amount of money will compensate the young man whom I visited in the midlands who has lost his fingers. He lost his fingers because the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not only did nothing but did not care. They counted the pennies on everything and did not mind the fact that people were at risk because of their abysmal policies. The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the Opposition simply do not care about safety. They care only about the cost. They should hang their heads in shame. We, as the Government, are proud of the measures that we have taken.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Fireworks Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

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

  (a) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department in consequence of any provision of the Act, and

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

  (2) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.

  Stoke Mandeville Hospital
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McFall.]
  10.21 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: I am grateful to Madam Speaker for allowing me this opportunity to initiate a short debate on the future of Stoke Mandeville hospital in my constituency.
  Stoke Mandeville is known nationally and internationally as the home of the national spinal injuries centre, but to people living in Aylesbury and the surrounding areas it is much more than that. It is a medium-sized acute hospital which serves the local population with a wide range of medical services. Its patients come from Buckinghamshire and parts of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire. The hospital also provides specialist services in plastic surgery and ophthalmics to patients from other parts of the country.
  Many men and women are treated at Stoke Mandeville. Each year it treats about 32,000 in-patients. Some 140,000 people attend as out-patients, and about 44,000 people attend the accident and emergency unit. The need for the hospital is not diminishing—far from it. Its catchment area is growing significantly. That is particularly true of Aylesbury, where significant new residential development is planned over the next two decades, but it is also true of some of the smaller settlements served by Stoke Mandeville, such as Princes Risborough, in my constituency, and Haddenham, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
  There is strong local support for Stoke Mandeville and the work that it carries out. That will, perhaps, be signified tomorrow when, I am delighted to say, the Prime Minister's wife will visit the hospital to open the new computerised tomography scanner, which has been made possible by money raised through voluntary contributions and donations from local people.
  If I feel strongly about the future of Stoke, it is not just because it is of vital importance to the people whom I represent but because it is my local hospital, the hospital where my four sons were born, and on which I and my family personally rely. Its medical reputation is high, but that is not matched by the quality of the buildings.
  Stoke was originally built in 1942 to provide temporary wartime accommodation, and those wartime units are still substantially in use today. Since then, there has been piecemeal development of variable quality, but it has included some first-class modern facilities, notably the maternity unit, which is probably the part of the hospital with which I have become most familiar over the past few years.
  One result of the piecemeal development is that we now have a hospital which sprawls over 90 acres of land. It is larger than most teaching hospitals in the country, probably in western Europe. Many of the buildings are obsolete, and the site and the buildings are inefficient. The costs of treatment at Stoke are inflated by the overheads: maintenance, heating, cleaning and others, which are needed because of the inefficiency and the obsolescence of the buildings.
  There is not only financial inefficiency but clinical inefficiency. That is, perhaps, best illustrated by the example of the paediatric unit, which is a third of a mile
  614
  from the main operating theatres. It takes a minimum of several minutes to take a sick child from paediatrics to theatre, or to bring in staff or emergency equipment to the paediatric unit from elsewhere.
  It is to the hospital's credit that, despite those handicaps, it has met both its financial and patient charter obligations year on year. I place on the record a tribute to all the hospital staff for that achievement. It is worth noting that the chief executive of Stoke Mandeville was asked by the regional office to chair the Anglia-Oxford working party on cutting waiting lists and ending bed blocking. Stoke's success in delivering high-quality medical care has been recognised by the NHS at regional level.
  The need for redevelopment at Stoke Mandeville has been recognised since the 1970s. Various schemes have been proposed and, for different reasons, have foundered. At one time, the development of the new city of Milton Keynes and the urgency of its need for medical facilities took precedence in the decisions of the Government of the day. Subsequent schemes were shelved because of national financial pressures.
  Mr. Brian White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lidington: No, but I should be happy to leave time for the hon. Gentleman to speak later.
  Another scheme was approved by the Department in June 1994, but that in turn was delayed when the private finance initiative scheme was introduced. A still later scheme was delayed last year when the newly elected Government decided to alter the rules on PFI.
  I mention all that not because I see much point in going over old ground in detail tonight, but because some account of the history is necessary to explain the depth of feeling among my constituents about the importance of a project that is now being promoted by the trust and Buckinghamshire health authority, and to explain the feeling of cynicism among hospital staff and local GPs, who doubt whether the much-needed redevelopment will ever happen.
  I have had extensive discussions in recent months, not only with the trust management but with Buckinghamshire health authority, the chief funder of the hospital, and with the Oxford-Anglia regional office. I am grateful for the patience and courtesy with which all those concerned have always listened to my representations, and for the seriousness with which they have engaged in the arguments that I have put on behalf of my area. Both the regional office and Buckingham health authority have told me firmly that they are committed to the successful redevelopment of Stoke Mandeville hospital.
  There seems to be local agreement on the continuing need for an acute hospital in Aylesbury, and on the fact that that requires the redevelopment of Stoke Mandeville. There is also recognition, acknowledged by the trust management as well as the health authority and the regional office, that the new Stoke Mandeville must reflect in its configuration changes in medical treatment that have taken place in recent years and are forecast to continue. Those include the trend towards day surgery and increased specialisation, and are illustrated by the implementation of, for example, the Calman report on cancer care.

  615
  Stoke is looking actively to develop constructive partnerships with other hospitals, both within Buckinghamshire and in Oxford and Milton Keynes. The present proposals, which were endorsed this week by Buckinghamshire health authority, would involve building a new paediatric unit, a new ward block and changes to the theatre complex at the hospital. The number of beds would be reduced from 510 to 443, but day case places would rise from 23 to 30.
  The plans provide for the hospital to treat about the same number of patients in the future as it treats today. They incorporate a partnership agreement with South Buckinghamshire NHS trust and the Aylesbury Vale community healthcare trust. The total cost would be about £23.2 million. The changes would bring significant clinical and financial benefits. Clearly, our constituents who use Stoke Mandeville would benefit from the provision of modern facilities that can deliver state-of-the-art medical care into the 21st century. The national health service as a whole also stands to gain a significant financial benefit.
  The proposed plans would release revenue savings of more than £3 million a year. I note that the hon. Members for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) are present. The release of revenue savings from a successful development at Stoke Mandeville is of vital importance to Buckinghamshire health authority if it is to meet its strategic commitment to shifting extra funding to GPs in Milton Keynes. Urban problems in that town have stimulated a need for medical care which has not been adequately met in the past.
  Like the hon. Members who represent Milton Keynes, I will tussle over formulae and over my own patch, but it is recognised that Milton Keynes needs extra funding, and the release of those revenue savings is one way of achieving that objective.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Do I take it that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the underfunding of Milton Keynes by about £4 million this year, as highlighted by the Buckinghamshire health authority, is justified? Does he recognise that mid-Buckinghamshire has been overfunded by about £5 million? He refers to the benefits for the whole of Buckinghamshire of the undoubted revenue savings from a developed Stoke Mandeville. Does he accept that it is important for Stoke Mandeville to be developed as part of the acute services strategy agreed by the health authority for all the hospitals in Buckinghamshire? The development of Stoke Mandeville should not create a hospital that is larger than the acute services strategy foresees, because that would entail continuing excess spending in mid-Buckinghamshire, which would prevent north Buckinghamshire from receiving the money.
  Mr. Lidington: I agree with the hon. Lady's last point to some extent. The plan that has been endorsed by the trust management and by Buckinghamshire health authority is in line with that acute services strategy.
  I would take issue with the hon. Lady over her assertion that mid-Buckinghamshire has been overfunded. This is not the occasion to go into the historical factors at work within the county and the application of the York formula to some county units. The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for
  616
  Milton Keynes, North-East, and his predecessor, Mr. Peter Butler, argue the case passionately on behalf of Milton Keynes. Irrespective of what happens in the rest of Buckinghamshire, on the figures that I have seen, Milton Keynes has a good case for extra funding. As I said, the successful completion of the scheme at Stoke Mandeville is one way of helping to achieve that objective.
  It is not only the revenue savings that are at stake. Surplus land worth £10 million at the minimum would be released by the redevelopment of Stoke Mandeville. That money could be ploughed back into health care either in our part of the country or elsewhere: that would be up to the Minister and his colleagues to decide. The NHS can ill afford to lose such a financial benefit. I hope that that entices the Minister and the regional office to look favourably on the scheme.
  I want to put two brief questions to the Minister that he may reflect on if he cannot reply in detail now. The first is about the status of the £23.2 million bid. As I understand it, bids below a certain level fall to the regional office to decide, and bids above, perhaps at £25 million, must go to Ministers for a central decision. Can the Minister clarify that?
  The second question is about interim strategic support, which was intended to tide Stoke Mandeville over until the rebuilding. It is due to end in 1999, and the earliest date at which new buildings can come into use is 2003.
  Both the health authority and the regional office have told me that they continue to look actively for solutions. I hope that the Department will keep an open mind on whether to address the problem by arranging a deal with the potential private-sector partner, or to consider ways in which it and the NHS can cope with it. It is a real problem, but a time-limited one once the redevelopment is approved.
  The original intention was that the sale of the land owned by the Department would part-fund the Stoke Mandeville project. I understand that that will not now happen, but I hope that it will still be possible for the departmental land to be developed in conjunction with the trust-owned land. Both parties might well benefit from a scheme that could take place at the same time, and be attractive to the same private-sector partner.
  Finally, let me make a plea that, if it is humanly possible, work on the paediatric unit should be brought forward to the earliest possible date. I explained earlier about the particular needs of paediatric patients. I hope that, either through a deal involving the land or through the terms of the contract with the private-sector partner, we can find a way of advancing the provision of a modern paediatric unit much closer to the operating theatres.
  I am grateful for the opportunity that I have been given. When my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and I met the Minister last year, he listened to us with great courtesy and gave us a good deal of time. I thank him for his serious interest in the project in recent months, and I look forward to his reply.
  10.36 pm
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Has the hon. Gentleman the permission of the Minister as well as that of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)?
  Mr. Bercow: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  617
  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. What my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has said is entirely correct, both in relation to the hospital and in relation to the courtesy and attentiveness with which the Minister has greeted our representations.
  Although Stoke Mandeville hospital is in my hon. Friend's constituency, it also serves my constituents. It is especially—although not exclusively—important to those living in the south of my patch, but all my constituents have a real interest in and commitment to the hospital, and will its development. They are right to do so, and I hope that that will prove possible.
  My hon. Friend referred to the quality of Stoke Mandeville hospital. In 1995, the hospital secured the charter mark for excellence in public service, but that is only one demonstration of the quality that it has achieved. It would be inappropriate for me to allow my first Adjournment debate to pass without also saying that the chairman of the Stoke Mandeville NHS trust is a constituent of mine, Mrs. Gillian Miscampbell. Naturally, I consider her a person of the highest calibre. She is a superb chairman, and a long-standing resident of the area. She has its interests at heart, and I think that she has a real conception of the way in which the hospital should develop in the future.
  There is no doubt that, although the hospital's management is excellent, its medical staff are first-class and the number of people for whom it caters is very large, it cannot progress without substantial and early redevelopment. The Minister is well aware of the background of disappointment, delay and frustration that the hospital and those who use its services have suffered to date, and I shall not rehearse that now; but the redevelopment is necessary, not merely for purposes of administrative or logistical efficiency, but to attain the primary objective of improved clinical care.
  The project to which my hon. Friend devoted the thrust of his remarks is designed not least to improve paediatric care, coronary care and cancer services in the future.
  I want those services to be developed, and to be developed in a manner that enables Stoke Mandeville to make substantial savings. My constituents want that to happen, and my hon. Friend wants it to happen. There is a need to go forward. I have observed that need not only in discussions with my hon. Friend and with the hospital management but by direct experience of observing the hospital at first hand on a number of visits.
  I wish Stoke Mandeville well. I do not doubt the Minister's good faith, but I shall listen with great interest to his reply to the debate.
  10.39 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I am delighted to have this opportunity to reply—my brief says to the debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington); well, he is almost my hon. Friend—this debate. I also welcome the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) back from the dead, or at least from the Standing Committee considering the National Minimum Wage Bill. I congratulate him on all his work there. I congratulate also the hon. Member for Aylesbury on securing this debate, on a subject that is close not only to his heart but, as he explained, to those of his family and constituents.
  618
  Stoke Mandeville is a valued hospital serving the part of the world of the hon. Member for Aylesbury. It is valued not only by local people, but by the Government. As he will be aware, part of the Government's testimony of faith to Stoke Mandeville's future is the fact that we recently provided £2.2 million in additional funding for the Buckinghamshire health authority to meet the extra pressures of this winter. We have invested almost £200,000 in Stoke Mandeville to help it deal with emergency pressures.
  As the hon. Member for Aylesbury said, Stoke Mandeville is more than simply a hospital serving its local community. It is also a hospital with a very fine and distinguished international reputation in working with people who have suffered spinal injuries. For both those reasons, Stoke Mandeville's future is a subject that is worthy of debate. Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to all the hard-working staff—the managers, clinicians and everyone else associated with the excellent work done there.
  The future of district general hospitals such as Stoke Mandeville touches on much that is at the heart of the White Paper published last month by the Government. The White Paper sets out a 10-year programme of modernisation for the NHS. It particularly makes it clear that, in future, we want local hospitals to complement each other's activities, working in partnership rather than in competition.
  I should like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) that, from what I understand of the health authority's plans, its current acute services review says loudly and clearly that three acute hospitals are required now, and that they will be required in the health authority area for the foreseeable future. As she knows, the exact options, the exact configuration of services and the exact cash distribution are issues that are yet to be resolved. However, the future is clear for all three hospitals.
  I am pleased that that spirit of partnership is already in evidence in Buckinghamshire—where trusts are co-operating with the health authority and with local family doctors, and where there is an interchange of expertise at the clinical level and, particularly, at the consultant level. The hon. Member for Aylesbury talked about the relationship between Stoke Mandeville and the Radcliffe in Oxford. We want such partnerships to continue.
  Stoke Mandeville will undoubtedly have to evolve in the next few years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West said, its services will have to fit into a wider model to ensure the best use of resources while providing the best possible care standards.
  I tell the hon. Member for Aylesbury that Stoke Mandeville is a hospital with a bright future. It has the strong support of its local population and of the Government. He kindly mentioned that, tomorrow, the wife of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will visit the hospital to open the new CT scanner suite, which was paid for by charitable funds. I pay tribute to all those involved in that fund-raising activity.
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, some changes are long overdue. The sooner we can see the end of the wartime prefabricated huts, the better. The trek of about a third of a mile from the children's ward to the operating

  619
  theatre is quite unacceptable in a modern health service. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have made strong representations in the past.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, the history of Stoke Mandeville in terms of capital development has been unhappy for a variety of reasons. The most recent attempt could not be approved, as the trust did not have a private sector partner when the Government decided to fast-track the more viable private finance initiative projects. As he knows, that strategy has paid dividends, with a stream of PFI hospitals now under way.
  I understand that the health authority is fully committed to having three acute hospitals in the county and that the trust, together with the health authority and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, supported by the NHS Executive regional office, is putting together a strategic outline case for a £23 million development. It will get rid of the Canadian forces' huts and replace them with facilities fit for delivering health services in the next century.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the process for approving the bid. He will know that the capital value of the bid is about £23.3 million, which is below the £25 million limit above which major capital projects are now being prioritised on a national basis by the new capital prioritisation advisory group which I set up last December. As the hon. Gentleman knows, NHS need will be the driving force and the key criterion for the work of the CPAG. The group will assess schemes fairly, on a national basis, according to rigorous common criteria. Those approved will be the schemes with the highest NHS need on a national basis.
  As the new Stoke Mandeville proposal now has a capital value of less than £25 million, approval is a matter for the Anglia and Oxford regional office of the NHS Executive. However, I should reassure the hon. Member that the region is using the same rigorous and fair CPAG methodology to consider the scheme. The developing
  620
  business case has been the subject of extensive discussion with the regional office, which has been closely involved from the outset, and the final strategic outline case is expected at the regional office around the end of this month. That should allow a decision to be taken about approval by the end of next month. If the case gets approval, the trust will be able to advertise for bids from the private sector in the summer. I hope that there will be pretty speedy progress, but that will depend on the trust being able to attract a viable private sector partner. If it does, I hope that it will proceed pretty rapidly—good luck to it.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the sale of land. He should realise that the proceeds of any sale of land on the site belonging to the Secretary of State will be employed in the capital development programme by the regional office, and will be redistributed to any suitable schemes in the region. That may well include the Stoke Mandeville redevelopment, but it cannot be a foregone conclusion that the proceeds will necessarily be partially or wholly reinvested in the redevelopment of the hospital site.
  There is no doubt there will be a local acute hospital for the people of Aylesbury well into the next millennium. In future, if there are specific proposals for changing the services provided at Stoke Mandeville, there will be proper, open consultation, to which I am sure the hon. Gentlemen and my hon. Friends will make a valuable contribution.
  As I am running out of time, I shall reply to the hon. Gentleman's other questions in writing. In the meantime, we hope to be able to announce the first stages of a much-needed redevelopment of a precious NHS hospital as part of the 50th anniversary of the national health service. I can think of nothing more fitting.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Publicity
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the cost of media presentations and press conferences given by the Prime Minister, other than those held at No. 10 Downing Street. [25184]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: The Prime Minister has held press conferences outside Downing Street at a number of international events—the Summit of the Eight in Denver, European Councils, the launch of the UK Presidency and the Anglo French Summit, for example. Information about the cost of these events could only be provided at disproportionate cost to the taxpayer.

  Afghanistan
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it Government policy that no(a) assistance, (b) trade deals and (c) armament sales, be provided to Afghanistan while it remains in the control of the Taliban regime. [23982]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: In view of the continued fighting between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance trade between the UK and Afghanistan is negligible. There is an EU arms embargo on sales of military equipment to Afghanistan. At the instigation of the UK Presidency, the EU adopted a new Common Position on Afghanistan on 26 January which calls on Afghanistan's neighbours to halt the supply of arms to the factions and support the UN's peace efforts.

  MI5 Files
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  to ask the Prime Minister by what means an individual can establish whether he is the subject of an MI5 file in cases where the category of the file is no longer the subject of security service interest. [26228]

  The Prime Minister
  In order to safeguard the operational effectiveness of the Security Service it has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose information about the operations of the Security Service including about whether the Service holds or has held files on any individual.

  Pay Review Bodies
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the reports and recommendations of the pay review bodies. [26729]

  The Prime Minister
  The 1998 reports of the five pay review bodies have been published today. Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House. I am grateful to the Chairmen and Members of the pay review bodies for the work they have put into them.
  308
  The Government have twin objectives: to run a stable economy in which inflation is low and there is long-term prosperity; and to reward the effort and dedication of those working in many of our most important public services, including schools, hospitals and the Armed Forces, while leaving as much money as possible for front line services.

  In the evidence the Government submitted to the pay review bodies, we stressed the need for their recommendations to be affordable to ensure that Departments can maintain the delivery of services within their agreed spending plans. We also made it clear that pay increases throughout the economy should be compatible with the Government's overriding economic objective of stable growth and long-term prosperity. Responsible decisions now on pay, in both the private and the public sectors, will help to secure jobs and prosperity in the future.

  Against this background, in considering the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, the Government have sought to strike a balance between ensuring that the pay settlements for these important public sector groups are fair; that they are affordable within Departments' existing spending plans; that they are consistent with the Government's inflation target of 2.5 per cent; and that they are responsible in terms of the long-term stability of our economy.

  The main pay recommendations average some 3.9 per cent. The Government believe that this is high in relation to inflation, both the headline rate (3.6 per cent.) and the underlying rate (2.7 per cent.). It is also significantly higher than the average of 3.3 per cent. for last year's recommendations, which were introduced in stages by the previous Administration to accommodate the public expenditure costs.

  After careful consideration the Government have decided to accept this year's main pay recommendations in full. However, to ensure that Departments can accommodate the costs without damaging front line services and to ensure that these awards do not lead to unwelcome increases in pay pressures throughout the economy more generally, we have decided that it is essential to stage their introduction. Full implementation will therefore be achieved by December this year following a first-stage increase of two per cent. for each group from April.

  The main pay recommendations are as follows:
  The Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) has recommended increases of 3.75 per cent. in the basic military salary for all ranks and classes except Privates Classes I, II and III and Lance Corporals Class III, for whom they recommend increases of 4.2 per cent.
  The Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration (DDRB) has recommended general increases of 4.2 per cent. except for General Medical Practitioners, for whom they recommend increases of 5.2 per cent.
  The Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine (NPRB) has recommended increases of 3.8 per cent. in national pay scales.
  The School Teachers Review Body (STRB) has recommended increases of 3.8 per cent. in teachers' pay.

  309
  The Review Body on Senior Salaries (SSRB) has recommended:

  (a) increases of 3.5 per cent. in the minimum and maximum values of each of the pay ranges for the senior civil service. Within the ranges, Departments will determine individual salaries on the basis of performance.

  (b) new pay ranges for senior military officers within which the pay of individual officers will be determined according to job weight.

  (c) increases of 3.5 per cent. in judicial salaries.

  The effect of staging is that, on average, the rates to be paid from April 1998 are 3.3 per cent. higher than those paid from April last year, and the rates to be paid from December 1998 will be 3.9 per cent. higher than those paid from last December. The average first-year increase will be 2.7 per cent. in 1998–99, compared with the rates of pay in force at the end of 1997–98. But since those rates did not apply throughout the year, the more appropriate comparison is between the pay received in the corresponding months of each year. The Government believe this represents a fair deal for these hard working and dedicated public sector staff, on whom the whole country depends.

  In addition, the Government are separately taking action to improve training and development, and address concerns about recruitment and retention, in nursing and other professions allied to medicine. We are providing for an extra 1,300 training places for nurses this year, launching a national recruitment campaign and implementing more family-friendly employment policies.

  The staging arrangements will apply to all groups. They will extend to the recommended increases in the minima and maxima of the senior civil service pay ranges and the awards departments will determine for the senior civil service and senior military officers within the framework set by the SSRB recommendations.

  Pay increases for MPs and Ministers are linked to the pay ranges for the senior civil service, which means their awards will be treated in the same way as other groups. They will, therefore, receive an increase of 2 per cent. on 1 April. The balance of the 1998 recommendation will be paid on 1 April 1999; in the same way, 0.75 per cent. is due on 1 April 1998, resulting from the staging of last year's awards, which other groups received in December 1997.

  As agreed last year, Cabinet Ministers will in 1998–99 forgo, for a second year, the substantial increases recommended by the SSRB in 1996 to which they would be entitled.

  The Reports are substantial wide-ranging documents. This response addresses the main pay recommendations. Many other detailed recommendations will also be accepted, although some will require further consideration and discussion as necessary. In particular the NPRB recommendation for additional discretionary increments will need to be addressed as part of wider NHS pay discussions; and the DDRB recommendation for the enhancement of GMP's net remuneration will need to be considered and discussed as proposed.

  The Government have asked the SSRB to resume work, which had been temporarily deferred, on the pay of Lords Ministers outside the Cabinet.
  310
  The following table summarises the main pay recommendations of the Review Bodies.

  Main pay recommendations per cent.

  Paybill costs £ million

  AFPRB — Armed Forces

  Privates Classes I, II and III and Lance Corporals Class III

  4.2

  45

  basic military salary

  3.75

  179

  Total

  224

  DDRB—Doctors and Dentists

  General medical practitioners

  5.2

  80

  Other doctors and dentists

  4.2

  202

  Total

  282

  NPRB—Nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine

  3.8

  351

  STRB—School teachers

  3.8

  446

  SSRB—Senior Salaries

  Senior civil service

  13.5

  —

  Senior military

  0 to 3.5

  —

  Judiciary

  3.5

  6

  Total—all groups

  3.9

  1,309

  1 Increases in pay band minima and maxima. Recommendations for the senior civil service affect the pay framework within which Departments will set individual pay rates.

  Foreign Secretary's Private Office
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if(a) he or (b) his office were consulted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the possible appointment of Ms Regan to the Foreign Secretary's Private Office. [26308]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if his office was consulted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the terms of the agreement which terminated Miss Bullen's appointment. [26317]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the purpose of the Minister without Portfolio's recent visit to a coal mine. [25428]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on 16 January 1998, Official Report, column 351.

TREASURY

  Civil Service Staff
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [26023]
  311
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: Of civil service staff at the equivalent of Grade 5 and above within the Treasury, 30 per cent. have spent their entire civil service career within the department, 19 per cent. have had secondments to the private sector, 52 per cent. have gone on loan to other departments and 45 per cent. have come from other departments.

  Asia
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues regarding the financial crisis in Asia; and if he will make a statement. [23871]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: The financial turbulence in Asia was discussed at length by European Finance Ministers at the ECOFIN meeting on 19 January, which the Chancellor chaired. HM Treasury, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Bank of England continue to monitor developments in the region very closely.

  Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors of the potential participants in the supplemental finance assistance package for Korea—the UK, Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States—issued a statement on 24 December 1997, welcoming the Korean authorities' announcement of additional measures to strengthen macroeconomic policy and accelerate structural reforms, and the disbursement of US$5 billion by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.

  The potential participants stated that they would be prepared to support action to advance by early January existing commitments of official finance, including the acceleration of IMF disbursements, and the disbursement of a substantial portion (US$8 billion) of the supplemental financial commitments made bilaterally—in the context of a significant voluntary extension of the maturities of existing claims by international banks on Korean financial institutions. The UK's share of this US$8 billion would be US$440 million.

  Following discussions between the major commercial banks involved, the IMF and the Korean authorities, I understand major commercial banks are generally rolling over their short term lending to Korea. Discussions are under way on a medium term agreement providing for a significant extension of the maturity of this debt. Bilateral official finance, including the UK's facility, has not yet been disbursed.

  The IMF also released a statement on 24 December, which welcomed Korea's intensification and acceleration of its macroeconomic policy adjustments and structural reforms, and indicated the IMF's intention to accelerate the resources available to Korea under the existing stand-by credit.

  Since these statements were made, the IMF disbursed US$2 billion on 30 December 1997, and a further US$2 billion on 7 January 1998. This brings the total IMF disbursement to US$13.1 billion.

  The financial turbulence in Asia is of global concern and requires a global response. As an open economy, the UK is deeply interested in economic prosperity in Asia.
  312
  The UK has worked closely with other G7 colleagues, especially Japan, and will work with the IMF and the World Bank to help resolve the current crisis.

  Her Majesty's Government are confident in Asia's long-term economic prospects. The factors which have led to the tremendous growth in the region are still there. Now what is needed is a strong commitment from countries throughout the region to necessary policy reforms in conjunction with IMF and World Bank, to restore confidence.

  Incomes
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the percentages of those in receipt of annual incomes of (i) between(a) £5,000 and £10,000, (b) £10,000 and £15,000, (c) £15,000 and £20,000, (d) £20,000 and £25,000, (e) £25,000 and £30,000, (f) £30,000 and £35,000, (g) £35,000 and £40,000, (h) £40,000 and £45,000, (i) £45,000 and £50,000, (j) £50,000 and £55,000, (k) £55,000 and £60,000, (l) £60,000 and £100,000 and (ii) over £100,000. [24740]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 29 January 1998]: The percentage of taxpayers in 1998–99 by range of annual total income is given in the table.

  Range of annual total income (£)

  Percentage of taxpayers

  5,000–10,000

  28

  10,000–15,000

  23

  15,000–20,000

  17

  20,000–25,000

  11

  25,000–30,000

  6

  30,000–35,000

  4

  35,000–40,000

  2

  40,000–45,000

  1

  45,000–50,000

  under 1

  50,000–55,000

  under 1

  55,000–60,000

  under 1

  60,000–100,000

  1

  Over 100,000

  under 1

  Welfare Spending
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of government spending is allocated to the welfare state in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) each European Union country and (c) each G7 country. [23359]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 19 January 1998]: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) regularly publishes the available statistics for member states. The latest edition of the OECD book "National Accounts", published in 1997, contains separate sections on each country to a consistent format. In each, Table 5 covers total government outlays by function and type. A copy is available in the Library of the House.

  Non-UK Resident Discretionary Trusts
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the tax treatment of a United Kingdom resident beneficiary in respect of capital payments received by the beneficiary in the United
  313
  Kingdom from a non-UK resident discretionary trust of which the settlor has never been resident or domiciled in the United Kingdom. [25283]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: I refer the right hon. Member to the last of my answers given to him on 10 December 1997, Official Report column 576.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will reply to the letters of 18 September, 23 June and 30 July 1997 from the hon. Member for Twickenham. [25219]

  Mr. Hoon
  The hon. Gentleman should by now have received a reply, dated 28 January, from my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to his letter of 18 September which referred to letters to the Lord Chancellor from his constituent of 23 June and 30 July. The officials involved in handling correspondence are aware how seriously the Lord Chancellor regards complaints against the judiciary, and the consequent need to deal promptly and properly with such correspondence. Steps have been taken to avoid such delays in future.

  Solicitors (Negligence)
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the Law Society's ability to ensure that when a solicitor acting as a trustee has been negligent, those concerned will be compensated for resulting losses whenever they occur; and if he will make a comment. [24806]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have not made such an assessment. This is a matter for the Law Society. If the negligence or the quantum of the negligence is disputed, it would be a matter for the courts.

  Court Leaflets and Forms
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in what languages small claims leaflets and county court forms are printed. [24961]

  Mr. Hoon
  At present the small claims leaflets are available only in English and Welsh. By April 1998 they will also be available in Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu. Court forms are available only in English.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps have been taken following the National Audit Office report, "Handling Small Claims in the County Courts" (HC 271, of Session 1995–96), to make the small claims procedure more accessible for(a) non-English speaking litigants and (b) the disabled. [24872]

  Mr. Hoon
  (a) A contract has been let to translate all seven small claims leaflets into the following languages:
  314
  Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Gujarati, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu. It is expected they will be available to court users from April 1998. (b) Court users are now asked to let the court know if they need special facilities so that arrangements can be made to accommodate them. Some courts have installed Minicom and loop systems and the Court Service will pay the cost of interpreters for deaf litigants and witnesses in civil hearings. A review will also commence in April 1998 which will look at disabled provision in all the courts to identify what needs to be done to improve access and facilities in line with the Disability Discrimination Act.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of county courts provide(a) wheelchair access, (b) disabled toilet facilities and (c) facilities for persons with seeing and hearing disabilities. [24960]

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

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what interpreting facilities are provided in county courts for non-English speaking litigants. [24962]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is a National Register of Public Service Interpreters, which provides a list of qualified interpreters who adhere to a code of conduct and a standard of service delivery. Civil courts do not however, provide interpreters. It is for the parties to obtain, and pay for, any such requirements.

  Fixed -costs Regime
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to announce his decision on the issue of fixed costs in personal injuries claims; and if he will make a statement. [25002]

  Mr. Hoon
  I intend to issue a consultation paper about costs in the fast track after Easter.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received in respect of the piloting of the fast track regime prior to any introduction of fixed costs; and if he will make a statement. [25003]

  Mr. Hoon
  Some support for the idea of piloting the fast track was expressed in response to the Working Paper "Judicial Case Management", published in July 1997. In line with Lord Woolf's recommendations hypothetical case studies are in hand but no final decision about the basis for a fixed-costs regime has yet been taken.

  Withheld Records
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the titles of those files from 1967 which were not released on the 1 January for public scrutiny(a) in whole and (b) in part. [26276]

  Mr. Hoon
  The documentation of withheld records kept by the Public Record Office, and in particular of withheld extracts from documents, is not in a form which would enable a listing of unavailable records from 1967 to be produced by their titles, within the time available and without disproportionate cost.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will establish which common law jurisdictions have abolished the institution of Queen's Counsel. [25621]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  Detailed information is not readily available. But in general terms, only Her Majesty's Realms retain the institution of Queen's Counsel.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport by what procedures the Millennium Commissioners are accountable to him with respect to those millennium projects experiencing financial problems. [24447]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  As Chairman of the Millennium Commission, I, in conjunction with my fellow Commissioners, have overall responsibility for monitoring the flow of grant to projects to ensure continued cost effectiveness and value for money. The Commission submits its annual report and accounts for Parliamentary scrutiny.

  As Secretary of State I am responsible to Parliament for funds made available to the Commission, and have to satisfy myself that financial and other management controls applied by the Commission conform with the requirements of propriety, regularity and good financial management. The Accounting Officer of the Commission is accountable to the Accounting Office of my Department for the proper stewardship of the Commission's share of the National Lottery Distribution Fund.

  Cannes Film Festivals
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans Ministers in his Department have to visit the Cannes Film Festival in May. [25552]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: There are as yet no firm plans for a Minister from my Department to visit the Cannes Film Festival, but Ministerial attendance at this event is customary.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Housing (Voluntary Transfers)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authorities have completed large-scale voluntary transfers of their housing stocks; and if he will list(a) those authorities and (b) those other authorities which have now expressed an interest in this process. [24818]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Sixty-one local authorities in England have completed sixty-five transfers comprising over 316
  252,000 properties since 1988. All but one of those transfers was to a Registered Social Landlord. A list of the authorities who have completed a full or partial stock transfer is at table A. Thirty-two authorities have either expressed an interest in transferring all or part of their stock or are in the process of completing a transfer. They are listed at table B.

  Table A

  Chiltern DC

  Sevenoaks DC

  Newbury DC

  Swale BC

  Broadland DC

  Bedford BC

  Medina DC (now part of Isle of Wight Unitary Authority)

  Rochester upon Medway CC

  South Wight (now part of Isle of Wight Unitary Authority)

  Mid Sussex DC

  East Dorset DC

  Tonbridge and Mailing BC

  Ryedale DC

  South Bucks DC

  Christchurch BC

  Suffolk Coastal DC

  Tunbridge Wells BC

  London Borough of Bromley

  London Borough of Lambeth1

  Surrey Heath BC

  Breckland DC

  East Cambridgeshire DC

  Hambleton DC

  West Dorset DC

  Havant BC

  Epsom and Ewell BC

  Hart DC

  South Shropshire DC

  Leominster DC

  South Ribble BC

  Hertsmere BC

  Penwith DC

  North Dorset DC

  Wychavon DC

  Mid Bedfordshire DC

  Thanet DC

  Vale of White Horse DC

  Cherwell DC

  Basingstoke and Deane BC

  Malvern Hills DC

  Maldon DC

  Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

  Kennet DC

  Rushmoor BC

  North Wiltshire DC

  Spelthorne BC

  East Hampshire DC

  Hastings BC

  Eastleigh BC

  317

  Wyre BC

  Walsall MBC

  Manchester CC1

  Stratford DC

  West Wiltshire DC

  Cotswold DC

  South Staffordshire DC

  Lichfield DC

  South Oxfordshire DC

  Eden DC.

  1Denotes partial transfer.

  Table B

  Allerdale BC

  Bath and North-East Somerset Unitary Authority

  Basildon DC

  Bradford CC

  London Borough Brent

  London Borough Bexley

  Congleton BC

  Coventry CC

  East Lindsey BC

  London Borough Hackney

  London Borough Hammersmith and Fulham

  Hyndburn BC

  Kerrier DC

  London Borough Lambeth

  Manchester CC

  London Borough Merton

  Oldham MBC

  Rother DC

  Sheffield CC

  St. Helens BC

  Stoke on Trent CC

  South Hams DC

  South Somerset DC

  Tameside MBC

  Tewkesbury BC

  London Borough Tower Hamlets

  West Devon BC

  West Somerset DC

  Winchester CC

  Wokingham DC

  Worthing BC

  Wrekin DC.

  Street Trees
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on guidance given by his Department to utility companies which engage in trenching in urban areas, to encourage the preservation of mature street trees; and what monitoring takes place of the impact of trenching activities on mature trees. [24871]

  Angela Eagle
  The Specification for the Reinstatement of Openings in Highways, issued under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, advises utility undertakers executing street works to avoid damage to tree roots, where practicable. Practical guidance on how to minimise
  318
  damage to trees by utilities' works was issued subsequently by the National Joint Utilities Group in Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility Services in Proximity to Trees (NJUG 10).

  No central monitoring of the impact of trenching activities on mature trees is undertaken.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates he has of the numbers of(a) village stores and (b) sub-post offices in Lancashire which are likely to benefit from the 50 per cent. reduction in business rates. [24845]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have insufficient data on which to make a reliable estimate of the numbers of general stores and post offices in Lancashire that will benefit from the 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief under the village shop rate relief scheme. Nationally we expect about 6,000 businesses to qualify for the new mandatory relief.

  Personal Files (Access)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from local authorities about the cost of satisfying requests for access under legislation relating to access to personal files; and if he will make a statement. [25448]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None.

  The Access to Personal Files (Housing) Regulations 1989 allow local authorities to charge a fee—of no more than £ 10—to respond to requests for access to information. Circular advice from my Department is that the amount charged in each case should reflect the costs incurred.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from local authorities about the cost of compliance with the Data Protection Act 1984; and if he will make a statement. [25447]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have received no representations. I am aware that the Home Office have prepared a Compliance Cost Assessment estimating the financial implications to local authorities, amongst others, of the Data Protection Bill currently before Parliament. This estimates that there will be recurring costs of £29 million and non-recurring costs of £104 million for local government. The Government took all pressures on councils into account in the provisional local government finance settlement for 1998–99.

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses his Department received to the consultation paper on the review of policy towards opencast coal; if he will list the respondents; and if he will place copies of the responses in the Library. [25330]
  319
  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has received 396 responses to the consultation paper. I have placed a list of the respondents in the Libraries of the House. Copies of the responses will be available in my Department's library on Monday 9 February.

  Sewage Waste
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the discharge of sewage waste into coastal waters so as to make secondary treatment a mandatory minimum. [25256]

  Angela Eagle
  This matter is already under review. The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive sets secondary treatment as the norm for coastal discharges, unless it can be shown, through "comprehensive studies", that primary treatment only can be provided without any adverse environmental impact. The Environment Agency is responsible for certifying comprehensive studies. We have asked the Agency to ensure that the scientific basis for these studies is rigorously tested. We have also asked the Agency to keep us in touch with developments.

  Bridleways
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made for each relevant local authority in England of the number and length of bridleways(a) recorded on the definitive map, (b) under consideration for registration on the definitive map and (c) eligible for consideration for registration. [25324]

  Angela Eagle
  Information is available only on the length of bridleways, as follows:

  Highway authority

  Bridleways (km)

  Avon

  200

  Bedfordshire

  1,400

  Berkshire

  260

  Bolton

  2

  Buckinghamshire

  649

  Calderdale

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  430

  Cheshire

  124

  Cleveland

  200

  Cornwall

  522

  Cumbria

  1,878

  Derbyshire

  494

  Devon

  570

  Dorset

  1,600

  Durham

  573

  East Sussex

  678

  Enfield

  —

  Essex

  680

  Gloucestershire

  360

  Hampshire

  850

  Herefordshire

  358

  Worcestershire

  648

  Harrow

  —

  Hertfordshire

  576

  Humberside

  453

  Isle of Wight

  266

  Kent

  694

  Kingston on Thames

  —

  Kirklees

  —

  Lancashire

  388

  Leeds

  148

  Leicestershire

  584

  Lincolnshire

  770

  320

  Highway authority

  Bridleways (km)

  Norfolk

  443

  Northamptonshire

  600

  Northumberland

  1,295

  North Yorkshire

  1,609

  Nottingham

  799

  Oxfordshire

  970

  Shropshire

  795

  Solihull

  7

  Somerset

  927

  Staffordshire

  355

  Suffolk

  553

  Surrey

  1,045

  Tameside

  6

  Warwickshire

  460

  Waltham Forest

  —

  West Sussex

  1,006

  Wiltshire

  1,540

  Wirral MBC

  30

  28,795

  Total

  (17,882 miles)

  Countryside Commission data from 1991 and 1996 surveys; data for Cambridgeshire and Dorset are for 1998.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what level of funding he has allocated to(a) the maintenance of existing bridleways and (b) the creation of new bridleways and new bridleway links; and if he will make a statement. [25321]

  Angela Eagle
  A specific figure for the funding of the bridleway network is not available. Revenue expenditure for local authorities on public rights of way, including bridleways, is taken into account in the calculation of local authorities' standard spending assessments (SSAs), as used in the distribution of revenue support grant. It is not covered by a distinct SSA component, but is included together with expenditure on many other services within the district level sub-block—"All Other Services".

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on modification of the definitive map of bridleways; when this is planned to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [25323]

  Angela Eagle
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 requires highway authorities to prepare and maintain a definitive map for their areas, showing all classes of public rights of way, including bridleways. They must keep their definitive maps under continuous review and modify them when appropriate.

  Cycle Routes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Regions what is the current number of(a) exclusive cycle routes, (b) cycle routes combined with bridleways and (c) canal towpaths combined with bridleways in England and Wales; and what plans he has to increase that number. [25322]

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that information on the numbers of routes is not readily available. I will write to my hon. Friend about what is available. Local authorities should consider the provision of recreational facilities (including cycle routes) in drawing up their structure and local plans.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the Government plan to ensure that the matter of global warming is addressed by the(a) WTO, (b) IMF, (c) G7 and (d) OECD. [25480]

  Mr. Meacher
  Global warming, or climate change, is already discussed at Ministerial and official meetings of the OECD, and was a feature of the G7 discussions in Denver last year. The Government are committed to taking forward further discussions regarding action arising from the Kyoto Protocol in these fora.

  The WTO Committee on Trade and Environment held useful and informative discussions with the secretariats of a number of multilateral environmental agreements last summer, and intends to repeat the exercise this year; we hope very much that the secretariat to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change will be able to participate.

  The IMF aims for sustainable development for all of its members. It does not, however, have a specific mandate to deal with global warming.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the contribution of the draft European Union Energy Products Directive to the United Kingdom climate change strategy; and if he will make a statement. [25757]

  Angela Eagle
  The Energy Products Directive is still under discussion within Europe, and its final form, if agreed, is unlikely to be identical to the draft. It is, however, clear that the measures in the directive would make a small but significant contribution towards delivering the UK's climate change objectives.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that the Environment Agency levies charges that recover fully the costs of its services to companies. [25519]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Agency's charges to companies are subject to annual Ministerial review. The Agency will shortly be submitting to Ministers charging proposals for 1998–99, following consultation with companies and their representatives. Ministers will examine the charges to see that they recover relevant costs in accordance with the legislation.

  Disabled Tenants
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what amounts were allocated to housing associations for aids and adaptations for disabled tenants in each of the last five years; and what will be the funding for 1998–99. [25803]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Allocations to housing associations for aids and adaptations for disabled tenants are made from the Housing Corporation's overall budget for works to existing properties, which is part of their Approved Development Programme. Eventual out-turn of both the overall works budget and the component for aids and adaptations may vary from initial allocations.
  322
  Initial allocations and out-turn figures for the last five years, where available, are:

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Initial

  allocations

  11.76

  13.51

  19.57

  13.69

  8.93

  Out-turn

  n/a

  12.36

  20.61

  16.75

  17.06

  1 Figures to end December 1997.

  The Approved Development Programme for 1998–99 will be announced shortly.

  Squirrels
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to permit the use of Warfarin for the control of grey squirrels in areas where there are populations of reds; and if he will make a statement. [25640]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no plans to permit the use of Warfarin for the control of grey squirrels in any further areas than those which are currently being assessed as part of carefully controlled scientific research. I am aware of no plans to request a change to the current controls on the use of Warfarin for grey squirrel control.

  Builders
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he intends to take to tackle the problem of unreliable and ineffective builders. [25649]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I intend to work with all sections of the construction industry, its customers and consumer bodies, to develop a coherent package of measures aimed at improving consumer protection in this areas. I shall be issuing a discussion document shortly.

  Cemfuel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates he has made of the percentage of the ingredients of cemfuel which have their source in(a) Lancashire, (b) the rest of the United Kingdom and (c) overseas. [25620]

  Angela Eagle
  None. It is the role of the Environment Agency, rather than the Secretary of State, to regulate the import and use of waste for secondary liquid fuels. The Agency does this through the Waste Management Licensing and Integrated Pollution Control regimes, and also through UK and EC legislation on the transboundary movement of waste.

  The Agency has advised that it does not have the information to provide a breakdown of the geographical origins of secondary liquid fuels.

  Cattle Bones
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many tonnes of crushed and carbonised cattle bones for use in water treatment plants were imported from South Asia in the last year for which figures are available. [25834]
  323
  Angela Eagle
  During 1997, 243 tonnes of charcoal derived from carbonised cattle bones were used as filter media at water treatment plants in England and Wales.

  The charcoal is made from certified processed cattle bones imported only from India and Pakistan. It has been approved for use in the treatment of drinking water under the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989.

  Sanctuary Housing
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will commission an inquiry into the running of Sanctuary Housing, with particular relevance to its administration and financial controls; and if he will consult residents currently living in its West Country sheltered housing developments on the conduct of the present management. [25341]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 26 January 1998]: As a registered social landlord, Sanctuary Housing Association is regulated by the Housing Corporation which monitors compliance with its regulatory standards.

  The Housing Corporation is investigating some matters relating to sheltered housing schemes in North Devon. I have asked the Chairman of the Housing Corporation to write to the hon. Member on completion of these investigations.

  Departmental Fuel Costs
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much(a) oil, (b) gas powering of accommodation occupied by his Department within the United Kingdom in each year since 1989–90; and what was the total cost in real terms for (a) to (c) in each year. [25790]

  Angela Eagle
  The answer is as follows:

  Oil

  Gas

  Electricity

  MWh

  £000

  MWh

  £000

  MWh

  £000

  1990–91

  67,967

  658

  94,776

  1,126

  86,566

  4,976

  1991–92

  52,543

  594

  95,086

  1,370

  85,902

  5,712

  1992–93

  29,393

  419

  101,132

  1,334

  86,907

  5,860

  1993–94

  24,971

  265

  100,918

  1,185

  84,615

  5,248

  1994–95

  17,528

  282

  83,549

  911

  65,774

  4,531

  1995–96

  18,667

  260

  83,063

  847

  67,686

  4,422

  1996–971

  17,729

  259

  69,571

  833

  66,362

  3,963

  1 Provisional outturn.

  The information covers former Departments of Environment and Transport and the Health and Safety Executive.

  Staff Travel Costs
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total real terms value of(a) staff car mileage claims paid and (b) staff rail fares paid by his Department; for what amount of staff car mileage reimbursement was made, and what was the percentage change over the previous year for each year since 1989–90. [25789]

  Angela Eagle
  I regret that this information is not available.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many staff were employed by his Department; and what percentage of them were eligible to claim a care mileage allowance on 31 March in each year since 1990. [25792]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions came into existence on 16 June 1997. Figures for the numbers of staff employed by the former Departments since 1990 are not available, although a breakdown for each year covering the then structures of the former departments was set out in the Departmental Reports, which are available in the Library. All staff may claim car mileage allowance if they are required to travel on official business and otherwise meet the criteria.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what mechanisms he has put in place to ensure the Government's objective of promoting sustainable development is reflected in the outcome of the comprehensive spending reviews for his Department. [25936]

  Angela Eagle
  The overarching Terms of Reference for DETR's CSRs include a requirement to take particular account of the policy aim of sustainable development. Individual CSRs are reflecting that, and other policy aims, in their work. One of the Department's CSRs is also looking specifically at environment policy.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which Government Departments were not represented at Ministerial level at the last meeting of the Green Ministers. [25939]

  Mr. Meacher
  All Government Departments were represented at the last meeting of Green Ministers on 18 December. Most were represented at Ministerial level, but because of unavoidable other commitments the Lord Chancellor's Departments, the Home Office, the Departments of Trade and Industry and of Social Security and the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were represented by officials.

  Countryside (Access)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the consultation paper on measures to increase public access to the countryside will be published. [25930]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 22 January 1998,Official Report, column 614.

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 465, (1) when discussions began in his Department concerning

  325
  the non-statutory agreement with the Scottish Executive; on what dates discussions took place; and who was present at such meetings; [25581]

  (2) 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; [25582]

  (3) 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; [25583]

  (4) 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. [25584]

  Mr. Prescott
  [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.

  Sewage Outfall (Yaverland)
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has evaluated on, and with which bodies his Department has discussed, the high dispersal classification of the proposed Yaverland, Isle of Wight, long raw sewage outfall. [25478]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: Under the terms of the EC Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, Areas of High Natural Dispersion (HNDAs) were identified by the Secretary of State in 1994, on the basis of recommendations by the then National Rivers Authority, using criteria agreed following public consultation.

  The Environment Agency has recently reviewed HNDA designations, as required by the Directive and has submitted preliminary recommendations to the Department.

  The proposed outfall at Yaverland will receive a minimum of primary treatment, subject to the outcome of a comprehensive study into the impact of the discharge on the receiving waters. The Environment Agency is responsible for assessing the comprehensive study. This process includes consultation with the Isle of Wight Council, Bembridge Harbour Company, Southern Sea Fisheries Committee, English Nature and MAFF/CEFAS.
  326
  Copies of the study are available for public inspection at the Environment Agency's Isle of Wight office. We have asked the Agency to ensure that the scientific basis for these studies is rigorously tested. We have also asked the Agency to keep us in touch with developments.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each local authority with responsibility for education the amount by which the increase in revenue support grant adjusted for changes in nursery voucher funding and increased NNDR differs from the amount that has been passported through the capping regime to raise standards in schools; and what is the total figure for all local authorities. [25981]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: I have placed the figures requested in the Library of the House. It is not possible to adjust revenue support grant in isolation from national non domestic rates, so the figures are expressed in terms of the sum of revenue support grant and non domestic rates, adjusted for changes in nursery voucher funding.

  Civil Service Staff
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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 or its predecessor Departments, (b) have had secondments to (i) the private sector and (ii) other Departments and (c) have come from other Departments. [26024]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: There are currently 264 staff in the Senior Civil Service (grade 5 and above) in the DETR and its Agencies. Of these, fewer than 10 per cent. have spent their entire careers in the Departments or its predecessors. Some 63 per cent. have had experience outside the civil service either before they joined the Department or as a secondment. In addition, some 70 per cent of the staff in the senior civil service have had loans to, or have worked in, other Government Departments. There are currently two senior civil servants on loan to DETR from other Government Departments.

  Lake Windermere
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he intends to take in relation to speed limits on Lake Windermere. [26221]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 12 January 1998,Official Report, column 14.

  Passenger Ships
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the compliance cost assessment and the EU Fiche D-impact relating to the intended proposal for a council directive for the registration of persons sailing on passenger ships. [26311]
  327
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A Fiche D'impact was included in the European Commission's document 12395/96 which proposed a Council Directive on the registration of persons sailing on board passenger ships. A copy of this Document has already been placed in the House Library.

  A copy of the UK's draft compliance costs assessment will be placed in the House Library.

  Wychavon Local Plan
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will call in the Wychavon Local Plan for determination; and if he will make a statement. [26217]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Wychavon Local Plan has already been determined. It was adopted by the Council on 21 January 1998 and the Secretary of State cannot now intervene. We gave careful consideration to the plan proposals throughout each stage of the process leading to adoption and we are satisfied that there was no justification for intervention by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions how many recent representations he has received from residents of Fernhill Heath, Worcestershire concerning the Wychavon Local Plan; and if he will make a statement. [26216]

  Mr. Caborn
  Recently, one representation, dated 23 December 1997, was received from the hon. Member on behalf of one of his constituents in respect of Fernhill Heath. Prior to this, eight representations have been received, all during 1996. The Wychavon Local Plan was adopted by the district Council on 21 January 1998. We gave careful consideration to the plan proposals throughout each stage of the process leading to adopt and we are satisfied that there was no justification for intervention by the Secretary of State.

  Leasehold Valuation Tribunal Service
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the cost of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal Service has been in each year since its establishment, at 1997 prices. [25778]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The cost of Leasehold Valuation Tribunals is not separately identifiable within the overall cost of Rent Assessment Panels. The estimated cost of the Panels in 1997–98 is £5.5 million.

  Leasehold Enfranchisement
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on the rated enfranchisement of the establishment of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service. [25779]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It is difficult to assess what impact the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service, and its successor organisation, the Leasehold Advisory Service have had on the rate of enfranchisement. In many cases enfranchisement is achieved by agreement, even where statutory rights are invoked, and no central record of such transactions exists. However, in the period from February 1994 until June 1997 the Leasehold Advisory Service responded to 11,399 queries relating to enfranchisement.
  328
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the cost of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service in each year since its inception. [25780]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service received funding from my Department through the special grants programme from April 1993 to December 1996. Grant paid to them in each year was as follows:

  £

  1993–94

  27,575

  1994–95

  75,000

  1995–96

  78,711

  1996 (April-December)

  83,748

  In January 1997 the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service was relaunched as the Leasehold Advisory Service with a remit extended to providing advice on any aspect of residential long leasehold. Since January 1997 they have received grant of £269,537 under section 94 of the Housing Act 1996.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to evaluate the effectiveness of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service; and if he will make a statement. [25781]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A programme of work, with performance indicators where appropriate, is agreed with the Leasehold Advisory Service each year to assist in evaluating their effectiveness against their objectives.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Government policy towards leasehold enfranchisement. [25782]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are committed to simplifying the rules governing the purchase of freeholds by leaseholders and we intend to bring forward a new package of reforms to assist leaseholders. We are currently considering the scope and practicability of possible new measures. We expect to make an announcement about our proposals and invite comments from interested parties in the Spring.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his present estimate of the limit of capacity for storage of intermediate level nuclear waste at Sellafield; and what criteria are used to assess this capacity. [25065]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: I have been asked to reply.

  The current capacity of intermediate level waste storage facilities at Sellafield is 45,000m3 of modern store and 46,000m3 of other stores.

  I understand that BNFL does not expect to need storage facilities in addition to those currently in existence or for which planning permission currently exists.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Disney World
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many journalists accompanied him on his recent visit to Disney World in the United States; and what was the total cost to public funds of their accompanying him. [26179]

  Mr. Mandelson
  My recent visit was covered by a number of journalists. They were not invited by me, and there was no cost to public funds.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the costs over the last year, for each Government Department, of satisfying requests for access by the public to information under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; what estimate he has made of the costs for each Department over the same length of time of satisfying such requests under his freedom of information proposals; and if he will make a statement. [25444]

  Dr. David Clark
  Costs of dealing with requests under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information are not monitored centrally. Based on experience in my Department an the total number of registered Code requests for 1996 (2033), I estimate that the total cost to Government Departments of operating the Code is in the order of £2 million per annum.

  There is no precise method of quantifying the estimated cost of FOI—it will clearly be dependent on the number of requests—but using comparators such as the costs of FOI overseas, the costs of the Code of Practice and the estimated costs of the new Data Protection regime, I estimate that the total public sector costs (including provision for an appeals mechanism) would be £26.5 million 'start-up' costs, and an annual cost of £23.5 million thereafter.

  The factual and background information on the development of the White Paper, which I intend to publish shortly, will contain a more detailed account of how these estimates were arrived at.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what mechanisms he has put in place to ensure the Government's objective of promoting sustainable development is reflected in the outcome of the comprehensive spending reviews for his Department. [25897]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Comprehensive Spending Review for the Office of Public Service is being conducted within terms of reference that were announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 24 July 1997. A set of the Terms of Reference for all departmental spending reviews may be found in the Libraries of the House.

  Civil Service Staff
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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. [26034]

  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: Eighteen per cent. of Civil Service staff of grade 5 and above have spent their entire civil service within my Department and seventy four per cent. have come from other Government Departments. Figures detailing secondments by staff of grade 5 and above to either the private sector or other Departments are not centrally held.

  Public Services
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he will reach a decision on the establishment of a panel for consulting people about pubic services; and if he will make a statement. [26914]

  Dr. David Clark
  I have today decided to set up a Panel to consult people about public services, and appointed MORI and the School of Public Policy at the University of Birmingham to set up and run it. The People's Panel will be used to find out what members of the public think about the services for which they pay for and use every day.

  We want to put people first as we develop our Better Government programme to modernise public services. The Panel will be consulted on a range of matters relating to public services, such as service delivery, the use of IT, awareness of the Charter programme, and complaints handling procedures. We will make the results public.

  This is a unique development, and one which underlines the Government's commitment to providing better government through listening to the views of people in all walks of life about their experiences of public services.

  Civil Service Statistics 1997
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when Civil Service Statistics 1997 will be published. [26915]

  Dr. David Clark,
  Civil Service Statistics 1997 was published today and copies have been placed in the Library. This publication highlights key trends in Civil Service staffing for the period up to 1 April 1997.

  Agenda Database
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what will be the level of public access to the contents of the database Agenda. [26220]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Agenda system, which is designed to replace the existing CAB-E-NET, will be an inter-Departmental strategic media information tool. The system will handle and store information based upon confidential communications between Departments; it will not, therefore, be available for access by the public.

CABINET OFFICE

  Club of Three Meetings
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio in what capacity he attended Club of Three meetings in September; what public expenditure was incurred by his participation; and if he will make a statement. [25928]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I attended the Club of Three meetings in Munich in my Ministerial capacity following an official visit to Bonn. The cost to public funds of my visit to Germany was approximately £535.

WALES

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of the farming industry to discuss income levels; and if he will make a statement. [25317]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend and I, either together or individually, met farmers' leaders in Wales on several occasions last month and this month, most recently on 20 January, to discuss matters of mutual interest concerning agriculture in Wales, including farm incomes.

  Environmental Health Officers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many environmental health officers(a) are in post currently and (b) were in post in each year since 1990. [25311]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  This information is not held centrally. Chief Environmental Health Officers are listed in the Municipal Yearbook. Copies of the 1990 edition onwards are available in the Library of the House.

  School Standards
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he has taken to raise standards in schools in Wales. [25310]

  Mr. Hain
  Our broad and vigorous standards agenda was set out in "Building Excellent Schools Together" (BEST), the Education White Paper for Wales, published in July last year.

  We have introduced legislation to realise our objectives. The Schools Standards and Framework Bill proposes the legislative measures necessary to raise standards at primary and secondary level in both Wales and England. Amongst other things it provides for smaller infant classes, places a duty on local education authorities to support schools in raising educational attainment standards and secures the basis upon which these authorities will act to support schools in setting and meeting targets for continuous improvement. The Teaching and Higher Education Bill (currently in the House of Lords) will give teachers scope to lift professional standards through a General Teaching Council for Wales. The legislation proposed will also allow local education authorities LEAs and further education
  332
  institutions to make provision for post-16 students jointly to better meet students' needs and to reduce duplication of courses.

  We have set out a range of challenging new all-Wales targets through BEST aimed at raising standards in schools in Wales across the board. Working in partnership with ACCAC and OHMCI the Welsh Office is also implementing an all-Wales strategy to raise levels of achievement in literacy and numeracy. We are providing additional resources to support schools in this work—£50.267 million for recurrent costs in schools within the 1998–99 local government revenue settlement, and £65 million of capital funding over the lifetime of this Parliament for much needed school renovation and repair work. We will also be making nearly £30 million available in 1998–99 through the Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST) programme.

  Long-term Care
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the yearly costs to the NHS of meeting the nursing costs of long-term care. [25912]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  None, but the costs of long term care are a matter of concern to this Government and one of our manifesto commitments was the establishment of a Royal Commission to work out a fair system for funding long term care of the elderly across the UK. The Commission was established last December and will report in 12 months.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Voluntary Grammar Schools
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the proposed changes to the formula funding arrangements for voluntary grammar schools in Northern Ireland were subjected to a policy appraisal and fair treatment analysis; and what were the results. [22252]

  Mr. Worthington
  Before reaching decisions on the changes to be introduced next year, the implications for each school of a number of models were examined, and I am satisfied that there is no unjustified re-distribution of resources. The longer-term objective of full commonality will ensure equity of treatment in funding for all schools, regardless of the area or the school sector in which they are located, and is therefore in line with policy appraisal and fair treatment principles.

  Pigmeat
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the impact on pig prices of the importation of pigmeat from countries where(a) meat and bone meal is not banned as pig food and (b) sow stalls and tethers will be legal after 1 January 1999. [22904]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  It is not possible to calculate the impact on pig prices of the importation of pigmeat from countries where(a) meat and bone meal is not banned as pig food and (b) sow stalls and tethers will be legal after 1 January 1999.

  Bone Meal
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the number of inspections of plants of manufacturers of animal meal to detect the use of banned bone meal, the results of these inspections and the number of prosecutions. [25019]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The inclusion of the mammalian meat and bone meal in livestock feed has been prohibited since 29 March 1996, and since that date a total of 2,430 visits have been made to feedmills for the purpose of taking samples of ruminant feed for testing for the presence of mammalian protein.

  Of a total of 3,394 samples taken, five samples have given apparently positive results. On further investigation, one positive sample was in material imported from another member state, and the authorities were informed. It was established that the positive results in three samples were not due to the presence of mammalian protein, and the other positive sample proved negative on retesting.

  There have therefore been no prosecutions.

  Nursery Units
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria are used in approving the establishment of nursery units to new or existing primary schools. [25021]

  Mr. Worthington
  Recent expansion of nursery provision has occurred under the aegis of the "making Belfast work" and Londonderry regeneration initiatives and, more recently, the EU special support programme for peace and reconciliation. Nursery provision approved by the Department of Education under these initiatives must:be sited where it will have maximum educational impact, through targeting areas of greatest social and educational need;
  create access for as many children as possible; and
  represent good value for money.

  Under the Government's planned expansion of pre-school education provision, new nursery provision will only be approved if it is included in an education and library board's pre-school education development plan. These plans will target places initially on children from socially disadvantaged circumstances and the oldest four-year-olds—those with July and August birthdays.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will place in the Library a paper summarising the responses to the consultation exercise on the Drug Treatment and Testing Order provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill[Lords]. [26730]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The paper summarising the responses to the consultation exercise has now been placed in the Library.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates for staff reductions were included in the business case for the new computer system at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and what revisions have been made to take account of the delays in the programme for installation. [26074]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The estimated savings projected in the business case were based on staff reductions of 898 by 2001–2002. The business case estimated the benefit of the Programme to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate by balancing the savings against the charges which would be payable to Siemens Business Services. The majority of these charges are directly geared to the savings and do not become payable until the new computer system is operational. No revision to the business case will be made until revised dates for the installation and piloting of the solution have been agreed.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 22 January 1998,Official Report, column 633, on the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, how many compulsory redundancies he expects to be required at the Directorate offices at Croydon in the years 1998–99 and 1999–2000. [26075]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I do not expect any in the sense that they are planned. While it is not possible at this stage to rule out the need for compulsory redundancies, present indications are that compulsory redundancies are very unlikely.

  Security Service
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that the destruction of files by MI5 will not(a) destroy material of historical importance and (b) prevent instances of error by MI5 from emerging. [26277]

  Mr. Straw
  I rely on the Director General of the Security Service to ensure the proper operation of the Service's record management system, including the system for reviewing files in accordance with the criteria described in my reply to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 519–20.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his review into providing information relating to the number of individuals on whom MI5 holds files. [26280]

  Mr. Straw
  I have nothing to add to my letter of 23 December 1997 in which I informed the hon. Member
  335
  that, for the present, I proposed to continue the practice of successive Governments in not disclosing such information but that I was reviewing the matter and that it might be that we should, in due course, feel able to provide some information on the subject. I shall keep the matter under review and, if there are to be any changes to the present arrangements, I shall make an announcement.

  Telecommunications (Interception)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend Section 10(1) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 to require a separate warrant for each line intercepted. [26279]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to his question on 4 December 1997,Official Report, column 299, where I said that the question whether to amend the legislation relating to Interception of Communications beyond the measures required to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, and if so what the amendments should comprise, was under consideration. That remains the case.

  Table 1: Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, initial decisions1 2 3 on applications, and removals1 4, 1996 and 1997 by month, nationals of Czech Republic5

  Applications

  Decisions

  Removals

  Total decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Total refusals6

  1996

  January

  *

  *

  —

  —

  *

  5

  February

  5

  5

  —

  —

  5

  *

  March

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *

  April

  10

  *

  —

  —

  *

  5

  May

  *

  5

  —

  —

  5

  5

  June

  5

  5

  —

  —

  5

  5

  July

  —

  *

  —

  —

  *

  5

  August

  5

  5

  —

  —

  5

  5

  September

  5

  5

  —

  —

  5

  10

  October

  5

  5

  —

  —

  5

  5

  November

  5

  5

  —

  —

  5

  5

  December

  5

  5

  —

  —

  5

  5

  Total (1996)

  55

  50

  —

  —

  50

  55

  1997

  January

  5

  5

  —

  —

  5

  *

  February

  10

  10

  —

  —

  10

  5

  March

  5

  10

  —

  —

  10

  *

  April

  *

  *

  —

  —

  *

  *

  May

  5

  5

  —

  —

  5

  —

  June

  15

  15

  —

  —

  15

  15

  July

  30

  20

  —

  —

  20

  5

  August

  30

  35

  —

  —

  35

  15

  September

  15

  5

  —

  —

  5

  *

  October

  85

  20

  —

  —

  20

  30

  November

  20

  60

  —

  —

  60

  15

  December

  15

  25

  —

  —

  25

  10

  Total (1997)

  240

  210

  —

  —

  210

  100

  1 Figures rounded to nearest five with * = 1 or 2. 1997 data are provisional.

  2 Information is of initial decisions and excludes the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same time period.

  4 Includes voluntary departures apart from those made by in-country applicants prior to the initiation of enforcement action.

  5 Removals data include persons recorded as nationals of the former Czechoslovakia.

  6 Includes safe third country refusals and refusals made on grounds of non-compliance.

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of Section 11 funding to support the teaching of English. [24215]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on 16 December 1997,Official Report, columns 86–87.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Roma people from the Czech and Slovak republics have sought asylum in the United Kingdom in each month since January 1996; and of these(a) how many have been granted asylum, (b) how many were held in detention and (c) how many have been removed from the United Kingdom. [26018]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: Czech and Slovak Roma are not separately identifiable in the statistics. The available information on all asylum applications lodged in the United Kingdom by nationals of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, and on removals of such persons, is given in tables 1 and 2. Information on the number of Czech and Slovak asylum seekers detained, as at selected dates during 1996, 1997 and 1998, is given in table three.

  337

  Table 2: Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, initial decisions1 2 3 on applications, and removals1 4, 1996 and 1997 by month, nationals of Slovakia

  Principal applicants

  Applications

  Decisions

  Removals

  Total decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Total refusals5

  1996

  January

  *

  *

  —

  —

  *

  —

  February

  *

  *

  —

  —

  *

  —

  March

  10

  15

  —

  —

  15

  —

  April

  5

  15

  —

  —

  15

  —

  May

  —

  5

  —

  —

  5

  *

  June

  5

  10

  —

  —

  10

  —

  July

  *

  5

  —

  —

  5

  —

  August

  5

  10

  —

  —

  10

  *

  September

  5

  *

  —

  —

  *

  —

  October

  5

  20

  —

  —

  20

  *

  November

  10

  15

  —

  —

  15

  5

  December

  10

  10

  —

  —

  10

  5

  Total (1996)

  55

  110

  —

  —

  110

  15

  1997

  January

  *

  *

  —

  —

  *

  5

  February

  *

  5

  —

  —

  5

  *

  March

  5

  15

  —

  —

  15

  5

  April

  5

  10

  —

  —

  10

  10

  May

  15

  15

  —

  —

  15

  10

  June

  25

  25

  —

  —

  25

  5

  July

  20

  25

  —

  —

  25

  5

  August

  50

  45

  —

  —

  45

  15

  September

  55

  10

  —

  —

  10

  5

  October

  85

  75

  —

  —

  75

  10

  November

  20

  120

  —

  —

  120

  25

  December

  15

  30

  —

  —

  30

  20

  Total (1997)

  305

  375

  —

  —

  375

  105

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 5 with * = 1 or 2. 1997 data are provisional.

  2 Information is of initial decisions and excludes the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same time period.

  4 Includes voluntary departures apart from those made by in-country applicants prior to the initiation of enforcement action.

  5 Includes safe third country refusals and refusals made on grounds of non-compliance.

  Table 3: Number of person recorded as detained, who have sought asylum at some stage, as selected dates in 1996 and 19971, nationals of the Czech Republic and Slovakia2

  Detained as at

  Number detained

  31 January 1996

  4

  29 February 1996

  3—

  29 March 1996

  10

  30 April 1996

  12

  31 May 19964

  6

  27 June 1998

  6

  31 July 19965

  6

  4 September 1996

  5

  1 October 1996

  —

  5 November 1996

  5

  11 December 1996

  3

  31 January 19976

  —

  27 March 1997

  —

  30 April 1997

  —

  31 May 1997

  —

  30 June 1997

  3

  31 July 1997

  3—

  29 August 19977

  11

  30 September 1997

  14

  31 October 1997

  39

  28 November 1997

  38

  5 January 19988

  25

  1 No figures are available for August 1996, February 1997 or December 1997.

  2 Includes persons recorded as nationals of the former Czechoslovakia.

  338
  3 Indicates 1 or 2 because in order to protect confidentiality we cannot disclose individual numbers.

  4 Ports figures obtained 7 June 1996. After entry figures obtained 31 May 1996.

  5 Ports figures obtained 2 August 1996. After entry figures obtained 30 July 1996.

  6 Ports figures obtained 3 February 1997. After entry figures obtained 31 January 1997.

  7 Ports figures obtained 29 August 1997. After entry figures obtained 3 September 1997.

  8 Ports figures obtained 6 January 1998. After entry figures obtained 5 January 1998.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate how many asylum seekers are at addresses not known to the authorities. [25947]

  Mr. Michael
  Approximately 14,000 asylum applicants, excluding dependants, are currently recorded as having breached the conditions of their temporary admission, temporary release, or restriction order, or having lost contact with the Home Office.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the current weekly cost to the Exchequer of those in the United Kingdom whose asylum appeals are outstanding. [25950]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on the costs to the
  Exchequer during 1997 of all asylum seekers is not yet available. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to
  339
  the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 13 November 1997, Official Report, columns 652–53, which gave the available information for 1996.

  I regret, however, that it is not possible to separate the cost sof specific groups of asylum seekers.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of asylum seekers whose addresses are unknown to the authorities who are claiming and receiving state benefits. [25949]

  Mr. Michael
  I regret that it is not possible to establish the number of these persons who may be in receipt of state benefits.

  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to discover the whereabouts of asylum seekers whose whereabouts in the United Kingdom are not known to the authorities. [25948]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Measures being taken to deal with the problem of absconding include the use of dedicated enforcement teams throughout the country; working in co-operation with the police and other government agencies; the use of intelligence for the effective targeting of resources; the establishment of a full time Port Absconder Tracing Team working in the Metropolitan Police Area; and the speeding up of Home Office procedures to reduce the potential for absconding.

  Immigration (Carriers Liability)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to recover the sums outstanding under the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987. [25945]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Sums due as a result of charge liabilities under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 (ICLA) are public moneys owed to the Consolidated Fund of Her Majesty's Treasury. The Ports Directorate of the Immigration Service is responsible for recovering amounts owed by carriers under the ICLA and pursues a pro-active debt recovery strategy aimed at reducing the amounts outstanding as quickly as possible.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the amount of charges(a) levied and (b) recovered under the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987 in relation to offences under that Act at each airport in the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years. [25952]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  These figures are available only for 1997 and are set out in the table. Figures before 1997 could be produced only at disproportionate cost. It must be made clear that some of the incurred charges may have been paid since these statistics were compiled or may be about to be paid under an agreement negotiated with the Home Office.

  Airport

  Incurred (£)

  Paid (£)

  Aberdeen

  4,000

  0

  Belfast

  14,000

  16,000

  Birmingham

  60,000

  14,000

  Bournemouth

  0

  0

  Bristol

  8,000

  10,000

  Brize Norton

  0

  0

  340

  Airport

  Incurred (£)

  Paid (£)

  Cambridge

  0

  0

  Cardiff

  0

  0

  East Midlands

  4,000

  4,000

  Edinburgh

  28,000

  20,000

  Gatwick North

  728,000

  1,090,000

  Gatwick South

  1,720,000

  1,103,000

  Glasgow

  54,000

  42,000

  Heathrow 1

  1,388,000

  1,358,000

  Heathrow 2

  2,004,000

  1,544,000

  Heathrow 3

  3,250,000

  2,642,000

  Heathrow 4

  1,358,000

  1,442,000

  Humberside

  20,000

  32,000

  Leeds/Bradford

  2,000

  2,000

  Liverpool

  0

  0

  London City

  92,000

  50,000

  Luton

  108,000

  50,000

  Manchester 1

  194,000

  172,000

  Manchester 2

  112,000

  130,000

  Mildenhall

  0

  0

  Newcastle

  18,000

  18,000

  Norwich

  4,000

  4,000

  Plymouth

  0

  0

  Prestwick

  0

  0

  Southend

  0

  0

  Stansted

  142,000

  192,000

  Swansea

  0

  0

  Teeside

  0

  0

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his policy to allow airlines which owe charges under the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987 to continue to use United Kingdom airports. [25944]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no power under the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987 to refuse or prevent carriers who owe moneys under the Act from continuing to use United Kingdom airports.

  There is, however, an active debt recovery programme operated by the Carriers' Liaison Section of Immigration Service Headquarters and litigation is considered in cases where a carrier unduly procrastinates or refuses to pay any debt, or where a carrier is in default of any agreement to settle charges.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what charges were outstanding under the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987 on 1 January in each of the past 10 years. [25946]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The figures requested are as follow:

  Date

  Outstanding debt £

  1 January 1988

  2,361,000

  1 January 1989

  4,368,000

  1 January 1990

  10,170,000

  1 January 1991

  15,653,000

  1 January 1992

  19,440,000

  1 January 1993

  25,775,000

  1 January 1994

  22,003.000

  1 January 1995

  24,527,000

  1 January 1996

  18,746,000

  1 January 1997

  15,065,996

  1 January 1998

  11,399,073

  Firemen
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the pay and conditions of service and age of retirement for firemen; and what is his Department's policy on these matters. [25277]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received three such letters from individual members of the public. Matters relating to pay and conditions of service (including age of retirement) are dealt with by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades. It is for the employers to ensure that pay settlements are affordable through improvements to efficiency and other economies.

  Naltrexone
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce the compulsory taking of naltrexone for criminals who are drug addicts; and if he will make a statement. [25951]

  Mr. George Howarth
  None. Deciding which drugs to prescribe in the treatment of drug misuse is a matter for the clinical judgement of the medical staff providing the treatment.

  Witness Protection Scheme
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people sought relocation in 1997 under the Metropolitan Police's witness protection scheme; and how many were successfully rehoused, by borough. [25261]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that 158 people sought relocation under the Metropolitan Police's witness protection scheme. He tells me that due to the sensitivities of those seeking assistance it is not the policy of the Metropolitan Police to publish more detailed information. This is an operational matter for the Commissioner.

  Young Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the adult prisons used for the accommodation of 15 and 16 year olds on remand. [25512]

  Ms Quin
  The following establishments hold both adult prisoners and young offenders and can be used to hold 15 and 16-year-olds on remand. However, young offenders are normally accommodated separately from adults.

  Altcourse

  Cardiff

  Chelmsford

  Doncaster

  Dorchester

  Exeter

  Gloucester

  Hull

  Low Newton

  Norwich

  342

  Parc

  Rochester

  Swansea

  15 or 16-year-old females cannot normally be remanded to prisons. However, in the exceptional circumstance of being committed from a Magistrates' Crown to a Crown Court for sentence, a 15 or 16 year old female young offender would be remanded to a female prison. In such a case, allocation to a prison would be made on the basis of the individual's circumstances.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in respect to the Compliance Cost Assessment associated with the Data Protection Bill [Lords], he will (a) place in the Library, in the form which respects commercial confidentiality, copies of the questionnaire telephone scripts used to assess the costs of compliance and all the responses used to assess the costs of compliance and all the responses received, (b) indicate the total number of individuals contacted during the consultation process, and the number of respondents with specialist knowledge of data protection matters, (c) list the organisations involved in providing information for the Assessment and (d) publish an updated version of the 1994 paper, "Costs of Implementing the Data Protection Directive". [25450]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I am placing in the Library a copy of the questionnaire, which we sent to 84 organisations. We received responses from six local authorities; one representative educational organisation; five charities; four large manufacturers; three small manufacturers; ten financial and other service organisations; eight large organisations involved in marketing; and nine retailers. We assured participants of anonymity and it would not be appropriate to make the individual returns available, or list names. We did not ask about the depth of their data protection knowledge.

  Estimated costs to Government Departments were assessed separately.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the practice of enforced subject access in respect of the provisions of the Data Protection Bill (Lords). [25600]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government have made public their opposition to the practice of enforced subject access. We are considering how best to deal with the matter in the context of the Data Protection Bill.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the purpose of the First Data Protection Principle in Part 1, Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Bill (Lords). [25599]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The purpose of the first data protection principle is to ensure that personal data are processed fairly and lawfully. The principle, as elaborated in Part II of Schedule 1 and Schedules 2 and 3 gives effect to articles 6.1, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the 1995 European Communities Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC).

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Data Protection Commissioner with respect to
  343
  (a) enforcement of the right of data subjects under Article 12(c) of the Data Protection Directive and (b) serving of information notices; and if he will make a statement. [25601]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have received no representations from the Data Protection Registrar about the enforcement of article 12(c) of the 1995 European Communities Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC). The Registrar has written welcoming the new power for the Commissioner to issue information notices but expressing a preference for the power to be modelled on those in other regulatory legislation.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for regulations relating to the processing of personal data which(a) contain a general identifying number and (b) are subject to Clause 28(4) of the Data Protection Bill [Lords]. [25451]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No firm decisions have yet been made about the use of the Secretary of State's power under paragraph 4 of Part II of Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Bill to prescribe conditions applying to general identifiers; or of that in clause 28(4) to make exemptions from the subject information and non-disclosure provisions.

  Police Road Blocks
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which the police can carry out a road block. [25047]

  Mr. Michael
  Police powers to carry out road checks are set out in legislation. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides that the police may establish a road check to deal with persons unlawfully at large or where there is a serious arrestable offence involving those travelling or considered to be travelling in a vehicle. Section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, as inserted by section 81 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, also created a new power for the police to stop and search vehicles for the purposes of preventing terrorism.

  In addition, section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended) provides that a person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

  Crown Servants
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions his Department has consulted competitors of an employer making an offer of employment to an official from his Department, for the purpose of compliance with the Civil Service Management Code rules on the acceptance of outside appointments by Crown servants, in each year for which the rules have applied; and if he will make a statement. [25862]

  Mr. Straw
  Since the introduction of the revised Business Appointment Rules with effect from 1 April 1996, there has been no occasion for the Department to consult competitor companies in these circumstances.344
  Information for each of the years preceding for which the rules have applied could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Deparment if he will publish the information collected for the purpose of compliance with the Civil Service Management Code rules on the acceptance of outside appointments by Crown Servants, in each year for which the rules have applied; and if he will make a statement. [25896]

  Mr. Straw
  Since 1 April 1996, when the Business Appointment Rules in their current form came into effect, 24 members of staff across the Department and its agencies have reported offers of employment. These resulted in 19 applications for approval under the Rules.

  Staff are made aware, on appointment, of their obligations under the Business Appointment Rules and again, on leaving. General reminders are issued from time to time but it is the responsibility of the individual to comply with the requirements.

  There is no fully effective comprehensive mechanism for monitoring compliance with the Rules once individuals have left Crown employment. The emphasis is on ensuring that staff are fully aware of their obligations under the Rules before they leave, and on giving the individual the opportunity to discuss the matter and, if they wish, to make representations in cases where conditions are imposed.

  Any failure to comply with the Rules could come to the Department's notice in any number of ways. Any condition which prohibits a former member of staff from dealing with the Department on behalf of an outside employer would, of course, be monitored.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's policy on maximum time allowable for journeys of non-human primates to United Kingdom laboratories; and if he will make a statement. [25751]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Home Office does not currently specify maximum journey times. Information collected by the Home Office on the transportation of non-human primates from overseas sources, including the total journey times between centres of origin and receiving establishments, is currently being analysed. The results will be presented to the primate sub-committee of the Animal Procedures Committee for their advice on future policy concerning the suitability of overseas breeding and supplying centres.

  Fire Rescue Unit (Euston)
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents in the London Borough of Enfield the Fire Rescue Unit based at Euston has attended since the Fire Rescue Unit based at Finchley was removed. [25837]

  Mr. George Howarth
  This information is not available in the form requested. The London Borough of Enfield is served by three fire stations which collectively cover the whole borough (except the Hadley Wood area) and small parts of the boroughs of Barnet and Haringey.
  345
  Information on fire calls is collected on a fire station basis. The Fire Rescue Unit at Finchley was removed on 1 February 1997. I understand from the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority that, for the period from that date until 31 December 1997, the Unit based at Euston was mobilised to the relevant area on 164 occasions.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times during 1997 CS gas was used by police in the Metropolitan Police area. [25435]

  Mr. Michael
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that during 1997 the Metropolitan Police used CS incapacitant spray on 190 occasions.

  Police Complaints
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of complaints about the police in(a) Kingston upon Thames and (b) Richmond upon Thames have been (i) upheld, (ii) dismissed and (iii) dropped by the complainant during the last year for which figures are available. [25526]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner has provided the following provisional figures for the period 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1997.

  Upheld

  Dismissed

  Dropped1

  Twickenham Division

  0

  43

  51

  Kingston Division

  6

  58

  53

  1 Includes complaints resolved informally.

DEFENCE

  Atomic-Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the chemical technology division at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, was set up; what is the purpose of this division; how many series of technical papers or reports are currently being produced by this division; and what are the names of each series. [24509]

  Mr. Spellar
  The chemical technology division of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, was set up in about 1959. It ceased to exist as a separate division in 1991. Its purpose was to develop materials for use in warheads, to conduct research into the chemical properties of such materials and to design chemical engineering processes for their manufacture. It also operated certain associated chemical plant. During its existence two largely classified series of reports were produced dealing with materials and technical matters entitled, (i) Reports/ Laboratory Reports/Materials Reports and (ii) Technical Memoranda 1959–90.

  Armed Forces (Allowances and Charges)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made since February 1997 to the armed forces allowances and charges package which 346
  indicate progress towards greater equity of treatment between married and single personnel; and if he will make a statement. [25759]

  Dr. Reid
  The previous Government published on 20 February 1997,Official Report, column 721, an information document "The Armed Forces of the Future—a Personnel Strategy", which included outline details of changes to the allowances and charges package for personnel in the armed forces. These changes were implemented on 1 December 1997.

  The rationale underpinning the changes was, and continues to be, predicated on targeting these allowances where they are most needed to assist with recruitment and retention, and to compensate for the extra costs and disadvantages of Service life.

  We have no plans at present to make further changes, although the situation is, of course, kept under review.

  Aircraft Requirements
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 January 1998,Official Report, column 415, for what reasons Airbus has been invited to tender for the RAF's heavy lift requirements; and when the competition will commence for this project. [25624]

  Mr. Spellar
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 31 July 1997,Official Report, column 466, we will join partners in issuing a request for proposals to Airbus Military Company for the future large aircraft. We are also inviting our partners to join us in seeking bids from other aircraft manufacturers. The request for proposals has been issued to Airbus, Turkish Aerospace Industries, Alenia and FLABEL on a provisional basis pending the formation of Airbus Military Company. We are still discussing with our partners when requests for proposals will be issued to other potential suppliers. A procurement decision will be made in the light of the conclusions of the Strategic Defence Review and responses to requests for proposals.

  Civil Service Staff
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [26033]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: Of civil service staff of grade 5 and above currently within the Department:

  (a) 53.3 per cent. have spent their entire Civil Service Career within the Department.

  (b)

  (i) 7.6 per cent. have had secondments to the private sector.

  (ii) 34.4 per cent. have had secondments to other Government Departments.

  (c) 7.6 per cent. have come to the MOD from other Government Departments.

  Submariners (Exposure to Radiation)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former and serving submariners on nuclear submarines have been diagnosed as suffering from exposure to harmful radiation. [26284]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence conforms with national legislation on ionising radiation and holds all those records which it is required to keep on classified radiation workers, including submariners. With regard to mortality from cancer among submariners, an examination conducted under the auspices of the Medical Research Council has concluded that working in submarines was not associated with any increased cancer mortality.

  Tornados (Gulf Military Operations)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the role of the RAF Tornados based in Saudi Arabia in respect of military operations in the Gulf. [26283]

  Mr. George Robertson
  RAF Tornados based in Saudi Arabia contribute to coalition operations over the southern no fly zone above Iraq, monitoring Iraqi compliance with UN resolutions.

  Meat
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used to determine the source of the meat eaten by British armed forces in the United Kingdom [25112]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 19 January Official Report, columns 415–16.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Swine Fever
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional steps he has taken to protect pigs in the United Kingdom from swine fever in Germany. [25270]

  Mr. Rooker
  The potential problems associated with classical swine fever in Germany are not new. There has been an on-going problem with CSF in the Community for 10 years, but the disease has not spread to the UK.

  European Community legislation lays down control measures, including movement restrictions, to prevent the spread of CSF. The situation is kept under continuous review by the EC Standing Veterinary Committee on which the UK is represented. The SVC may adopt additional controls on an ad hoc basis as and when the need arises. In the past few days, the SVC has imposed a prohibition on exports of pigs and pig semen from specified areas in the region of MecklenburgVorpommem in Germany.

  In the UK, those connected with the pig industry have been alerted to keep a careful watch for any sign of the disease spreading to the UK from the continent. There are some requirements laid down in Community legislation for the cleansing and disinfection of vehicles used for the transport of pigs in infected countries. Hauliers and those
  348
  involved in the export of pigs and also other livestock and horses to the continent from Great Britain have been reminded of the need to follow good practice by properly cleaning and disinfecting all empty vehicles to minimise the risk of introducing the disease to Great Britain.

  European Funding
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action the Government will take to ensure those sectors of the British economy previously benefitting from European Structural Funding will continue to benefit under the new Agenda 2000 and CAP reform proposals, with particular reference to objective 5b funding. [25764]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 27 Janaury 1998]: The European Commission has yet to put forward formal proposals for regulations implementing the ideas contained in its Agenda 2000 documents. In the negotiations on those proposals, which we expect to be published shortly, we will seek to achieve the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom.

  Compensation
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) by sector and (b) in total, the maximum amount of compensation the Government are empowered to distribute to the agriculture sector in the United Kingdom in the current financial year in respect of the appreciation of the pound; what percentage of each available amount would by paid by (i) the EU and (ii) the United Kingdom; what percentage of the total amount available for each sector will be paid to farmers in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement. [26001]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: The maximum total aid which could currently be paid in the UK this year is £464 million. The breakdown of the maximum which could be paid to each eligible sector is as follows: cereals £143.5 million; dairy £221.5 million; beef and veal £77 million; sugar beet £22 million. The UK can reclaim in full from the EU budget any spending up to half the £464 million maximum aid. In practice, however, the UK Exchequer would bear around 71 per cent. of the cost of the EU reimbursed expenditure.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 22 December a package of aid to the livestock sector worth £85 million.

  BSE
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will extend the remit of the BSE inquiry to include events up to 31 December. [25614]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: No. BSE and nvCJD are on-going problems. Current events are less suitable for study by an inquiry. Any extension of the period would add greatly to the inquiry's scope and the time it would take.

  Agri-monetary Compensation
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what factors govern the limits set in agri-monetary compensation. [25670]
  349
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: Council regulation 724/97 lays down common rules for establishing the maximum levels of agrimonetary compensation which may be paid in member states which have undergone "appreciable" revaluations of their green rate.

  Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee. [26806]

  Mr. Morley
  The Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee has been the subject of a non-departmental public body prior options review. Departments are asked to look at the functions the body carries out; to assess whether they are still needed; and to decide whether the current arrangements provide the best way of carrying them out.

  The SBREC has carried out its functions well, and I am very grateful to its past and present chairman and members, who have given valuable service to the industry over the years. Although the committee has no statutory basis, its work is linked to certain statutory arrangements which date back to 1938 and require my Department to be closely involved with the research programme. I believe there is no need for the Government to be so closely involved in these arrangements, but that there is a case for industry-funded research and education to continue, and that it would be more appropriate, if the industry agrees, for these to be under the aegis of a development council for sugar beet. My Department is therefore consulting interested parties on a proposal to establish such a council to take on the functions currently undertaken by the SBREC.

  In deciding whether to establish a development council, Ministers have to follow the procedures in the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. In particular, they need to be satisfied that its establishment is desired by a substantial number of persons engaged in the industry.

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 15 January 1998,Official Report, column 294, in what circumstances firms would be permitted to contract privately with farmers to incinerate over thirty month cattle carcases without reference to the Intervention Board executive agency. [26246]

  Mr. Rooker
  Compensation for farmers disposing of cattle over thirty months old, apart from those suspected of having BSE for which separate arrangements apply, is available only through the over-30-months scheme run by the Intervention Board. Incineration of OTMS carcases is permissible only under the control and supervision of the board at premises contracted for the purpose.

  The Intervention Board has terminated the restricted stage of its tender as far as the incineration only element is concerned so that it can pursue options more likely to meet its large scale disposal requirements. However, it will continue to contract, as and when the need arises, with incinerator operators who have properly authorised
  350
  and licensed facilities for the disposal of carcases of animals slaughtered on farm and offered to the scheme as casualties, usually via the helpline run for the board by the Licensed Animal Slaughterers and Salvage Association.

  Mink Farming
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to set a date for the prohibition of the farming of mink for their fur. [26278]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government remain committed to implementing their pre-election pledge to prohibit fur farming as soon as practicable. Last year, I reviewed the various options available to achieve this objective and a public consultation letter seeking comments on the way I proposed to proceed was issued on 5 August 1997. I am currently considering how the intention to prohibit fur farming can best be implemented and an announcement will be made as soon as possible. There will be public consultation on any proposals for legislation to ban fur farming.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by weight the countries from which beef has been imported into the United Kingdom since 1 January. [25677]

  Mr. Rooker
  Official overseas trade statistics on the quantities and country of origin of beef imported into the United Kingdom are available only for complete calender months. Statistics for January 1998 are not yet available.

  Imported Meat
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tests are carried out on imported meat to ensure that substances banned for use on United Kingdom meat are identified. [25043]

  Mr. Rooker
  Member states are required to test meat for a wide range of veterinary drugs, including banned substances and are responsible for implementing and policing the relevant directives in respect of their own national production. Veterinary experts from the Commission may make on-the-spot checks to ensure that they are being uniformly applied in all member states.

  Any third country wishing to export fresh meat to the European Union must submit residue testing plans to the Commission. These describe the residue testing programme to be undertaken in respect of their meat production and must provide guarantees which are at least equivalent to the requirements of the Community on EC producers in respect of the banned substances.

  Any third country which permits the use of growth promoting hormones, banned in the European community since 1988, is required to guarantee that no animals and no meat coming from animals to which they have been administered will be exported to the Community. Imports must be certified accordingly, and Commission inspectors verify compliance with all the requirements when they carry out periodic checks on third-country slaughterhouses authorised to produce meat for export to the Community.
  351
  Port health authorities, or local authorities in their absence, are responsible under directive 90/675/EEC for checking 1 per cent. of all imported meat and meat products for residues of veterinary medicines and the banned substances.

  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks have been carried out on imported beef and sheep meat to ensure it meets United Kingdom health standards since 1 January; how much imported meat has been denied access; and what was its origin. [25041]

  Mr. Rooker
  All consignments of animal products imported directly into the United Kingdom from outside the European Union are subject to checks at designated border inspection posts, including checks on the certification requirements on specified risk materials introduced under the Specified Risk Materials Order 1997. Single market rules only permit random spot checks at destination on animal products traded within the Community. Consistent with those rules, a daily sample of randomly selected consignments fro EU member states are subject to documentary checks by Ministry officials for conformity with the new unilateral controls relating to specified risk material.

  Data on the number, type and results of veterinary checks on beef consignments at border inspection posts, most of which are operated by local authorities, and the number of outcome of the random documentary spot-checks on beef consignments arriving from or via other EU member states are being collated on a monthly basis from 1 January 1998, the date when the Specified Risk Materials Order came into force. No data are yet available. They will be published in the Ministry's BSE enforcement bulletin which is placed in the Library of the House.

  Bull Calves (Identity Tags)
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present backlog on the production of secondary yellow plastic tags for bull calves; and what is the deadline set by the Intervention Board for acceptance of bull calves wearing only one identity tag. [25042]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information from eartag manufacturers suggest that supply is likely to take around six weeks. Because of the supply difficulties, the Intervention Board has not currently set a deadline for acceptance of bull calves wearing only one identity tag.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Environmental Implications
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Council what mechanisms have been established since 1 May to ensure that the environmental implications of new legislation are considered before being presented to Parliament. [25909]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Government are committed to integrating environmental considerations into decision-making at all levels across Government. Thus the policy on which any new legislation is based takes into 352
  account environmental considerations. Proposals for new legislation have to include details of significant costs or benefits to the environment. Since 1 May 1997, the Government have set up a Cabinet Committee on the Environment, a network of Green Ministers and a Sustainable Development Unit within the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The House has also agreed to the Government's proposal to establish a select committee on Environmental Audit, which met for the first time on 25 November 1997.

HEALTH

  Republic of Ireland Patients
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients from the Republic of Ireland had operations in the United Kingdom paid for by the Irish Department of Health in each of the last three years; and how many of these were transplant operations. [22538]

  Ms Jowell
  Under European Community Social Security Regulations 1408/71 and 574/72 there were 263 (1994), 225 (1995) and 199 (1996) patient referrals to National Health Service hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales, from the Republic of Ireland.

  The Republic of Ireland participates in the same organ sharing scheme as the United Kingdom. Data from the UK Transplant Support Service Authority show there were 3 (1994), 8 (1995) and 17 (1996) residents of the Republic of Ireland who had solid organ transplants carried out in hospitals in the UK.

  Information from the Hospital Episode Statistics for England shows there were 204 (1993–94), 218 (1994–95) and 216 (1995–96) finished consultant episodes, in which an operation or procedure was recorded and where the patient's address was shown to be within the Irish Republic. These figures include patients who paid privately for their treatment in NHS hospitals. Information about residents of the Irish Republic who had operations carried out in NHS hospitals in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland would be for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland.

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cosmetic surgery operations performed on the NHS were to rectify damage resulting from cosmetic surgery procedures performed by the private sector in the last year for which figures are available. [23006]

  Mr. Milburn
  We do not hold data centrally. A survey carried out in 1995 by the British Association of Plastic Surgeons concluded that there were only a very small number of occasions when National Health Service hospitals had to deal with patients presenting with complications arising from private cosmetic surgery.

  NHS Boards
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names of(a) new and (b) existing members of (i) Tees Health, (ii) South Tees Acute Hospital NHS

  353
  Trust, (iii) Cleveland Ambulance NHS Trust and (iv) South Tees Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, stating their terms of office in each case. [24515]

  Mr. Milburn
  The current non-executive board members of the different bodies and their terms of office are as follows:

  Position

  Name

  From

  To

  Tees Health Authority:

  Chairman

  Thomas O'Connor

  1 April 1996

  31 March 1998

  Member

  Mark Roy Williamson

  1 April 1996

  31 March 1998

  Member

  Graham Prest

  1 April 1996

  31 March 1998

  Member

  Kathleen Taylor

  1 April 1996

  31 March 2000

  Member

  Helen Pickering

  1 April 1996

  31 March 2000

  Member

  Ann O'Hanlon

  1 April 1996

  31 March 2000

  Cleveland: Ambulance National Health Service Trust:

  Chairman

  Alistair Thomson

  1 December 1996

  31 October 1998

  Director

  Susan Bush

  1 December 1994

  30 November 1998

  Director

  Terry Weastell

  1 December 1994

  30 November 1998

  Director

  Elizabeth O'Donnell

  1 December 1997

  30 November 2001

  Director

  Kenneth Hall

  1 December 1997

  30 November 2001

  South Tees Community and Mental Health NHS Trust:

  Chairman

  Robert Murray

  1 November 1996

  31 October 1998

  Director

  Elizabeth Hutchison

  1 November 1996

  31 October 2000

  Director

  Eleanor Young

  1 November 1996

  31 October 2000

  Director

  Geoffrey Crispin

  1 November 1996

  31 October 2000

  Director

  David Becker

  24 November 1997

  31 October 2000

  Director

  Michael John Carr

  24 November 1997

  31 October 2001

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust:

  Chairman

  John Robert Foster

  16 December 1997

  30 November 2001

  Director

  Sheila Argument

  16 December 1997

  30 November 2001

  Director

  Dorothy Sigsworth

  16 December 1997

  30 November 2001

  There are currently three vacancies for non-executive directors at the South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust which will be filled as soon as possible.

  Funding (Leeds)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional funding, above that planned by the previous Government, the Government have allocated to Leeds Health Authority for the years 1997–98 and 1998–99. [25027]

  Mr. Milburn
  For 1997–98 we have allocated £3.1 million winter pressure moneys and an additional £145,000 for breast cancer services to the Leeds Health Authority over the allocation made by the previous administration.

  The increase in funding for 1998–99 of £1 billion for the National Health Service in England more than doubles the increase planned by the previous Government. Leeds HA were allocated £339.9 million. This represents an increase of £15.9 million (£4.90 per cent). This is above the England average increase of 4.70 per cent.

  GPs (Pharmaceutical Dispensing)
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on differences in practice between(a) England and Wales and (b) Scotland in respect of the capacity of general practitioners to dispense pharmaceuticals directly to their patients; and if he will assess the advantages of adopting the Scottish regime in England and Wales. [25441]
  354
  Mr. Milburn
  Pharmaceutical services are provided to patients in both England and Wales and in Scotland mainly by pharmacists. However, general medical practitioners in all three countries may dispense medicines to patients who would otherwise have difficult access to them. In England and Wales patients must be resident in a designated rural area more than one mile from a community pharmacy, otherwise they must satisfy the health authority that they would have serious difficulty obtaining medicines. In Scotland, Health Boards instruct doctors to provide such services where they conclude that patients would not have access to a pharmacy. It is not clear that the Scottish system offers any major advantages over that operating in England and Wales.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the use of regulations providing for general practitioners to dispense drugs directly in rural areas, by practices in market towns to dispense to patients in surrounding villages. [25811]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992 allow dispensing doctors to dispense to patients living more than a mile from the nearest pharmacy, within a controlled locality (designated by the health authority). We have received a number of representations from pharmacists about doctors dispensing medicines to patients in outlying areas from a surgery located in a market town or adjacent to a community pharmacy.

  Hospital Consultants (Distinction Awards)
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps his Department is taking to increase the number of non-white hospital consultants who receive distinction awards; [25406]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the criteria used to decide which hospital consultants receive distinction awards. [25326]

  Mr. Milburn
  Officials have recently had discussions with the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) regarding the disparity in the numbers of awards granted to consultants from ethnic minorities. A number of measures are being introduced in the 1998 awards round to secure better data, monitoring of outcomes, and representation of ethnic minority consultants on awards committees. Some changes to the criteria for awards were also suggested by the CRE, and accepted for implementation in the 1998 awards round. The revised criteria are set out in the published Guide to the NHS Consultants' Distinction Awards Scheme, copies of which are available in the Library. These measures have been welcomed by the CRE. We are considering what further action might be taken to assist in addressing this issue.

  NHS Staff
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the ratio of women to men among(a) medical students, (b) house officers, (c) senior house officers, (d) registrars, (e) senior registrars, (f) consultants, (g) full-time general practitioners and (h) part-time general practitioners in the NHS. [25527]
  355
  Mr. Milburn
  The latest available information is shown in the table:

  Male

  Female

  Ratio Male : Female

  (a) Medical Student

  11,330

  11,540

  1.0 : 1

  (b) House Officer

  1,670

  1,550

  1.1 : 1

  (c) Senior House Officer

  8,160

  5,620

  1.5 : 1

  (d) Registrar

  3,520

  1,680

  2.1 : 1

  (e) Senior/Specialist Registrar

  3,770

  1,870

  2.0 : 1

  (f) Consultant

  15,520

  3,750

  4.1 : 1

  (g)full-time GPs

  18,710

  5,990

  3.0 : 1

  (h) part-time GPs

  1,120

  3,130

  0.4 : 1

  Notes:

  All figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  Ratios are calculated on unrounded figures.

  (a) Undergraduate Medical students studying in 1995–96.

  Data source: Higher Education Statistics Agency.

  (b) to (f) Hospital medical staff in England by grade as at 30 September 1996.

  Data source: Department of Health's Medical and Dental Census.

  (g) to (h) These figures exclude 175 London Initiative Zone (LIZ) assistants for which commitments are unavailable.

  Data source: Department of Health General Medical Services Census 1 October 1996.

  Health Screening (Men)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for health screening for men, with particular reference to high blood pressure, coronary artery disease and prostate cancer. [25520]

  Ms Jowell
  The National Screening Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, advises the Government about implementing national population screening programmes and reviewing the effectiveness of new and existing population screening programmes in the light of emerging evidence. After taking its advice, we decided that the National Health Service should not routinely offer screening for prostate cancer as the risks outweigh the benefits.

  The National Screening Committee will be considering a number of new research studies this year, and it is likely these will include one about selective screening for stroke and the treatment of high blood pressure.

  We are aware that, compared to women, men are often reluctant to use health care services. Our aim is to increase awareness amongst men of the health and lifestyle factors that can affect their health and encourage them to access medical services.

  Long-term Care
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the yearly cost to the NHS in(a) England and (b) Great Britain of meeting the nursing costs of long-term care. [25914]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have made no separate assessment centrally of the nursing costs of long term care in England. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland will reply on behalf of their respective parts of Great Britain. As part of our evidence to the Royal Commission we have identified this issue for their consideration on the funding of long term care.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms he has put in place to ensure the Government's objective of promoting sustainable development is reflected in the outcome of the comprehensive spending reviews for his Department. [25901]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Comprehensive Spending Review in the Department is considering how best to contribute to all the Government's commitments and objectives including the promotion of sustainable development.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Official Functions
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what occasions she has held official receptions in her Admiralty flat; and at what cost to public funds. [23707]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Since May 1997 I have held official receptions at my Admiralty House Flat for the General Council of the TUC, the President's Council of the CBI and other businessmen, and regional businesses at a cost of some £3,350.

  Official Engagements
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list,(a) the official engagements undertaken by the Minister with responsibility for small and medium businesses between 1 December 1997 and 15 January 1998 and (b) the number of days she has been in the Department between 1 December 1997 and 12 January 1998. [24375]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 20 January 1998]: During the period in question I undertook an extensive programme of official engagements.

  Nuclear Waste (Reprocessing)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what quantities of spent nuclear fuel, from which(a) countries and (b) utilities, is stockpiled at Sellafield awaiting reprocessing; and what information she has received from British Nuclear Fuels in regard to when it will be reprocessed. [25062]

  Mr. Battle
  The Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (Thorp) has a total of 7,000 tonnes of fuel to be reprocessed during the Baseload (first ten year) period. I understand that, as at end of 1996–97, there were over 6,000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel awaiting reprocessing at Thorp and approximately 550 tonnes of spent magnox fuel, awaiting reprocessing at the magnox reprocessing plant. This fuel is owned by utilities in the United Kingdom and in overseas countries, including Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Spain, and Switzerland. Decisions relating to the timing of reprocessing of the contracted quantities of spent nuclear fuel owned by individual utilities are an operational matter for BNFL.

  Nuclear Reactors
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the occasions since 1980 when nuclear reactors have been shut down for safety reasons,
  357
  indicating in each case the date of shut down, the reason for the shut down and the date on which power generation recommenced. [24775]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 22 January 1998]: Information on the occasions since 1980 when civil nuclear reactors have been shut down for safety reasons, their dates and reasons for shut down and the dates when power generation recommenced is not recorded centrally. To provide the information requested for 35 currently operating civil power reactors in England and Wales and Scotland and nine which are now under-going decommissioning over a 18 year period could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  In addition to outages ie. a shutdown for re-fuelling, maintenance and repair on a schedule agreed by the regulator—the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII)—there are other occasions when reactors have to shut down ("trip"). The substantial in-built redundancy of safety systems at all nuclear generating sites ensure a trip if there is a fault in one of the many back-up systems on the reactor. Also, a significant proportion of the trips are not related to the safety of the reactor, but to failure in the ancillary equipment for example turbines or National Grid transmission faults.

  However, any incidents of significance or potential significance for the health and safety of the workforce or the public at all UK civil nuclear installations, including nuclear electricity generating sites, are reported in the Health and Safety Executive's "Quarterly Statement of Incidents at Nuclear Installations" published since 1976. Copies of the most recent statements are available in the Library of the House. I am asking HSE to ensure copies of all statements, dating back to 1976, are placed there.

  In addition, civil nuclear operators are also required by their nuclear site licence conditions to keep records of all incidents, events and other deviations from normal operations, thee are reviewed carefully by the NII. Since 1987, details of all such incidents have also been published in site newsletters, copies of which are circulated to Local Members of Parliament, Local Liaison Committees, the local media and to the Library of the House.

  Political Advisers (Support Staff)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many secretarial and support staff work full-time in support of his political advisers. [25188]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: Two.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many overseas visits have been made by her Department's political advisers at public expense since 1 May. [25164]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 23 January 1998]: Six.

  Dietary Supplements
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she received the letter dated 22 December 1997 from two United States of America senators concerning the relationship between MAFF's proposed universal ban 358
  on the general sales of dietary supplements containing more than 10 mg of vitamin B6 and international agreements; what consultations she had with other Government Departments; and what reply she plans to make. [25618]

  Mr. Battle
  The letter was received on 16 January: a reply will be sent shortly. The proposed controls on the level of vitamin B6 in dietary supplements sold under food law are being formulated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in consultation with other interested Government Departments. They are based on recommendations made by two UK committees of independent experts following a review of the scientific data on the safety of vitamin B6: MAFF will be issuing a consultation paper on their proposals in the near future. Measures designed to protect human health are permitted under EC and international trade rules.

  Gas Industry
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received on selling techniques within the gas industry. [25802]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department has received a number of representations from consumers and companies operating in the gas industry. I welcome the introduction of a new gas suppliers' licence condition, expected to come into force this week, which will enhance consumer protection in this area.

  National Scientific Achievements
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the action taken by the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry to ensure that the Treasury takes full account of national scientific achievements in determining the level of support for the scientific base. [25606]

  Mr. Battle
  The future level of support for the Science and Engineering Base will be determined through the Comprehensive Spending Review. This review is taking full account both of the nation's past scientific achievements and our future capability for supporting research of world class standing.

  Foreign Shareholder Limits
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if she will make a statement on the linkage between recent applications made by Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace for launch aid and the outstanding decision on the foreign shareholder limits as they affect these two companies; [25666]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact on British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce of the restrictions placed on potential overseas investors by the present foreign shareholder limits; and when she expects to be able to announce her decisions on the adjustment of those limits; [25497]

  (3) when she received representations from British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce about changes to foreign shareholder limits; what requirements have still to be met before she is able to make a decision on this matter; and when an announcement will be made; [25496]
  359
  (4) from which Government Departments she is awaiting views on the proposals relating to foreign shareholder limits affecting British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce. [25495]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: I received a request from British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce last July for the Government's consent to certain changes to the companies' articles of association. These proposals are being considered carefully by the relevant Government Departments, and this has included an assessment of the present foreign shareholder limits on the activities of those companies. I hope that the Government will be able to respond to this request relatively soon.

  Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she will reply to the letter of 5 January from the hon. Member for Buckingham regarding the sale of the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe's BP shareholding. [25824]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: I replied on 27 January, having been overseas from 10 until 21 January.

  Emergency Telephone Calls
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what measures she is taking to improve the percentage of emergency calls answered by electricity companies; [26239]

  (2) if she will list the regulations which govern the answer of emergency telephone calls by electricity companies. [26238]

  Mr. Battle
  Under Condition 9A of the new Public Electricity Supply Licence, the Licensee shall establish and operate an inquiry service for use by any person for the purpose of receiving reports and offering information, guidance or advice about any matter or incident that causes danger or requires attention or affects the maintenance of the security, availability and quality of service of the licensee's Distribution System.

  The inquiry service shall ensure that all reports and enquiries are processed in a prompt and efficient manner and be available to receive and process telephone reports and inquiries at all times on every day of each year and be operational no later than 31 March 1998.

  OFFER is currently looking at the steps taken by the Public Electricity Suppliers (PES) to deal with the aftermath of the recent storms. The investigation includes the difficulties that customers experienced when trying to contact the PES to report loss of supply and obtain information about likely restoration times, and see what lessons can be learned. I have asked to see their conclusions.

  Electricity Cables
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will introduce measures to require the annual inspection of electricity cables. [26240]
  360
  Mr. Battle
  Inspections of a sample of electric lines and plant belonging to each Public Electricity Supplier are carried out annually under the provisions of section 30(2)(a) of the Electricity Act 1989 by the Department's Engineering Inspectorate.

  The last annual inspection of electric lines and plant belonging to NORWEB plc took place in the Bolton/Wigan/Skelmersdale area on 26 and 27 August 1997.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will introduce legislation to penalise electricity companies that fail to repair damaged cables within 24 hours. [26241]

  Mr. Battle
  Under Sections 39 and 40 of the Electricity Act 1989 the Director General of Electricity Supply has powers to set standards of performance in connection with the provision of electricity supply services by public electricity suppliers to tariff customers in individual cases and standards of overall performance by public electricity suppliers. He has used these powers to introduce in July 1991 Guaranteed Standards of Performance which cover a wide range of services, including one on restoring electricity supplies after faults. These Standards were revised in 1993 and 1995. Currently the Guaranteed Standard of Performance for restoring electricity supplies after faults lays down that customers are entitled to claim a payment if the electricity supply is not restored within 24 hours of a fault being reported. The payment is £40 for domestic customers and £100 for non-domestic customers for the first 24 hours and a further £20 for every additional 12 hour period during which the supply remains off. Customers are required to submit a claim in writing. The Director is currently consulting on a number of further changes which could lead to increased payments.

  Football World Cup
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the position under European competition law of the ticket allocation system for the 1998 Football World Cup; and if she will make a statement. [26265]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The investigatory body for European competition cases is the Competition Directorate of the European Commission (DGIV), which has the powers to gather the information necessary to assess a particular case, and to terminate infringements. It is to open parties which claim a legitimate interest in an alleged breach of the rules to make a formal complaint to the Commission. In addition DGIV, on being made aware of an alleged breach, may launch an investigation at its own initiative.

  Press Conferences
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list those who are allowed to attend her Department's press conferences. [25825]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: It is the normal practice to invite only the media to DTI press conferences.

  Gas and Electricity Deregulation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she has taken to ensure that the deadline for the introduction of a competitive market in domestic electricity supply of 1 April is met. [24324]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 January 1998]: This Government have made clear their full commitment to the successful delivery of supply competition in electricity. I have sought and obtained three reports from the Director General of Electricity Supply on the programme's progress and held meetings with industry chief executives. As a result companies are now committed having spent resources to ensuring that competition is a success and have agreed to licence modifications binding them to deliver their parts of their programme.

  The Director General has now reported that market opening should commence in the middle of September 1998. However customers will benefit not only from the new price controls which are due to come into effect on 1 April 1998 but also from penalties which will take effect from the end of April.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the level of commercial losses to private sector firms arising from the delay in implementation of electricity deregulation; and if they will be compensated. [26181]

  Mr. Battle
  None. Customers including commercial customers will benefit from new price controls to take effect from 1 April 1998 and from penalties which the public electricity suppliers will incur after the end of that month.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she intends to implement simultaneous and reciprocal deregulation of domestic gas and electricity supplies; and if she will make a statement. [26180]

  April to June 1997

  July to September 1997

  Prison

  Tests done

  Opiate positive

  Cannabis positive

  Tests done

  Opiate positive

  Cannabis positive

  Aberdeen

  64

  13

  19

  60

  4

  22

  Barlinnie

  376

  44

  30

  368

  39

  26

  Cornton Vale

  46

  3

  1

  49

  4

  2

  Edinburgh

  226

  30

  91

  222

  22

  62

  Glenochil

  125

  30

  30

  125

  26

  12

  Glenochil YOI

  49

  1

  4

  50

  0

  4

  Low Moss

  117

  13

  23

  106

  14

  25

  Perth

  135

  19

  45

  140

  17

  49

  Polmont

  153

  10

  39

  146

  3

  33

  These figures include prisoners who tested positive for both opiates and cannabis in the one test.

  Nutrition Standards
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans the Government have for improving nutrition standards in Scotland. [25642]

  Mr. Galbraith
  "Eating for Health: A Diet Action Plan for Scotland" was published in July 1996. The Plan, which covers a 10 year period, makes 71 recommendations for action by those interests who most influence our diet—from those who produce, manufacture and retail food and food products through to central and
  362
  Mr. Battle
  The proposed timetables for the deregulation of domestic gas and electricity supply markets have been published by OFGAS and OFFER respectively.

  Anti-competitive Practices
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of the Competition Bill[Lords] on the examination of anti-competitive practices within the newspaper industry. [24433]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Competition Bill introduces general prohibitions against anti-competitive agreements and abuses of market dominance. These prohibitions will apply to the newspaper industry as to other sectors of the economy. Under the Bill it is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading, the Competition Commission, and ultimately the courts, to examine whether particular behaviour is caught by the prohibitions. The purpose of the Bill is to set in place a new framework of law against which the competition effects of individual cases may be assessed by these bodies.

SCOTLAND

  Prisoners (Drug Testing)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the results of random mandatory drug testing of prisoners for April to June 1997 and July to September 1997, showing for each establishment the number of tests done, the number of prisoners testing positive for opiates and the number of prisoners testing positive for cannabis for the nine Scottish prisons at which willing anonymous salivary HIV/Hepatitis B surveillance studies were conducted during 1991 to 96. [25054]

  Mr.McLeish
  The information is as follows:

  local Government. Implementation of the Plan is now being taken forward in the Government's drive to improve Scotland's diet.

  Long-term Care
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the yearly cost to the NHS of meeting the nursing costs of long-term care. [25913]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The cost to the NHS in Scotland of nursing people in long-term care was £286.6 million in 1996–97.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received on extending patients' rights of access to medical records held by hospitals and general practitioners. [25678]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Scottish Office Department of Health receives many inquiries from patients about rights of access under the provisions of the Access to Health Records Act 1990.

  It is not possible to distinguish those which are concerned with extending rights of access, since a clear explanation of current rights usually satisfies the correspondent.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the rights of patients to gain access to medical records held by hospitals and general practitioners. [25679]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Under the provisions of the Access to Health Records Act 1990 individuals have the right to access personal health information in health records kept on manual files recorded after November 1991. The 1990 Act does not prevent access to records made before 1991 but it is for the relevant health professional to decide to allow access on an informal, voluntary basis. The Data Protection Act 1984 gives an individual the right of access to personal information in health records which are held on computer. With both of these Acts access can be denied or restricted only in certain specified circumstances such as where access to the information may cause serious physical or mental harm to the individual.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  EU Development and Assistance Programme
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will take action during the United Kingdom Presidency to ensure that the EU development assistance programme procedures include full consultation with and participation of those involved throughout the project cycle. [25887]

  Clare Short
  Stakeholder participation and involvement in the planning and implementation of programmes is central to sustainable development. The European Commission's own internal project cycle management guidance stresses the importance of adequate stakeholder consultation and involvement in the project cycle, but continuing efforts are required to ensure this is always fully reflected in the design and implementation of projects and programmes. During the UK Presidency, we will continue to promote the greater use and development of adequate stakeholder participation through dialogue with Commission officials in Brussels and in delegations, and through our participation in the Commissions Management Committees. We have also seconded a Social Development adviser to work in the Commission to use his expertise to assist the Commission in this area.

  Cameroon
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will commission during the United Kingdom Presidency an environmental and social impact assessment of the EC decision to fund the upgrading of roads in the rainforests of Cameroon. [25886]

  Clare Short
  The EC will be assessing the environmental and social aspects of the proposed road maintenance project as part of its standard project preparation procedures. The project will be considered by the European Development Fund Committee on which my Departments sits. There are no plans to commission a separate assessment.

  Non-career Civil Servants
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many non-career civil servants have been appointed to her Department since 1 May 1997. [25851]

  Clare Short
  The number of people appointed to the Department for International Development on fixed term contracts or as casuals since 1 May 1997 is 88.

  Civil Service Staff
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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 or its predecessor Departments, (b) have had secondments to (i) the private sector and (ii) other Departments and (c) have come from other Departments. [26038]

  Clare Short
  Of the 52 Senior Civil Service staff currently employed by DFID:

  (a) Approximately 10 per cent. have spent their entire civil service career within the Department;

  (b)

  (i) approximately 8 per cent. have had secondments to the private sector;

  (ii) over 70 per cent. to other Government Departments or institutions;

  and

  (c) over 30 per cent. joined DFID from other Departments.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many projects funded under the UK aid programme are administered by non-governmental organisations. [23781]

  Clare Short
  About 1,800 UK NGO development projects are funded through the Joint Funding Scheme. A list giving details of these projects by country is available in the Library.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on assistance given by her Department to Indonesia. [23780]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer given to the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir A. Goodlad) on 21 January 1998,Official Report, columns 560–61.

  Kenya
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what training has been provided to the Kenyan military, security and police units in riot control or internal security; and which private companies have been licensed to provide such training in the last three years. [25130]

  Clare Short
  A project to provide training from UK development assistance to the Kenyan Police was approved in 1995. The project has funded the training of trainers and helped to develop the syllabus for a Senior Command Course which is being delivered by Kenyan police trainers in Kenya. The syllabus includes a section on the management of civil disturbances based on the philosophy of minimum force and the rule of law. The first course was evaluated by an independent consultant in September 1997. Course participants were invited to submit recommendations to the Commissioner of Police following the course. A key theme identified by the trainees was the need to change from a police 'force' to a police 'service'. This was reinforced by recommendations for the wider introduction of community policing and a less confrontational approach to the management of civil disturbances.

  In 1996, as part of the International Commanders Programme, three Kenyan Police Officers attended the Hounslow training centre for half a day to observe UK training methods in public order management. The objective was for the overseas officers to observe how the police response in this country is governed by the principles of minimum use of force within the context of policing by consent. This visit was complemented by a presentation by Bramshill Police Training College on the UK's approach to conflict resolution by peaceful means.

  In 1997, an Assistant Commissioner of Police from Kenya attended the Strategic Command Course at Bramshill. This course focuses on the strategic management and leadership of a police service including a component dealing with the management of public order and civil disasters.

  No training in riot control or internal security has been provided under development assistance to the Kenyan military or security units. No new financial commitments for police training in Kenya have been made under the development assistance programme since 1 May 1997.

  International Development Association
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps have been taken to lift the procurement restrictions placed on the International Development Association Interim Trust Fund following the US Administration's clearance of their arrears to the tenth replenishment of the IDA. [26916]
  366
  Clare Short
  Under the arrangements agreed by the International Development Association (IDA) Deputies in February 1997, it was agreed that the use of uncommitted resources of SDR700 million ($1 billion) under the Interim Trust Fund would be determined following consideration of decisions by the United States authorities on the payment of the amount needed to clear the United States' arrears to the IDA tenth replenishment, and the first tranche of its pledge to the IDA eleventh replenishment.

  The United States Foreign Appropriations Act, which became law on 26 November 1997, provides $1,034.5 million for IDA to clear IDA-10 arrears and for the first tranche of IDA-11 contributions. IDA Executive Directors therefore approved, on 23 December 1997, a recommendation from the World Bank's President to amend the Resolution establishing the Interim Trust Fund to lift the procurement restrictions against SDR700 million ($1 billion) of uncommitted ITF funds. Any credits funded from the SDR700 million will now be open to procurement from countries with the IDA contributors (including the US) and eligible borrowers.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal Pathfinders
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the progress of the new deal pathfinder in Barrow and Furness. [24200]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is, of course, early days for this ambitious undertaking, but I am encouraged by the impressive start to New Deal Pathfinders including the one in Cumbria. In the first three weeks, 3,000 young people have had Gateway interviews including 166 in Cumbria. The response from young people and employers alike has been extremely positive and over 440 employer agreements have been signed in the Pathfinder Districts.

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the New Deal in Pathfinder areas. [24216]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what stage preparations have reached for the private sector-led New Deal Pathfinder areas. [24187]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Private sector lead organisations have been selected for each area. Detailed delivery arrangements are now being developed in discussion with local partners, including the Employment Service. New Deal delivery will commence shortly in both of the localities involved.

  Learning Disabilities
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps will be taken to ensure that young people with learning disabilities will be able to take advantage of the New Deal. [24201]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We are committed to ensuring that the New Deal meets the individual needs of all young people including those with learning and other disabilities. They are eligible for early entry, specialist help through tailored Gateway provision and support throughout the New Deal option of their choice.

  Young Unemployed
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assistance New Deal participants aged over 25 years and unemployed for more than two years will receive during the period before their six month placement begins. [24202]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  My right hon. Friend and I are currently considering arrangements to ensure that long term unemployed people receive help to prepare for the New Deal. We will announce details as soon as possible.

  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people aged between 18 and 24 years and unemployed for over six months, will benefit from the new deal. [24203]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is not possible to provide precise estimates of the total numbers of young people who will require help from the New Deal. We will offer help to every 18 to 24-year-old who becomes eligible for the New Deal, and sufficient places will be available to meet this commitment. In October 1997, just over 120,000 18 to 24-year-olds had been claimant unemployed for six months or more; every month about 15,000 to 20,000 young people reach six months' unemployment.

  Grammar Schools
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if consultations about grammar school status will include those parts of the schools catchment area outside the education authority area. [24204]

  Mr. Byers
  Under the School Standards and Framework Bill, the detail of the mechanisms for ballots on the future admission arrangements of grammar schools, including which parents will be eligible to vote in any ballot, are to be set out in regulations which we will be preparing later this year.

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support he will give local authorities to meet literacy targets. [24205]

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support he will give to local authorities to meet literacy targets. [24214]
  368
  Mr. Byers
  Local Education Authorities have already been advised of the level of expenditure which has been approved in the Standards Fund for 1998–99 to support the implementation of the National Literacy Strategy. The level of support across LEAs totals £59 million for all literacy-connected grants.

  In addition we have appointed Regional Directors to work with LEAs, and are funding the development of distance leaning materials to support teachers professional development.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he plans to take to ensure that newly qualified teachers are properly trained in literacy and numeracy. [24207]

  Mr. Byers
  From this September all primary trainees, on all courses of Initial Teacher Training (ITT), must follow a core national training curriculum in English and mathematics. The curriculum specifies the essential core of knowledge, understanding and skills which all trainees must be taught in relation to primary English and mathematics.

  We have also asked the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) to develop a national training curriculum in ITT for secondary English and mathematics. The TTA will shortly be undertaking a widespread consultation on these documents.

  Truancy
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he is taking to tackle truancy in schools. [24208]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer my hon. Friend to oral answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate).

  Tertiary Education Funding
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of proposed changes in funding for tertiary education on students from outside the United Kingdom attending United Kingdom establishments. [24209]

  Dr. Howells
  Overseas students from outside the European Union generally pay the full cost of their tuition and will be unaffected by the proposed new arrangements for the payment of tuition fees. Students from other EU countries will continue to be treated on the same basis as home students as far as fees are concerned.

  Class Sizes (Macclesfield)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the average class sizes of(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in the Macclesfield constituency. [24210]
  369
  Mr. Byers
  In January 1997 the average class size of primary schools in the Macclesfield constituency was 207.9; the corresponding figure for secondary schools was 21.0.

  National Year of Reading
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his objectives for the National Year of Reading; and if he will make a statement. [24212]

  Mr. Byers
  The National Year of Reading starts in September 1998. The aim of the Year is to transform the nations' s attitude to reading. The Secretary of State today launched the logo for the year and guidance on the planning of local activities around the country. Tomorrow I will host a National Year of Reading conference involving local authorities, major publishers and booksellers, librarians, the media, special needs groups and literacy organisations.

  Scottish Devolution
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with the Scottish Office on the impact of the Government's devolution proposals on the higher education sector. [24213]

  Dr. Howells
  Officials of the Department are in regular touch with their colleagues in the Scottish Office on a wide range of matters, including the implications of the Government's devolution proposals for the higher education sector.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to allow students involved with non-graduate performing arts courses to have access to student loans. [24217]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Education and Employment is currently working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to develop funding arrangements for talented dance and drama students from autumn 1999. All options for funding will be considered as part of that process.

  Long-term Unemployed
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the number of the New Deal places; and what percentage he estimates will be available to the long-term unemployed. [24218]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  It is not possible to provide precise estimates of the numbers of young people aged 18 to 24 or the numbers of long-term unemployed people aged 25 and above who will benefit from the New Deal. We will offer help to everyone who becomes eligible for the New Deal. We will announce detailed arrangements for long-term unemployed people aged 25 and over as soon as possible.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if students who decided to defer entry to university to 1998, by notifying the institution itself and not UCAS prior to 1 August 1997, will have to pay tuition fees in 1998. [24211]

  Dr. Howells
  The gap year exemption scheme will apply to all students who made the necessary deferment arrangements on or before 1 August 1997, irrespective of whether they made them through UCAS or direct with the institution.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress to date on achieving maximum class sizes of 30 for five to seven-year-olds; and what steps will be taken over the next six months. [25026]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government are on course to deliver its class size pledge to the electorate by the end of this Parliament. The Education (Schools) Act 1997, which phases out the Assisted Places Scheme, received Royal Assent in July last year. The first £22 million savings from the Scheme will become available from April to reduce class sizes in authorities from September. The School Standards and Framework Bill at present before Parliament, includes a range of provisions to give effect to our policy.

  Higher Education (Agency Staff)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to allow the extension of the use of agency staff to higher education institutions; and if he will make a statement. [24190]

  Dr. Howells
  Higher education institutions are independent bodies and it is for them to appoint staff and determine their pay and conditions of service in the light of their own particular needs and requirements. The Government have no role in such matters.

  English Teachers
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of teachers currently teaching English in secondary schools who do not have a first degree in that subject. [26076]

  Mr. Byers
  There were about 14,600 full and part-time teachers in secondary schools teaching English to years 7–13 at November 1996 who did not have a first or higher degree (excluding PGCE) which included English.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Rural Poverty
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what indices the Government intend to use to measure poverty in Britain, with particular reference to rural poverty. [21894]
  371
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Our priority is a national programme to tackle benefit dependency and worklessness. We have also set up a Social Exclusion Unit to co-ordinate action across Government to find new and more integrated ways of tackling the worst problems. Various indicators are used in considering issues of low income and social exclusion.

  After School Clubs
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what funds are available under the Government's welfare to work programme for the establishment and maintenance of after school clubs for under eights. [22592]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We will invest an extra £300 million in childcare over the next five years. this will provide an out of school childcare place for up to one million children.

  This is a crucial step towards fulfilling our manifesto commitment to a National Childcare Strategy to enable parents to balance their work and family responsibilities.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is(a) the total administrative cost, (b) the administrative cost for each £50 payment and (c) the administrative cost for each £20 payment, under the Winter Fuel Payment Scheme. [23349]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Social Security Benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Peter Viggers, dated 28 Janaury 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what is (a) the total administrative cost, (b) the administrative cost for each £50 payment and (c) the administrative cost for each £20 payment, under the Winter Fuel Payment Scheme.
  The information is not yet available in the detail requested. It is estimated that almost ten million payment will be made with a total value of around £200 million.
  The planning assumptions are that the total administrative cost of this winter's payments is to be in the region of £20 million which compares well with similar exercises.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful at this stage.

  Interest Rate Calculation
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will change the way the standard interest rate used to make mortgage payments for unemployed home-owners is calculated to include large mortgage lenders which have converted to banks. [24399]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) on 30 October 1997,Official Report, column 856.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice, and in what form, on the possibility of therapeutic earnings is provided to new claimants of disability and incapacity benefits. [24351]
  372
  Mr. Denham
  Specific advice about therapeutic work is provided to all new Incapacity Benefit recipients by leaflet IB40 "Notes About Incapacity Benefit". Advice is also provided on request by leaflet IB202 "Incapacity Benefit" which is available from Social Security offices.

  New Severe Disablement Allowance recipients are advised to let their Social Security office know if they intend to undertake any work by leaflet SDA28 "Information about Severe Disablement Allowance" and leaflet NI252 "Severe Disablement Allowance". The local Social Security office will then advise the recipient of the therapeutic work provisions. The Severe Disablement Allowance leaflets will be reviewed to consider bringing the information provided into line with the Incapacity Benefit versions.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the consultation process to be followed in the review of disability benefits, with particular reference to(a) the groups to be consulted and (b) the timetable for consultation. [24654]

  Mr. Denham
  When we have identified specific proposals for disability benefits we will consult disabled people, their organisations and others with an interest. At that point we will make decisions about the details of the consultation exercise, including the timetable. We will not make any changes without consulting on them.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will make a statement on the amount spent on disability living allowance for people aged 65 years or over; [24868]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the number of those aged 65 years or over who have received disability living allowance for each year since 1992. [24865]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  People aged 65 or over in receipt of disability living allowance (DLA)

  Thousands

  Year

  Number

  1992–932

  226

  1993–942

  258

  1994–952

  294

  1995–962

  333

  1996–972

  373

  Source

  1. Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. data.

  Notes:

  1 Figures relate to people being paid the benefit and exclude those where payment is suspended.

  2 Figures relate to the end of February.

  373

  Estimated proportion of disability living allowance expenditure going to those aged 65 or over

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Proportion of DLA expenditure going to those aged 65 or over (per cent.)

  17

  17

  19

  19

  20

  21

  Amount (cash terms £ million)

  340

  480

  580

  730

  870

  1,020

  Amount (real terms 1997–98 prices £ million)

  380

  530

  630

  770

  900

  1,020

  Source:

  1. The Government's Expenditure Plans 1997–98 to 1999–2000, DLA caseload statistics (5 per cent. sample) for the end of August in each year except 1992–93. February 1993 caseload data are the earliest available.

  Notes:

  1. Expenditure rounded to nearest ten million, percentages to nearest one per cent.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the savings in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 from (a) discontinuing with and (b) taxing child benefit for those single parents or couples with salaries of (1) £20,000, (2) £25,000 and (3) £30,000 and over. [24440]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  No such estimate has been made.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current media strategy of the Child Support Agency; what is its(a) current and (b) planned budget; who is responsible for the current strategy; and which media companies the Agency has employed in the strategy. [24471]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  All children are entitled to the support of both parents wherever they live. We are looking closely at all aspects of the child support scheme to see where improvements can be made. We aim to bring forward proposals by the summer. The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Derek Wyatt, dated 28 January 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the media strategy of the Child Support Agency.
  As Chief Executive of the Agency, I am responsible for Agency's media strategy. This strategy uses the most cost effective means to:
  provide a prompt, accurate and responsive service to media requests for information;
  correct inaccurate or misleading information which appears in the media;
  and promotes a better understanding of Child Support matters.
  Total expenditure on media activity for 1997–98 is £149,384. £83,472 of this expenditure relates to the staff who are delivering the strategy. The budget for 1998–99 has yet to be agreed.
  No media companies have been employed in developing and implementing the current strategy. However, some services such as the provision of press cuttings and the distribution of press releases are provided by outside contractors. The costs of these services are met from the media budget.
  I hope this is helpful.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of(a) men and (b) women who are at present in receipt of a war pension. [24526]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the table.

  Number of war pensions in payment at 31 December 1997

  Total

  Men

  Women

  War Disablement Pensions

  261,560

  1252,300

  19,260

  War Widows Pensions

  58,211

  —

  —

  War Widowers Pensions

  7

  —

  —

  1 Estimate based on a 5 per cent, sample.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) of 16 January 1998,Official Report, column 344, what is the cost to the Exchequer of the measures announced regarding the level of national insurance contracting-out rebates. [25123]

  Mr. Denham
  The cost of increasing the age related rebates for holders of Appropriate Personal Pensions for the tax year 2000/2001 is £140 million1.

  Note:

  1. Figure rounded to the nearest 10 million.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will make a statement on the number of those who have received attendance allowance in each year since 1992; [24864]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the amount spent on attendance allowance in each year since 1992. [24869]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Thousands

  Year

  Number

  1992–932

  890

  1993–942

  962

  1994–952

  1,046

  1995–961

  1,108

  1996–971

  1,166

  Source:

  1. 5 per cent. data and figures relate to end of February.

  2. 100 per cent. data with adjustments to reflect the extent to which live cases were overstated. Figures relate to end of March.

  Notes:

  1. Figures relate to people being paid the benefit and exclude those where payment is suspended.

  375

  Attendance allowance expenditure 1992–93 to 1997–98

  £ million

  1992–93 (outturn)

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  11996–97

  21997–98

  AA expenditure in cash prices

  1,553

  1,795

  1,963

  2,194

  2,421

  2,704

  AA expenditure in real terms (1997–98 prices)

  1,760

  1,977

  2,129

  2,317

  2,487

  2,704

  Source:

  1. The Government's Expenditure Plans 1997–98 to 1999–2000.

  Notes:

  1. Estimated outtum.

  2. 1997–98 plan.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of claims for attendance allowance resulted in (i) an award at(a) the lower rate and (b) the higher rate, and (ii) no award in each year since 1992. [24815]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Claims for attendance allowance1

  Thousands

  Decisions made

  Year

  All decisions made

  Percentage awarded lower rate

  Percentage awarded higher rate

  Percentage not awarded

  1992–93

  498,753

  44

  32

  24

  1993–94

  456,281

  39

  31

  29

  1994–95

  481,330

  37

  32

  31

  1995–96

  465,971

  37

  34

  29

  1996–97

  457,060

  37

  33

  30

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data.

  Note:

  Due to rounding the percentages do not always sum to 100.

  Claims, reviews and appeals for attendance allowance

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Claims refused

  119,298

  132,785

  146,924

  134,568

  137,162

  Review decisions1 2

  100,588

  119,263

  110,044

  126,995

  118,315

  Reviews that are successful2 3

  62,274

  79,503

  77,569

  87,466

  73,724

  Appeals decisions2 4 6

  4,556

  5,674

  5,351

  3,185

  4,967

  Appeals that are successful2 5

  —

  —

  —

  2,122

  2,900

  Source:

  1. Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent data.

  Notes:

  1 Includes both reviews for claims refused and also reviews of existing awards.

  2 May include decisions made about claims which were refused in a previous year.

  3 Includes both successful reviews of claims which were refused and existing awards where the value of awards was increased.

  4 Includes both decisions about claims which were refused and decisions about existing awards.

  5 Includes both successful reviews of claims which were refused and existing awards where the value of the award was increased.

  6 figures prior to 1995–96 include appeals withdrawn or not decided pending further information.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in which years since 1968 the state retirement pension has been uprated by(a) the higher of average earnings or prices, (b) prices and (c) neither. [25136]

  Mr. Denham
  Prior to 1974 there was no statutory obligation to uprate benefits. Increases in Retirement Pensions occurred occasionally on an ad hoc basis. From 1974 to 1979 Retirement Pension was uprated by the higher of earnings or prices. Since 1980 and every subsequent year upratings have been in line with prices.
  376
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion and number of claimants whose claim for attendance allowance had been refused asked for a review; what proportion and number were successful for each year since 1992; and what proportion and number of those who were unsuccessful at review successfully appealed. [24968]

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

  Statistics collected for Attendance Allowance reivews do not distinguish between customers who ask for reviews because their claims were refused and those seeking reviews of existing awards because, for example, of deteriorating conditions. Similarly, the statistics collected for appeals do not distinguish between customers who appeal following unsuccessful reviews where claims have been refused and those appealing against unsuccessful reviews of existing awards. Such information as is available is given in the table below.

  Welfare Budget
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list the cost and proportion of GDP accounted for by(a) UK and (b) EU welfare benefits in each of the last 10 years. [25260]

  Mr. Field
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information that is available is shown in the tables "Cost and Proportion of Gross Domestic Product", copies of which have been placed in the Library, and a copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend.
  377
  Comparisons of expenditure on social protection in European Union countries are made by Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Communities. The

  Cost and proportion of Gross Domestic Product Social Protection Expenditure as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product at market prices

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Belgium

  30.8

  29.9

  29.3

  29.4

  29.0

  27.7

  26.7

  26.9

  27.4

  27.0

  27.0

  Denmark

  30.1

  28.6

  27.8

  26.7

  27.4

  28.9

  29.9

  29.8

  30.9

  32.1

  33.3

  Germany1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28.8

  30.1

  31.0

  Germany2

  28.9

  28.5

  28.4

  28.2

  28.6

  28.5

  27.6

  26.9

  26.4

  26.8

  27.7

  Greece

  13.8

  14.6

  15.4

  15.5

  16.1

  15.7

  16.4

  16.1

  15.3

  14.9

  15.8

  Spain

  19.3

  19.3

  19.9

  19.6

  19.7

  19.8

  20.1

  20.7

  21.8

  23.0

  24.5

  France

  28.3

  28.7

  28.8

  28.5

  28.1

  28.0

  27.5

  27.6

  28.4

  29.2

  30.9

  Ireland

  23.9

  23.4

  23.6

  23.1

  22.4

  21.2

  19.4

  19.4

  20.5

  21.3

  21.5

  Italy

  22.9

  22.0

  22.6

  22.4

  22.9

  22.9

  22.7

  23.6

  24.1

  25.5

  25.7

  Luxembourg

  27.2

  25.8

  23.1

  22.1

  23.1

  22.5

  21.8

  22.5

  23.6

  23.9

  24.6

  Netherlands

  33.4

  32.3

  31.7

  31.3

  32.0

  31.7

  31.0

  32.2

  32.3

  32.9

  33.4

  Portugal

  14.0

  14.0

  14.1

  14.3

  14.1

  14.8

  14.5

  15.0

  17.3

  18.1

  18.5

  United Kingdom6

  23.9

  24.2

  24.3

  24.3

  23.5

  21.9

  21.7

  22.7

  25.3

  27.0

  27.8

  European Union3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26.5

  27.7

  28.8

  European Union4

  26.2

  25.9

  26.0

  25.9

  25.9

  25.4

  24.9

  25.2

  25.9

  26.8

  27.8

  Austria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Finland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25.4

  30.1

  34.1

  35.2

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  European Union5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  Social Protection Expenditure and Receipts 1980–94, Eurostat.

  Notes:

  1 Germany with the new German Lander.

  2 Germany without the new German Lander.

  3 Old territorial situation of the European Union with 12 member states, among which reunited Germany is included.

  4 Old territorial situation of the European Union with 12 member states, without the new German Lander.

  5 Total for the European Union.

  6 UK data refer to the British financial year which runs from 1 April in one year to 31 March the following year. Data for other countries are for calender years.

  7 1993 is the last complete year for which data are available.

  Total current expenditure on social protection in National Currencies

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Belgium

  1,269,973

  1,327,319

  1,390,450

  1,469,111

  1,512,050

  1,539,895

  1,607,090

  1,728,657

  1,847,708

  1,918,060

  1,960,129

  Denmark

  154,491

  161,952

  171,197

  178,136

  191,662

  211,848

  229,549

  237,814

  256,153

  273,672

  290,791

  Germany1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  821,641

  924,800

  978,032

  Germany2

  482,366

  499,494

  518,350

  542,732

  569,038

  597,556

  613,652

  651,831

  699,865

  752,655

  787,946

  Greece

  509,968

  666,969

  856,364

  1,025,979

  1,211,695

  1,430,153

  1,772,904

  2,091,096

  2,431,810

  2,723,668

  3,251,062

  Spain

  4,356,263

  4,924,416

  5,618,071

  6,343,271

  7,106,322

  7,933,702

  9,054,580

  10,376,885

  11,987,398

  13,566,301

  14,897,989

  France

  1,133,987

  1,252,845

  1,354,584

  1,444,996

  1,500,426

  1,603,009

  1,696,270

  1,799,854

  1,923,445

  2,048,662

  2,186,853

  Ireland

  3,567

  3,882

  4,241

  4,546

  4,723

  4,815

  4,925

  5,267

  5,790

  6,385

  6,095

  Italy7

  144,828

  159,801

  182,795

  201,664

  224,810

  249,834

  271,393

  310,169

  344,594

  383,084

  398,797

  Luxembourg

  47,498

  50,046

  52,290

  55,484

  60,143

  64,875

  71,294

  77,912

  88,016

  95,372

  107,557

  Netherlands

  129,577

  131,038

  134,746

  136,989

  140,980

  145,119

  150,133

  166,189

  175,409

  185,967

  193,432

  Portugal

  369,646

  452,502

  569,327

  721,996

  838,727

  1,029,198

  1,183,995

  1,442,584

  1,912,382

  2,289,058

  2,486,937

  United Kingdom6

  72,534

  78,544

  86,665

  93,344

  98,942

  103,050

  111,643

  124,914

  145,176

  160,743

  174,600

  European Union3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,384,782

  1,514,976

  1,587,423

  European Union4

  759,232

  811,920

  874,632

  923,424

  972,133

  1,037,845

  1,107,527

  1,206,840

  1,325,408

  1,429,755

  1,489,238

  Austria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Finland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  130,809

  147,966

  162,817

  169,568

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  European Union5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source: Social Protection Expenditure and Receipts 1980–1994, Eurostat.

  Notes:

  1 Germany with the new German Lander.

  2 Germany without the new German Lander.

  3 Old territorial situation of the European Union with 12 member states, among which reunited Germany is included.

  4 Old territorial situation of the European Union with 12 member states, without the new German Lander.

  5 Total for the European Union.

  6 UK data refer to the British financial year which runs from 1 April in one year to 31 March the following year. Data for other countries are for calender years. 1993 is the last complete year for which data are available.

  7 Except Italy: billions.
  378
  Eurostat definition of social protection expenditure includes expenditure on health and social services as well as Social Security.

  379

  Total current expenditure on social protection in ECU (millions)

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Belgium

  27,950

  29,209

  30,958

  33,543

  35,130

  35,458

  37,046

  40,745

  43,761

  46,115

  48,433

  Denmark

  18,998

  19,881

  21,349

  22,447

  24,307

  26,641

  28,519

  30,268

  32,388

  35,046

  38,292

  Germany1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  400,605

  457,822

  505,182

  Germany2

  212,402

  223,188

  232,862

  255,043

  274,632

  288,118

  296,450

  317,656

  341,231

  372,601

  406,997

  Greece

  6,531

  7,544

  8,099

  7,466

  7,754

  8,534

  9,913

  10,382

  10,798

  11,026

  12,105

  Spain

  34,166

  38,907

  43,505

  46,148

  49,986

  57,657

  69,434

  80,185

  93,310

  102,367

  99,903

  France

  167,477

  182,312

  199,350

  212,499

  216,543

  227,830

  241,496

  260,320

  275,842

  299,162

  329,643

  Ireland

  4,989

  5,347

  5,932

  6,194

  6,094

  6,205

  6,338

  6,858

  7,539

  8,390

  8,631

  Italy

  107,286

  115,682

  126,241

  137,949

  150,384

  162,511

  179,675

  203,793

  224,749

  240,101

  216,593

  Luxembourg

  1,045

  1,101

  1,164

  1,267

  1,397

  1,494

  1,643

  1,836

  2,085

  2,293

  2,658

  Netherlands

  51,075

  51,937

  53,662

  57,055

  60,403

  62,150

  64,297

  71,881

  75,902

  81,744

  88,934

  Portugal

  3,746

  3,912

  4,371

  4,909

  5,158

  6,052

  6,828

  7,965

  10,707

  13,102

  13,202

  United Kingdom6

  123,567

  132,901

  147,139

  138,905

  140,343

  155,196

  165,888

  174,949

  207,098

  217,809

  223,846

  European Union3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,384,782

  1,514,976

  1,587,423

  European Union4

  759,232

  811,920

  874,632

  923,424

  972,133

  1,037,845

  1,107,527

  1,206,840

  1,325,408

  1,429,755

  1,489,238

  Austria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Finland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26,151

  29,581

  28,038

  25,324

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  European Union5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  Social Protection Expenditure and Receipts 1980–1994, Eurostat.

  Notes:

  1 Germany with the new German Lander.

  2 Germany without the new German Lander.

  3 Old territorial situation of the European Union with 12 member states, among which reunited Germany is included.

  4 Old territorial situation of the European Union with 12 member states, without the new German Lander.

  5 Total for the European Union.

  6 UK data refer to the British financial year which runs from 1 April in one year to 31 March the following year. Data for other countries are for calender years.

  1993 is the last complete year for which data are available.

  Disability Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what sources the Government has evaluated in estimating figures for disability benefit fraud. [25676]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is to tackle fraud in order to rebuild confidence in the Social Security system. The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Mark Oaten, dated 28 January 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the sources used to evaluate disability benefit fraud.
  A review of Disability Living Allowance (DLA) was carried out in 1996. The results of this review were published in February 1997.
  A random sample of 1,200 DLA customers were interviewed by trained officers. Information was gathered and checked against the original source documents.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Staffing Costs
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) special advisers, (b) task force members and (c) review body members her Department employs; what are the total salaries and benefits of (a) to (c); and what was the equivalent cost prior to 1 May 1997. [26176]

  Mr. Field
  On the question of Special Advisers, I refer the hon. Member to the written answers given on 13 November 1997,Official Report, columns 615–17, and on 25 November 1997, Official Report, columns 472–73.
  380
  This Department does not employ any Task Force or Review Body members.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents were consulted before(a) regulations abolishing the lone parent benefit premium were laid and (b) the Social Security Bill was published. [26173]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  As part of the formal consultation process, representations about the proposed changes to lone parent benefits were made by a wide variety of organisations, including those representing lone parents, to the Social Security Advisory Committee. Similar points have been raised in our regular discussions with lone parent organisations and through correspondence received from lone parents themselves.

  These representations were reflected in the Social Security Advisory Committee's report, which was published on 30 July 1997 together with the Government's response as Command Paper 3713.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons living in council tax bands F, G and H were consulted before regulations restricting council tax benefit to the amount applicable to a Band E property were laid. [26174]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  These regulations were subject to consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee under the provisions of section 172(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992. The Social Security Advisory Committee agreed that the draft regulations
  381
  should not be referred to them pursuant to 173(1)(b). We also consulted with the Local Authority Associations under the provisions of Section 176(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Non-career Civil Servants
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many non-career civil servants have been appointed to his Department since 1 May 1997. [25854]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The number of people appointed on fixed term contracts or as casuals since May 1997 is 67.

  Mr. Patel, Twickenham
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the British Ambassador in Dar-es-Salaam has taken to pursue the claim of Mr. Patel, of Twickenham, in respect of the settlement of moneys owed under a British aid project. [25630]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Mr. Patel is pursuing a private commercial claim against his former local representative in Dar-es-Salaam and the Government of Tanzania, following the supply of goods to a nationalised Tanzanian company. We have assisted attempts to expedite the claim since 1993. In October 1996 we were informed that a payment of 84 million Tanzanian Shillings, out of a total claim of 92 million Shillings, had been paid to Mr. Patel' s local representative. Mr. Patel now appears to be in dispute with this representative. We have no jurisdiction to intervene in this dispute and have advised Mr. Patel to pursue his claim through the appropriate legal channels.

  Presidential Palaces (Iraq)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence underlies(a) his oral answer on 13 January 1998, Official Report, column 126, that Saddam Hussein has 45 presidential palaces and (b) the oral statement by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), on 21 January 1998, Official Report, column 991, that Saddam Hussein has 71 presidential palaces; and if he will make a statement. [25995]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Iraqis have given UNSCOM various figures for the number of presidential palaces and sites to which UNSCOM can have little or no access.

  Our concern is that Saddam Hussein is using Iraq's limited resources on himself thus ensuring that his people continue to suffer.

  We also have reason to believe that WMD materials are stored at these sites.

  Immigration
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) men and (b) women were waiting for interview at British High
  382
  Commission offices in (i) India, (ii) Pakistan, (iii) Sri Lanka and (iv) Bangladesh, to join husbands or wives resident in the United Kingdom on 1 January. [25994]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In view of the amount of detail needed to answer this question, my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons, will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the average time a person waited for an interview in respect of an application to join(a) a husband and (b) a wife in the United Kingdom at the British High Commission offices in (i) India, (ii) Pakistan, (iii) Sri Lanka and (iv) Bangladesh in 1997. [25997]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In view of the amount of detail needed to answer this question, my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons, will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many entry certificate officers were employed in British High Commission offices in(a) India, (b) Pakistan, (c) Sri Lanka and (d) Bangladesh, on 1 January. [25993]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The number of Entry Clearance Officers employed in British High Commission Office in(a) India (b) Pakistan, (c) Sri Lanka and (d) Bangladesh on 1 January are as follows:

  New Delhi: 11

  Bombay: 10

  Madras: 2.5

  Calcutta: 0.75

  Islamabad: 26

  Karachi: 5

  Colombo: 4

  Dhaka: 12.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed human rights in Indian administered Kashmir with the Indian Government; and if he will make a statement. [25991]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Kashmir issues with the Indian Prime Minister, and with the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir last October.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he notifies potential purchasers of obsolete information technology equipment sold by his Department that such equipment may not be millennium compliant. [25654]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 27 January 1998]: The disposal of obsolete Information Technology equipment is not sold as workable equipment and is sold after tender invitation against terms and conditions which include that they are sold "as seen".

  Trafficking (Children)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated regarding the trafficking of children in Asia. [25975]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Our diplomatic posts in Asia report on human rights issues concerning children including, where appropriate, trafficking in human beings. We also value the reports of non-governmental organisations and the UN Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and pornography.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to use the presidency of the EU to restrict the trafficking of children in Asia, with particular reference to Cambodia and Vietnam. [25969]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We and our European Union partners will continue to participate actively in discussions on the Rights of the Child in International fora, including the Untied Nations Commission on Human Rights. The EU will co-sponsor a resolution on the Rights of the Child at the 54th session of the Commission. The resolution will include a section on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he plans to curtail the trafficking of children in Asia. [25968]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We support the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, whose mandate includes work to combat trafficking of children. We are working with Asian countries to fight child abuse. British police provided child protection training in the Philippines and Sri Lanka for delegates from several South and South East Asian countries in 1997. Similar training will be provided in Thailand in 1998.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on the trafficking of children in Asia, with particular reference to Cambodia and Vietnam. [25974]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We regularly receive representations from non-governmental organisations and others concerning child welfare in Asia. We have not, however, received recent representations on the trafficking of children in Cambodia and Vietnam.

  Human Rights (China)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on human rights in China, with particular reference to the student leaders of 1989. [25973]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We constantly monitor the human rights situation in China. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the cases of individuals during his recent visit to China, including Wang Dan, the imprisoned student leader. The EU has sought information on Wang in its human rights dialogue with China.
  384
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to use the presidency of the EU to commemorate the ninth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations and the eviction of the students. [25972]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The UK expressed its condemnation of the treatment of pro-democracy demonstrators in China in 1989, both bilaterally and with the EU. We have no plans to commemorate the ninth anniversary of the demonstrations.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on human rights in China. [25979]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This Department receives many letters from members of the public expressing concern about the human rights situation in China. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised these concerns with Chinese leaders during his recent visit to China.

  Lebanon
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the continued presence in Lebanon of Syrian and Israeli armed forces. [25971]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our Embassy in Beirut provides regular reporting on the Israeli and Syrian presence in Lebanon. Our assessment is that Lebanon will only be able to assume full control over its own affairs after a comprehensive peace settlement in the region. We are playing a full part in efforts to bring about such a settlement.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to use the presidency of the EU to encourage the withdrawal of Syrian and Israeli armed forces from Lebanese territory; and if he will make a statement. [25970]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The European Union has consistently expressed full support for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon, and has consistently called for full implementation of UNSCR 425, which requires the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory.

  This Government are playing a full part in efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region that would enable Lebanon to assume full control over its own affairs.

  Great Lakes Region
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he proposes in respect of the Great Lakes Region during the United Kingdom's presidency of the EU. [25996]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  During our six months EU Presidency, we aim to launch a new EU common position on Rwanda; to strengthen and deepen the EU's relations with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, including encouraging progress towards democratisation, the rule of
  385
  law and respect for human rights; and to continue EU support for efforts to promote all-party political dialogue in Burundi.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he requested legal advice on whether the massacre in Rwanda in 1994 constituted genocide under the terms of the Genocide Convention.
  [25477]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 28 Janaury 1998]: Since I May 1997, we have not had cause to seek legal advice on whether the massacre in Rwanda in 1994 constituted genocide under the terms of the Genocide Convention.

  The UN Security Council resolution establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), makes the strong presumption that genocide, as defined in the relevant UN Convention, took place in Rwanda. The UK fully supports action through the ICTR and by the Government of Rwanda, to bring to justice those responsible for acts of genocide.

  Whaling
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss issues relating to whaling with the Norwegian authorities; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on(a) trends in Norwegian whale catches and (b) Norway's proposals to restore international trade in whale meat. [25961]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The UK is opposed to commercial whaling and has supported the International Whaling Commission's (IWC) resolutions on numerous occasions calling on Norway to halt all such operations. We are, therefore, disappointed that Norway has announced a further increase in its 1998 catch quota of Minke whales. The UK will continue to work with like-minded countries to try to ensure that there is no resumption of international trade in whale products.

  Turkey
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Turkish Government following the arrest of the British Vice-Consul in Istanbul on 2 September 1997; what response he has received; and if he will make a statement. [26041]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Our Embassy in Ankara complained to the Turkish authorities about the arrest in Istanbul on 2 September 1997 of Mr. Neil Frape, the British Vice Consul (Information). My hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), also complained to the Turkish Ambassador in London. The Turkish Ambassador expressed his Government's regret over the wrongful arrest of Mr. Frape.

  Diplomatic Relations
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the(a) rules and (b) guidance governing diplomats or consular officials giving evidence in court cases in foreign countries. [26043]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Under Article 31(2), of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961),"a diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as witness".

  Article 44(1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) states that
  "a consular employee or a member of the service staff shall not, except in the cases mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Article, decline to give evidence. If a consular officer should decline to do so, no coercive measure or penalty may be applied to him".

  Article 44(3) goes on to state that
  "Members of a consular post are under no obligation to give evidence concerning matters connected with the exercise of their functions or to produce official correspondence and documents relation thereto. They are also entitled to decline to give evidence as expert witnesses with regard to the law of the sending State".

  Internal guidance to FCO staff, however, is that Her Majesty's Government would normally expect all staff to assist local police and judicial authorities if called upon to do.

  Private Office
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part he played in the consideration of appointing Ms Gaynor Regan as his diary secretary. [26184]

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he took to appoint Ms Gaynor Regan as his diary secretary. [26192]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  After I decided to replace Miss Bullen, Gaynor Regan was, for a short time, considered for the post. She was an obvious candidate, having worked as my Diary Secretary for four years in opposition. I quickly decided not to pursue this possibility, and instructed the Permanent Under Secretary to arrange for the appointment of a Diplomatic Service candidate through the standard internal procedures.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what briefing his Department issued to the press on the nature of the appointment of Ms Anne Bullen. [26214]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  This Department issued the following statement on 26 January:"Anne Bullen was employed as the Diary Secretary in the Foreign Secretary's Private Office from November 1993 to June 1997. She was a personal appointment by Douglas Hurd. She was not a career public servant, but was appointed on a fixed term contract which was subsequently extended until November 1997. Anne Bullen was not given a compensation package but was paid her salary until the end of her contract as required under its terms.
  It is not the case that the decision not to renew Ms Bullen's contract was taken in order to give her job to anyone else. On the

  387
  contrary, the post of Diary Secretary to the Foreign Secretary reverted to a career member of the Diplomatic Service who was appointed under normal internal procedures.
  In this case a personal appointment by Douglas Hurd has been replaced by a career member of the Diplomatic Service. As Ms Bullen was placed on a higher salary, there is a net saving in public spending."

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions have been placed on Miss Anne Bullen in respect of making public statements on the termination of her employment as his diary secretary. [26190]

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the termination contract of Miss Bullen contained a requirement not to discuss the circumstances of her dismissal in addition to Official Secrets Act requirements. [26314]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I took no part in the negotiations over the termination of Miss Bullen's employment. As a result of those negotiations, between her and FCO officials, she agreed that the terms of her departure and the circumstances giving rise to it should not be disclosed to third parties.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what compensation was paid to Miss Anne Bullen on the termination of her employment as his diary secretary; and for what reasons. [26189]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Miss Anne Bullen ceased to work as my Diary Secretary on 27 June. She was not paid compensation, but continued to draw her salary for the unexpired period of her contract which ran out on 7 November. I played no part in the negotiations which took place between Foreign Office officials and Miss Bullen over the terms of her departure.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the employment of Miss Anne Bullen as his diary secretary was terminated; and for what reasons. [26186]

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what factors led to the dismissal of his Diary Secretary. [26315]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Miss. Anne Bullen was a political appointment by a previous Foreign Secretary.

  I reluctantly came to the conclusion that Miss Bullen's fixed-term contract should not be renewed when it became evident that I could have no confidence in her, and that she was unwilling to develop a relationship of trust with me. The performance of my present Diary Secretary is exemplary and she has my full confidence.

  Miss Anne Bullen ceased to work as my Diary Secretary on 27 June. She was not paid compensation, but continued to draw her salary for the unexpired period of her contract which ran out on 7 November.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what part was played by the Permanent Under Secretary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the appointment of a successor to Miss Anne Bullen as his diary secretary; [26188]
  388
  (2) what discussions took place between him and officials at his Department about the employment of Ms Gaynor Regan as his diary secretary; and if he informed them of the nature of his relationship with her. [26187]

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when and by whom the Permanent Secretary of his Department was informed of the intention to replace Miss Bullen as Diary Secretary with Ms Regan. [26313]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I discussed with the Permanent Under Secretary on May 21 my concern that Anne Bullen and I had not developed a relationship of trust and he put in hand arrangements for the termination of her employment. I informed him on the same day that I was considering the appointment of Gaynor Regan, who had been my Diary Secretary for four years. Shortly thereafter I advised him that I had decided that she should not take up the position and asked him to put in hand arrangements for the internal appointment of a career civil servant.

  I do not discuss my private life with officials, nor do they seek to discuss it with me.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what occasions since 1 May 1997 he planned for his Diary Secretary to accompany him on official business. [26310]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  None.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many private office staff in(a) his and (b) other Ministers' private offices changed after the election; and in how many cases this was at the instigation of the Minister. [26309]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  In the three months after the election:

  (a) My Principal Private Secretary left at the end of July having completed his normal tour of duty in my office. Miss Anne Bullen, who was appointed on a fixed-term contract, ceased to work for me at the end of June in the circumstances described in the answer I gave today to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkstone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).

  (b) Three officials left other FCO Ministers' offices, all having completed their normal tour of duty. One official had resigned before the election, and completed her period of notice on 9 May.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the public service employment status of Miss Bullen.[26312]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Miss Anne Bullen was personally appointed by the then Foreign Secretary in 1993, on a fixed term contract under Schedule 2 (paragraph i) of the Diplomatic Service Order In Council 1991. Her contract was renewed on two occasions, both times for one year.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Permanent Secretary sanctioned the dismissal of Miss Bullen. [26318]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I discussed with the Permanent Under Secretary my concern that Anne Bullen and I had not developed a relationship of trust and he put in hand the arrangements for the termination of her employment.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) special advisers, (b) task force members and (c) review body members his Department employs; what are the total salaries and benefits of (a) to (c); and what was the equivalent cost prior to 1 May 1997. [26177]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My Department employs two special advisers. Details were set out in the answer given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 13 November 1997,Official Report, columns 615–17.

  For information on the total pay bill for special advisers, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 25 November 1997, Official Report, columns 472–73.

  No task force members are employed by my Department, and we are not responsible for any review bodies.

  Dates

  Minister

  Venue

  Purpose of visit

  Spouse cost including travel and incidentals (£)

  1994

  7–10 July

  The then Foreign Secretary Lord Hurd

  Italy (Naples)

  G7 Economic Summit

  307.84

  11–20 September

  Lord Hurd

  Thailand, Vietnam, Hong Kong and Japan

  Bilateral

  10,495.66

  26–29 September

  Lord Hurd

  USA (New York)

  UNGA

  3,977.66

  29–30 September

  Lord Hurd

  Canada

  Bilateral

  209.64

  Total

  14,990.80

  1995

  18–19 March

  Lord Hurd

  France (Carcassonne)

  EU/FM Informal Meeting

  966.44

  18–28 March

  Lord Hurd

  South Africa

  State Visit

  2,385.28

  7–8 May

  Lord Hurd

  Norway (Oslo)

  Accompanying TRH Duke and Duchess of Kent

  98.16

  25–26 June

  Lord Hurd

  Germany (Bonn)

  Anglo-German Summit

  565.00

  8–10 September

  The then Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Spain (Santander)

  EU Ministers Informal Weekend

  2,310.00

  Total

  6,324.88

  1996

  3–12 January

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Azerbaijan, Armenia Uzbekistan, Hong Kong and China

  Bilateral

  7,366.70

  6–12 January

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Hong Kong and China

  Bilateral

  4,956.00

  8–10 March

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Malta and Italy

  Bilaterals and EU Foreign Minister's Informal Meeting

  1,577.50

  25–29 March

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Poland and Czech Republic

  State Visit

  835.00

  8–17 April

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Barbados, Jamaica, Mexico, Brazil and Bolivia

  Bilateral

  12,757.89

  6–8 September

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Irish Republic (Tralee)

  Informal Meeting of Foreign Ministers

  724.26

  23–27 September

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  USA (New York)

  United Nations General Assembly

  4,454.02

  27 October—1 November

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Thailand (Bangkok)

  State Visit

  1150.00

  31 October—2 February

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Vietnam, Israel UAE and Yemen

  Bilateral

  17,500.00

  Total

  40,301.37

  1997

  31 January—2 February

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Switzerland (Davons)

  World Economic Forum

  4,405.00

  15–16 March

  Sir Malcolm Rifkind

  Netherlands (Apledoorn)

  EU Information Foreign Ministers Meeting

  848.48

  Total

  5,253.48

  1 Estimate

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he made a payment in respect of the use of a Government flight by Ms Gaynor Regan when she accompanied him on his trip to Dublin in November. [26219]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I was informed of the cost of Ms Regan's flight to Dublin on 15 January and arranged for payment to be made the same day.

  Mrs. McGuire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was spent on(a) official foreign travel and (b) incidentals for (i) spouses and (ii) partners of the previous two Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in each year of their tenure. [26316]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The information requested for the financial years 1994–95,1995–96 and 1996–97 is detailed in the table. Data for previous years are not readily available but I will write to my hon. Friend shortly with the information and place a copy in the Libraries of the House.

  Permanent Settlement Visa
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review the current price of a permanent settlement visa for the United Kingdom. [26170]
  392
  Mr. Fatchett
  Fees, which are set to recover the cost of processing applications world wide to minimise the burden on the taxpayer, are reviewed annually. We continually look at ways to make efficiency savings to enable us to reduce entry clearance fees. The current fee for a settlement visa is £240. This was introduced on 10 June 1997.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

NATO Enlargement
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will lay before Parliament additional papers on the implications of NATO enlargement for the alliance and for British defence policy to accompany ratification of the enlargement treaty.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I have placed in the Library the communiqué issued by NATO Defence Ministers on 2nd December. That included the conclusions of NATO's classified assessment of the military and financial implications of enlargement. We have also provided further information to the Defence Select Committee in another place to assist its ongoing inquiry into NATO enlargement. We will make further information available as and when we can.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, will he accept that it is not a great encouragement to major public debate? Will he further accept that NATO is central to British defence and that enlargement of NATO—thus the transformation of NATO—means the transformation of the context of British defence? Does he agree that a debate about NATO enlargement appears to be under way almost entirely within the United States, and that we ought to have a parallel debate here?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I accept that NATO is central to many matters relating to this country. We are committed to making as much information available as soon as we can. As I think the noble Lord will agree, the amount that we can say is limited by the fact that much information is classified on security grounds. After the Defence Committee has considered the information that was classified, it will be up to the committee to publish the evidence given to it by the Government and others. Over and above that—there will be a full debate both in this House and in another place before UK ratification occurs.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that we are in danger of becoming entangled in a whole host, a criss-cross, of conflicting claims and counter-claims of a territorial kind in eastern Europe—first against Romania by Hungary, by Bulgaria and so on, over and over again?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I realise what the noble Earl is saying. That is one of the reasons why, by unanimous agreement. only three countries were included in the
322
first case. Romania and Slovenia were considered as candidates. The best position was that those countries must be absorbed. I believe that the noble Earl and the whole House will agree that, since NATO is essential to our defence, we must see that it is not made less secure by the absorption of other members. There is a limit to what we can do. That is the position until 1999. In future enlargement no candidate is ruled out at this stage.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the case itself for the enlargement of NATO is not widely accepted? Perhaps he can assure the House that we are able to discuss the detail of the subject, about which there is considerable difference of opinion among all parties.
Lord Hoyle: Yes, my Lords, I agree that it is a matter for discussion. At the end of the day there will be a full debate in this House before ratification; indeed, each country will ratify in its own way and debates will take place. There will be an opportunity for all Members to express a view before ratification occurs.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has answered the Question in the form in which it was put on the Order Paper? What more can be done? Is that not a matter for congratulation?
Lord Bridges: My Lords, has the Minister studied the debate which occurred during the last Session of Parliament on a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, about the ratification of treaties under the Ponsonby rule? It led to some informed discussions between the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey. My understanding is that the previous government had it in mind that in future foreign treaties should be submitted to the House with an explanatory memorandum, as happens with European legislation. Would that not be a good precedent to follow on this occasion?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. As much information as possible will be given. The House will agree, I am sure, that we cannot give information that is militarily sensitive on troop movements. But this Government are wedded to open government and will make as much information as possible available.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps I may echo the good wishes expressed from the Benches opposite for the fact that there is now a commitment to have a full debate in this House on the matter while it is still alive. Is my noble friend in a position to tell us when that is likely to be? Must it await the conclusion of the study by the Defence Committee of the House of Commons, or could it be before that?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, we are not in a position to say when the debate will be. We know that ratification

323
will be complete by April 1999. The debate will take place as soon as possible but I am not able to give my noble friend any date at this stage.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in consideration of the problems associated with NATO enlargement, can the Minister state that the Government will give an absolute assurance that the costs will be taken into account in the strategic defence review?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, NATO's initial assessment is that the cost of enlargement will amount to 1.5 billion dollars over the next 10 years. That confirms our assessment that the cost of enlargement will be manageable. The MoD's share of costs to date is 110 million dollars over the same 10 years.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House which of the former Warsaw Pact nations—and I include the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania—have opted for the United Kingdom model to train and equip their armed forces? What encouragement will Her Majesty's Government give those nations through the supply of military training teams so that they can meet the criteria which NATO will set before they are allowed to join NATO?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord should put down a Question on the matter. The new members have already put forward significant programmes of modernisation and restructuring. NATO's assessment of those countries' forces has at the moment produced no nasty shocks. Indeed, they are in far better condition than we expected and the whole of NATO, including ourselves, will give every assistance we possibly can.

Directors' Remuneration
3.15 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they accept the findings of the TUC report Wider Still and Wider that average highest paid director salary has increased by 53 per cent. for the period 1994–97 and average employee pay by 13 per cent. and, if so, whether the exhortation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is sufficient to restrain such increases.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, the TUC report highlights the need for directors to ensure both that their remuneration is justified by performance and that they are setting an example of restraint. The Hampel report on corporate governance, which was published yesterday, supports the view that directors' remuneration is liable to have an impact both on the company's reputation and on morale within the company. My right
324
honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has said that she will give her considered response to the report in the spring.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most interesting answer. Is he aware that obscene increases continue to be given to chairmen of companies, chief executives and directors? Does he agree, therefore, that the pleas and exhortations which have been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others are not achieving their purpose? In those circumstances, what thought is being given by the Government to the problem?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my noble friend has drawn attention to one aspect of corporate governance which is important. I have already indicated that excessive pay can impact on the company's reputation and on morale within the company. Those are two important components of corporate governance.
My right honourable friend will consider the element to which my noble friend drew attention, and all the aspects that have been set out in the Hampel report. Of course, included in her considerations will be the observations made by the TUC.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, do the Government have any intention of bringing in statutory regulation of wage and salary movements? If not, is it still the case that the responsibility of directors is to act within the law and in the best interests of their shareholders, rather than in response to the exhortations of passing politicians?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord was a politician, but I do not know what exhortations he made, although I heard him from time to time. Of course we have no intention of introducing a statutory regulation on wages. What is important is that we should have an objective and sensible debate on the whole question of corporate governance. It will take place, I am sure, in the foreseeable future.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in order to understand what the Government mean by "being paid excessively", does the noble Lord regard that as applying, for example, to the chairman of a public company who is paid £200,000 when over the trading period the company loses, let us say, £12 million and subsequently goes into receivership? Would that prove to the Government, in their assumption about what is fair or unfair, that the director's salary was at the expense of the shareholders and the workforce?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what an extraordinary question. It is based on one hypothesis after another—I believe there were four, but I shall check that tomorrow in Hansard. I shall not go into that range of supposition and speculation which engaged the noble Baroness so eloquently.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to indicate in what way, when we see the Green Paper on Hampel and company law reform, the Government will

325
reconcile their overall support for the Hampel report, as indicated yesterday, with their determination to legislate for another method as set out in their manifesto?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, again I indicated that all relevant considerations will be taken into account by my right honourable friend in the assessment of the position. She will make her Statement in the spring. I cannot give a specific date at the present time but I am sure that it will be reconciled with whatever it has to be reconciled with.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the average increase of 13 per cent. for employees is in itself satisfactory when viewed against the rate of inflation for the period? Without going into too many hypotheses, does he accept that a number of employees might not have achieved that satisfactory rate of increase had not their highest paid director received an increase of something of the order of magnitude set out on the Order Paper?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is not easy to follow the correlation in the noble Lord's question. What is important is that there has been a tremendous gulf over the course of many years in the pay of employees and directors. That is a relevant consideration and will be taken into account. I shall not say anything more because I do not want to pre-empt my right honourable friend's assessment of the position.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, surely there is ample evidence that there is no correlation between excessively high pay and performance. We can take that from the period of the last 18 years of Conservative government when the rich got richer but the country as a whole sank in the league tables of world wealth.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, there is something in that.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the noble Lord rightly said that the Government have no intention of introducing statutory regulations about increases in directors' pay. However, does he not feel that, when something scandalous has taken place, the time has come for the Government to consider how to express some mark of contempt? I say that because, when the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, says that this is a matter about which the shareholders should express their disapprobation, we all know that in the majority of cases the shareholders are the institutions, who are bandits in the same game.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, there is something in that too.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does not the Minister feel that the remuneration of the legal profession and other professions should be taken into account along with that of directors?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I had a vested interest in that matter. When we are reflecting on pay
326
we should reflect generally in relation not only to directors but also to the professions. The professions operate in a different way from public and private limited companies; they are partnerships. However, their remuneration reflects generally upon the situation as perceived by the public. The noble Lord is right that it is a factor to be taken into account.

Fisheries: Quotas
3.24 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made, since the exchange of letters between the United Kingdom Government and the European Union Commission last June, in removing the anomaly of foreign fishing boats registered at British ports being allowed to catch fish within the quotas allocated to the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, a consultation paper was issued to the industry in July containing proposals for ensuring that all British registered fishing vessels maintain a real economic link with those populations in the United Kingdom dependent upon fisheries and related industries. Those proposals have since been the subject of extensive discussions with all sectors of the fishing industry. Those discussions have been completed and the Commission's views are now being sought on our proposals. Once those views are known, an announcement will be made on the way forward.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. It is now seven months since the Government stated that they would introduce conditions for new fishing licences "with all speed", to use the Prime Minister's words. How fast does the noble Lord consider the process that he described as a disincentive to quota hopping, which was stated to be the objective, is going? Is there any assurance that the European Court will not again rule that that is illegal, as it did in the case of the register in the Merchant Shipping Act?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it has taken a few months, but we stated at the beginning that we would consult fully with the industry. We were criticised for consulting too quickly on beef bones; on this matter we consulted fully. With his knowledge, the noble Lord is aware that our fishing industry is diverse in its interests and even conflicting. It therefore took time to consult and reconcile the position. The position is now with the Commission. When we reach an agreed view with the Commission, we shall announce our plans and hope that that will be quite soon.
Our action is based upon a suggestion from the European president, who is the guardian of the European treaty. It is being finalised with the European Commission on the basis that it will be compatible with European law. We are therefore reasonably confident

327
that we have done everything possible to make sure that it will not be overturned, as the noble Lord fears, by the European Court.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the trouble was caused by fishermen selling their quotas overseas? That happened because there was no decent decommissioning scheme, and to obtain proper value the fishermen had to do that. Do the Government now intend to introduce a much more generous and widely embracing decommissioning scheme which will solve the problem?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. Many of our problems derive from what one might call the negligent or careless handling of fishing policy a decade ago. I agree also that decommissioning must be at the heart of any future solution to our problem. We have spent money on that and, in the light of the current spending review, are considering what funds will be available.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House whether the eventual decision from Brussels as to whether it agrees with the Prime Minister's view of the matter will depend on the dreaded qualified majority vote? If so, can he give the House any indication as to how those votes stack up at the moment?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, that is a view that is being considered by the European Commission. When we obtain its response, that will be the policy. I cannot speculate on what will happen with majority votes, but that is not a relevant factor.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can I press my noble friend on that? Although the Commission may take the view that the British Government have a case, is it not the case also that any such agreement will have to be agreed by all the other member states, including Spain? If that is so, does he believe that Spain will agree to the alteration which suits them so well, in that it gives them virtually a free hand to fish exactly as they wish in British waters?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, when we have an agreement with the Commission, that will be the agreement. I should point out to my noble friend that other member states—for instance, Belgium and France—are already implementing similar regulations.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the triumphant exchange of letters—"Dear Tony" and "Dear Jacques"—last June was supposed to herald the end of this problem? It is now seven months since that exchange and nothing has happened. The discussions with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation took place last August. It is coming up to five months since those discussions were completed. When are the Government going to do something about this—or am I right in thinking and
328
being suspicious about the fact that the solution is not half as easy as "Dear Tony" and "Dear Jacques" supposed?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not believe that it was the assumption of any of us that any of these solutions are easy. It is quite wrong to suggest that nothing has happened. As I explained to the noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Croy, very detailed discussions have been held. As I am sure he is aware, the position of Scottish fishermen is not always the same as that of fishermen in the south west. I am firmly confident that something will happen, which will be an improvement. The important thing is to get the matter right and have a proposal which will have an effect and not take the previous government's approach with their protocol, which had no prospect of success whatsoever.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, can the Minister tell us about some of the provisions that will not be in the agreement as regards the 50 per cent. of the catch which Spanish quota hoppers will still be permitted to land in Spain? I understand that there have been discussions between the UK Government and the Spanish Government about policing landings for under-sized and over-quota fish. Can the Minister say what response the Spanish Government have given regarding UK policing of those landings?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, part of the letter that has been referred to concerned enforcement. We have strengthened that in this country. We have an agreement with the Commission that there will be stronger enforcement on the Continent.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be much better for British fishing if the European Commission was to get a "Dear John" letter?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is a change to get a non-Scottish view. I have no comment on it.

Mineworkers' Lung Damage: Compensation
3.31 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity Lord Davies of Coity asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the High Court's decision in respect of mineworkers' lung damage on Friday 23rd January, what action is being taken to meet the Government's compensation obligations.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I wish to express at the outset the Government's real sympathy to all those miners who have suffered lung damage in the sad circumstances which led to this legal action, and to their families. The Government are seeking urgent legal and expert advice on the implications of the judgment and how best to take matters forward. In the meantime the Government's claims administrators are due to meet

329
the plaintiffs' solicitors co-ordinating group next Monday to begin the process of agreeing proper arrangements for making compensation available where the Government are clearly liable.
The Government understand the vulnerability of retired mineworkers with severe emphysema. We have made it clear to our administrators that this vulnerability should not be exploited by any delaying tactics. Our objective, wherever possible, is to secure a fair and prompt settlement.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for my noble friend's reply. Before pressing him further, I would like to declare an interest. My father-in-law is 86 years of age. He spent 45 years in the pits of South Wales. He is medically assessed to have a disability with a combination of ailments comprising pneumoconiosis, emphysema and bronchitis. He has 80 per cent. disability, thereby having only 20 per cent. of normal breathing capacity. Therefore, given the age of hundreds, if not thousands, of ex-miners in similar circumstances, does my noble friend agree that this matter has to be dealt with with extreme urgency? If so, are there proposals for making interim payments in the usual way? Furthermore, is it not right that there should be a tribunal set up, chaired by a judge, to deal with the question of compensation outside the normal legal system, bearing in mind that many mineworkers entitled to compensation have died in the past eight years while awaiting this judgment?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, let me express my community of interest with my noble friend in what he has said about the travails of so many miners in the past. Miners have died even during the currency of this litigation. The question of interim payments is a difficult one. Not all the issues have been totally clarified by the judgment. It is a very complex judgment. As the solicitor representing some of the claimants said, it is a kind of test case. We are still reviewing the implications of the judgment. However, my noble friend can accept from me—and I hope that it was clear from my Answer—that we are dealing with the matter with the utmost urgency. We shall consider the question of interim payments.
As regards the last point, I do not believe that it would be particularly helpful to set up a tribunal relating to this particular litigation, which may affect many more miners. If my noble friend was asking for a wider tribunal of inquiry, I cannot comment on that today.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many miners will be greatly satisfied with his reply this afternoon that there will be no delay? That is unlike the procedure of the previous administration in 1993 when the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recommended that bronchitis and emphysema should be prescribed as industrial diseases among mineworkers. There is documentary evidence that government departments, through correspondence, suggested that the matter should be delayed as long as possible as many miners would die before the recommendations were implemented, and that was done
330
in order to save money. I am sure that the present Administration would never dream of doing such a thing. Will the Minister consider that there may be an easy way of dealing with these issues rather than dragging men through the courts and legislation? Will he also consider that all the mineworkers who have already been assessed and awarded industrial injuries benefits because their diseases were caused through working in the mines, and who are now receiving those benefits, should be considered for immediate compensation, again, without dragging them through the courts?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as with all large-scale tragedies of this kind—the "Herald of Free Enterprise" springs to mind and many others—each individual case has to be considered on its own merits. It is regrettable, but it takes time. Each individual may have a claim for special damages besides the general damages being claimed, and that has to be very carefully invigilated. Having said all that, as I have indicated, I am trying, together with my honourable friend Mr. John Battle, to make sure that the oft-adopted tactics of insurance, of taking advantage of the vulnerability of a claimant or plaintiff, will not be pursued here. We give that solemn undertaking. We have given instructions to those advising us that under no circumstances should they have recourse to such dubious tactics.

Events of 30th January 1972
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the events in Northern Ireland on 30th January 1972, which has become known as Bloody Sunday. The Statement is as follows:
"The facts that are undisputed are well-known. On 30th January 1972, during a disturbance in Londonderry following a civil rights march, shots were fired by the British Army. Thirteen people were killed, and another 13 were wounded, one of whom subsequently died. The day after the incident the then Prime Minister set up a public inquiry under the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery.
"He produced a report within 11 weeks of the day. His conclusions included these: that shots had been fired at the soldiers before they started the firing which led to the casualties; that for the most part the soldiers acted as they did because they thought their standing orders required it; and that while there was no proof that any of the deceased had been shot while handling a firearm or bomb, there was a strong suspicion that some had been firing weapons or handling bombs in the course of the afternoon.
"The timescale within which Lord Widgery produced his report meant that he was not able to consider all the evidence which might have been available; for example, he did not receive any evidence from the wounded who were still in hospital,

331
and he did not consider individually substantial numbers of eye-witness accounts provided to his inquiry in the early part of March 1972.
"Since his report was published, much new material has come to light about the events of that day. This material includes new eye-witness accounts, new ballistic material, and new medical evidence.
"In 1992 the then Prime Minister said in a letter to the honourable Member for Foyle, who has campaigned tirelessly on this issue, that those shot should be regarded as innocent of any allegation that they were shot while handling firearms or explosives. I reaffirm that today.
"Last year the families of those killed provided the previous government with a new dossier on the events of Bloody Sunday. The Irish Government also sent the Government a detailed assessment which analysed the new material and Lord Widgery's findings in the light of all material available.
"I want to place on record our strongest admiration for the way in which our security forces have responded over the years to terrorism in Northern Ireland. They set an example to the world of restraint combined with effectiveness given the dangerous circumstances in which they are called upon to operate. Young men and women daily risk their lives protecting the lives of others and upholding the rule of law, carrying out a task which we have laid upon them. Lessons have of course been learned over many years—in some cases painful lessons. But the support of the Government and this House for our Armed Forces has been, and remains, unshakeable.
"There have been many victims of violence in Northern Ireland before and since Bloody Sunday. More than 3,000 people—civilians as well as soldiers, policemen and prison officers—have lost their lives in the past 26 years. It may be asked why we should pay such attention to one event.
"We do not forget or ignore all the other attacks, all the innocent deaths, all the victims of bloody terrorism. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, a former Permanent Secretary in Northern Ireland, is currently looking at a suitable way to commemorate the victims of violence. In particular, the sacrifice of those many members of the security forces, including the RUC, who lost their lives doing their duty will never be forgotten by this Government, just as they were not forgotten by the last government. The pain of those left behind is no less than the pain of the relatives of the victims of Bloody Sunday.
"But Bloody Sunday was different because, where the state's own authorities are concerned, we must be as sure as we can of the truth, precisely because we do pride ourselves on our democracy and our respect for the law, and on the professionalism and dedication of our security forces.
"This is a very difficult issue. I have reread Lord Widgery's report myself and looked at the new material. I have consulted with my colleagues most
332
closely concerned. We have considered very carefully whether it is appropriate now to have a fresh inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday.
"I should emphasise that such a new inquiry can be justified only if an objective examination of the material now available gives grounds for believing that the events of that day should be looked at afresh, and the conclusions of Lord Widgery re-examined. I have been strongly advised that there are indeed grounds for such a further inquiry. We believe that the weight of material now available is such that these events require re-examination. We believe that the only course which will lead to there being public confidence in the results of any further investigation is for a full-scale judicial inquiry into Bloody Sunday to be set up.
"We have therefore decided to set up an inquiry under the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. The inquiry will have the power to call witnesses and obtain production of papers.
"As required by the Act a resolution will be required to set up the inquiry. The resolution will be tabled later today in my name, and will be in the following terms:
That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance. namely the events on Sunday. 30 January 1972 which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day, taking account of any new information relevant to events on that day.
"The noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, a Law Lord, has agreed to chair a tribunal of three. The other two members are likely to be from the Commonwealth.
"It is not possible to say now exactly how long the inquiry will take but it should be allowed the time necessary to cover all the evidence now available thoroughly and completely. It is for the tribunal to decide how far its proceedings will be open, but the Act requires them to be held in public unless there are special countervailing considerations. The hearings are likely to be partly here and partly in Northern Ireland, but again this is largely for the tribunal. Questions of immunity from prosecution for those giving evidence to the inquiry will be for the tribunal to consider in individual cases, and to refer to the Attorney-General as necessary. It will report its conclusions to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Our intention is that they will be made public.
"Let me make it clear that the aim of the inquiry is not to accuse individuals or institutions or invite fresh recriminations, but to establish the truth about what happened on that day, so far as that can be achieved at 26 years' distance. This will not be easy, and we are all well aware that there were particularly difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland at that time.
"Bloody Sunday was a tragic day for all concerned. We must all wish it had never happened. Our concern now is simply to establish the truth, and close this painful chapter once and for all.
"Members of the families of the victims, like the honourable Member for Foyle, have conducted a long campaign to this end. I have heard some of their

333
remarks over recent years and have been struck by their dignity. Most do not want recrimination. They do not want revenge. But they do want the truth. I believe that it is in the interests of everyone that the truth is established, and told. It is also the way forward to the necessary reconciliation which will be such an important part of building a secure future for the people of Northern Ireland. I ask all sides of the House to support our proposal for this inquiry."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.46 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. On behalf of the Opposition, I can say that if genuine and fresh evidence has now been submitted, evidence which the Law Officers advise is significant enough to warrant an inquiry, we shall accept the Prime Minister's judgment that an inquiry should take place.
Inevitably, as was clear from the tone of part of the Statement, there is a danger that a changed conclusion could be seen as an indictment of Lord Widgery. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the inquiry will be conscious of that danger? Can the noble Lord say when he will be in a position to announce the names of the other two members of the inquiry?
As far as immunity from prosecution is concerned, the Statement acknowledged that the families of the dead do not necessarily want prosecutions. Can the noble Lord say whether that wish will be taken into account when the report is available to the Government?
I welcome the fact that the Government agree with my right honourable friend the Member for Huntingdon, Mr. Major, when he was Prime Minister, when he said that those who died on Bloody Sunday were innocent victims of the Troubles.
Is the noble Lord aware that we on this side of the House welcome the decision, contrary to much speculation before the delivery of the Statement, not to make an apology before the inquiry reports?
Would the noble Lord agree that those of us who have never served in the Armed Forces should be very careful indeed before trying to second-guess, with the benefit of 25 years' hindsight, the actions of a 19 year-old soldier under fire on the streets of Londonderry?
Does the noble Lord accept that the Provisional IRA and, indeed, many other terrorist organisations in all parts of the world regularly try to provoke ill-considered reaction from young soldiers, and that those of us who have for many years studied terrorism and have had a very close association on both sides of terrorist wars in the past 30 years are well aware that that is a perfectly usual ploy among terrorist organisations? Can the noble Lord assure the House that the inquiry will take that matter into account as well?
I should like to associate this side of the House with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord about our Armed Forces. Will he go further and agree with me that no other army in the world could have shown such a degree of discipline in Northern Ireland, in all ranks,
334
as the British Army has since 1969? After all, myths are potent in all politics. Perhaps in Irish politics myths are more potent than in most places. Does the noble Lord agree that the inquiry should guard against the dangers of its conclusions being used as a weapon by one side against the majority in the Province?
As the Statement makes clear, more than 3,000 people have died in the present troubles, most of them at the hands of terrorists. Does the noble Lord agree that in our hope for peace it would be both right and helpful to have an apology, or at the very least some sign of contrition, from those terrorist gangs and their apologists for all the havoc that they have initiated in pursuit of their political aims—political aims that we in this country tend to try to pursue through peaceful means?
3.52 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, from these Benches I also thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. When dealing with Northern Ireland it is an axiom that it is far better to dwell on the future than rake over the problems of the past, but this is a clear exception to that. I welcome the balanced, fair and extremely careful Statement made by the Prime Minister to which it is very difficult to take exception. My hope, which has been confirmed by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is that it will command the broad support of the House in all quarters.
The Statement sets out very clearly why there is new evidence to be assessed. I do not take that in any way as a reflection on the report of Lord Widgery so long ago at the end of an inquiry lasting 11 weeks. There is a widespread perception, right or wrong, that events went wrong on 30th January 1972. While that perception persists it is a factor which makes reconciliation in Northern Ireland more difficult.
I also pay tribute to what our Armed Forces have done in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances over so many years. I am sure that whatever the outcome of the inquiry there will be no disposition to start a witch hunt. In particular, the reference to soldiers aged 19 is wholly appropriate. From my experience of visits made many years ago I was very impressed by the extraordinary restraint shown by young men in very difficult circumstances where their lives and the lives of their colleagues were at stake. We must now wait for the outcome of this inquiry. I welcome the form that it will take and hope that it will put this matter finally to rest.
In those circumstances I should like to ask the Leader of the House only one question. I am sure all noble Lords agree that in accordance with the requirements of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 the report should be freely available and that evidence should be taken in public as far as possible. However we all know that there is an especial problem relating to the

335
protection of witnesses in Northern Ireland, and I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can give the House an assurance on that particular count.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Democrats.
I say at the outset that this is not a criticism of Lord Widgery. He was faced with a request from the Prime Minister of the day to conduct an urgent inquiry into this matter. I believe that the request was made the day after Bloody Sunday. He sat for 11 weeks and on the evidence available to him came up with a report. I re-read it yesterday. It is the kind of report that one would expect from the Lord Chief Justice, as he then was. It is very careful and analytical. The fact may be that he did not have access to all of the evidence, for which no conceivable blame can be laid at Lord Widgery's door. Your Lordships will have noted that the basis for this fresh inquiry is that there is new evidence which was not available to Lord Widgery and that in the view of the Government it is right that it should be considered by a fresh tribunal.
The noble Viscount asked me when the other members of the tribunal would be appointed. We felt that given the importance of this matter we should report to Parliament before confirming the appointment of the other two members, especially as their appointment would involve consultation with other governments. I cannot give a firm date. I can only say to the House that having launched the inquiry we are anxious that it should sail as soon as possible. I echo the remarks of the noble Viscount about the behaviour of the British Army in Northern Ireland. I was very briefly a Minister at the Ministry of Defence in 1969–70 and had an opportunity to visit the British Army. Those who saw the way it did its job could not fail to have been impressed. I echo many of the sentiments expressed by the noble Viscount. He invited me to say that no other country in the world could have done better. My instinct is to agree with that proposition, although perhaps I would not be as comprehensively firm as he has been.
I was asked about the public nature of the tribunal. The Act requires that the tribunal should as far as possible sit in public. That is our expectation. However, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, recognises that there are special circumstances in Northern Ireland. We hope that the inquiry will sit in public as much as it possibly can, but that is essentially a matter for the tribunal itself. The Statement makes clear that the report will be made public. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, invites me to repeat that, and I do so.
One other point emerges from the remarks of the noble Viscount. This process is totally separate from the peace process. It would be very dangerous to import consideration as to what is happening in the peace process into this tribunal, or vice versa. It seems to me that they are entirely separate. We have taken this step because we believe that there is new evidence that should be considered. In some ways the proposition is fairly basic and I hope that the House will support it.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, everyone must agree that the confused events of 30 years ago in Londonderry were horrible and deeply tragic, like so many events in and connected with Northern Ireland both before and since. Can the noble Lord inform the House whether a tribunal of inquiry established under the Act of 1921 has ever been asked to investigate events as long ago as this? What is the longest period of delay, interval or lapse of time with which any such tribunal has been asked to cope? Can the noble Lord foresee that, 26 years on, there is probably a grave risk of injustice to individuals who will be compelled, by the tribunal's remarkable inquisitorial powers under the Act, to attempt to defend themselves as best they may against allegations that they will no longer be able to counter because of the enormous lapse of time, which I believe to be unprecedented?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have no idea whether this is the longest gap between an event and the setting up of a tribunal to investigate it. I shall endeavour to ascertain the information and make it available to the noble and learned Lord. On the second point, I do not believe that this process carries a grave risk of injustice, to use the words of the noble and learned Lord. There is a feeling that the truth has not come out and there is also a feeling, certainly on this side of the House, that it is time that it did. I do not know of any other sensible and rational way to resolve that problem other than to do what the Government propose.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether the appointment of the committee of judges was a purely political decision, taken by politicians, or whether the military advice of the Chief of the Defence Staff was sought in this matter?
Very often history shows that such inquiries can lead to castigation of the military to appease the political motives of a government or political party of the time. I have some experience in such matters and I think that hindsight 20 or 30 years later is a very dangerous thing with which to judge.
Many noble Lords have great military experience at this level, but in the other place I regret to say that there are those with no experience of military operations like this and therefore a hue and cry would ensue and the military could be most unfairly damaged.
I have no complaint about the setting up of this inquiry, but I ask the noble Leader of the House to ensure that this matter is handled very carefully.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not dissent from the noble Lord's remarks: of course the matter has to be sensitively, appropriately and delicately handled, and that is precisely why we have appointed a Law Lord to chair the tribunal. I would have thought that his objectivity and experience are unimpeachable.
I was disappointed to hear the noble Lord accuse this Government of setting up the inquiry for political motives. I can only tell the noble Lord that that is not so; it is being set up to look at new evidence. If the

337
matter was looked at in private and a conclusion then announced, I can imagine the reaction from one side or the other whatever conclusion was reached. If it is conducted in public everyone will know that the matter has been properly looked at and examined. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord who will chair the tribunal will be very conscious of the fact that it should not turn into a pillory of one group of people or another.
In regard to the people who gave advice to the Government, I regret that it is one of those realms of government policy which, even after the Freedom of Information Act is passed, will of necessity have to remain hidden.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's Statement and the reference he made to the conduct of our services. My worst moment as a Member of the other place was persuading a lady, who is now dead, not to have the coffin of her 19 year-old son, who was in the Parachute Regiment, opened. Will the noble Lord accept that regret could well be expressed from all quarters?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his words.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the conduct, competence or judgment of a member of the Armed Forces is liable to be impugned—and this does happen in these inquiries—will he be able to be legally represented? I ask the question because some problems arose during the Scott Inquiry which greatly upset my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the answer is yes. It is a matter for the tribunal. During the Widgery Tribunal, certain interested groups, for example, families, had proper legal representation. The power exists for the tribunal to allow that.
Lord Hurd of Westmore: My Lords, will the Leader of the House accept that one of the most important parts of his answer today was the assurance that this process, resulting from the Prime Minister's Statement, is quite separate from the peace process? We have all heard and read in recent days that such a statement would be made, perhaps accompanied by an apology—there has not been and I welcome that—and how helpful it would be to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the peace process. Can the noble Lord repeat his assurance? Is it not most important that history should not be used as a tool or pawn in a political or diplomatic process, however important that process may be?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. This process is totally separate from the peace process and should remain so. An inquiry which will inevitably take some months to come to a conclusion can only have a peripheral effect upon the discussions that are taking place.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I would like to express my gratitude to the Leader of the House for repeating
338
the Statement made in another place by his right honourable friend. I have heard the noble Lord say that this matter must be treated separately from the peace process.
There has been a growing view, not just on one side of the community in Northern Ireland but right across the community, that many things happened on that day that were unsatisfactory, not least that young soldiers were put into a policing situation for which they were not trained.
In every conflict there are events that take on a significance beyond their own because they appear to stand for all sorts of things. There have been many incidents over the last years where inquiries might be necessary, particularly in the case of terrorist atrocities where apologies are more than due. We should not delude ourselves at this time, when we are struggling with the difficulty of finding a settlement and reconciling as many of our people as we can, that recognition of this matter should be addressed properly and legally; but it is also a constructive demonstration of the concern in this country to make things right for the future and to do things in a proper way, for we cannot change the past.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with deep personal feeling and commitment. His knowledge of events in Northern Ireland is considerable. I am glad that he sees the announcement of this tribunal as something that may bring the parties together, which is clearly one of the hopes of the Government.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend recollect that last year at the request of the then Lord Chancellor the Council on Tribunals tendered advice as to the future conduct of ministerial inquiries? Can he assure noble Lords that that advice will be very much in the minds of those who have the conduct of this inquiry'?
In regard to what transpired on Bloody Sunday, will the noble Lord agree that the greatest contribution most of us can make is to exercise self-restraint in what we say?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I hear what my noble and learned friend has said. I hope that the memorandum will be very much in the minds of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, and the other members of the inquiry because I have to confess that they are not very much in my mind at this particular moment. I will have to look to see whether there is anything in that memorandum which contradicts or amplifies anything I have said this afternoon and, if there is, I will contact my noble and learned friend.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would the noble Lord have as much difficulty as I would in recollecting in precise and forswearable terms any events on any day in 1972 in which he took part which were of importance? Are there not going to be two orders of evidence presented to this inquiry: evidence which rests on records made at or near the time, and evidence which rests on recollection at the time of the inquiry?

339
I have the greatest respect for the legal profession, but I should have no confidence in my recollections of any such event at such a distance in time. It seems to me therefore not at all impossible that there will be no definitive conclusion of the inquiry, and all that it will be able to produce will be a balance of probabilities. In those circumstances, will the noble Lord assure us that thought is already being given to how the Government will react to the findings when they are made known, because that will be nearly as important as the findings themselves?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not believe that at this stage the Government are giving a great deal of thought—certainly I am not—as to how we shall present the findings of an inquiry that we have just set up. We have not yet passed the necessary resolution in Parliament to do so. The noble Lord is right in the sense that we do not know the precise nature of the evidence that will be put before the tribunal; we do not know how that evidence will stand up to being tested; we do not know how much of it will be recollection which may be flawed; and I do not know how much will be contemporaneous documentary evidence. All sorts of issues have to be considered. The question is not what the inquiry will look like when it finishes, but whether it is worth starting the process. The Government have concluded that they should.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I have to ask the noble Lord, with some cynicism, whether he agrees that this may be yet another tactical error in the Government's recent handling of Northern Ireland affairs. The admission that the noble Lord has just made that the Government have not yet thought about how they will handle this sensitive, delicate, and, as the noble Lord has admitted, unknown material that will be put before the inquiry is frightening. Does the noble Lord agree that as this is a public inquiry, Dublin and the IRA will take the evidence piece by piece and use it as presented, against the better results that might be achieved by Her Majesty's Government in their negotiations for peace? Does the noble Lord accept and understand that many people in Northern Ireland, as was stated in the press that I read this morning, will put down the fact that there is to be an inquiry to pressure from Dublin? I consider this to be a serious tactical error. I ask the Government to consider seriously how they will handle the evidence and the conclusions, because I believe that serious problems will arise.
Lord Richard: My Lords, of course we will consider how best to handle the matter. All I was doing a few moments ago was telling the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that it is premature to consider now how we will handle the findings of an inquiry that we have only just set up. Noble Lords opposite shake their heads. I do not know—they may know better than I—what the findings of this inquiry will be. It will no doubt come to a conclusion when it has considered the evidence. When it comes to a conclusion, it will no doubt communicate
340
that conclusion to the Government and to the world. It is at that stage that the handling of the findings becomes important.
As to the sensitivity of the process, I emphasise that of course the Government are conscious of the sensitivity of the issue. We are having the inquiry because it is such a sensitive issue. The only sensible and sensitive way to deal with the matter is to set up a tribunal of inquiry in the terms that I have expressed this afternoon. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, thinks that we have made a major error of judgment. I do not.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, when does the Leader of the House envisage that the inquiry will make its report, and when will the report be published? Does he think that it will be before or after the planned conclusion of the peace process, which I believe is at the beginning of May, because it could have an effect on the peace process?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I cannot give any date for the conclusion of this inquiry. It is very much a matter for the chairman and the members of the tribunal. I had better leave it there. It is almost impossible to tell until the process is launched.

Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill
4.15 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Referendum]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1. line 13. leave out ("question") and insert ("questions").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 1 is a paving amendment. The amendments deal with the question or questions to be asked in the referendum. It is a matter which was considered at some length in previous stages. During earlier exchanges the Government asked whether the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives could come up with a set of questions upon which the two groups agreed. She criticised us, perhaps understandably, for proposing different sets of questions, although they were not far apart.
We have responded to that challenge. We have not done so because we agree on the preferred model for London government but because we believe that there should be a debate on the model—the type of debate that a referendum will engender, not the rather peripheral discussion which will occur if there is just one package/question, where the issue for debate will be the generalised issue of the government of London.
It is no secret that all the parties have different views as to the elements there might be in the government for London. The Government propose a package, and they have been clear about that: an authority consisting of a separately directly elected mayor and an assembly. Most of the Liberal Democrats support an assembly with the

341
leader of the assembly taking the mayoral role. Most of the Conservatives support the idea of a directly elected mayor, and an assembly or group comprised of leaders of the London boroughs. There is a range of views in all parties. There was a reference at an earlier stage of the Bill to the leaks about discussions within the Greater London Labour Party and other Labour members in London.
In Committee the Minister talked (co1.950) about providing firm leadership, setting strategic direction and getting things done. She ascribed those actions to a mayor, and said that that was what a mayor could do. Those actions could equally well be ascribed to and carried out by an assembly with a leader. As I have said previously, the model for an assembly, a group, a parliament with a strong leader, is that of Mr. Blair. But those activities could also be carried out by a mayor subject to different types of checks than the ones which will be on offer in this package.
The Government believe that the mayor should not have too much power. I agree with that. I believe that no individual in any level of government should have too much power. The recipe of the Liberal Democrats is to write in checks so that an assembly can deal prospectively, not just retrospectively, with proposals and can he effective; in other words, involving a group of elected representatives at the start of every project and every undertaking.
I have referred before to the model of New York, often quoted, where I believe that the mayor has the support of an office of financial officers 350 strong, yet the assembly with the role of scrutinising the mayor's budget has the support of a mere 35 officials, 10 per cent. I give that as just one example of the sort of thing that worries me and noble Lords of my party. That, of course, has been our policy quite consistently.
I am aware that the package on offer from the Government is what was in the manifesto "after a referendum". Those were the words used. So I do not believe that it is of quite the same status as other manifesto items. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, at the last stage said:
"It is right that the Labour manifesto, which I read often, makes the point that there will be an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor. But it does not make the point that people shall not be able to have one without the other".—[Official Report, 13/1/98; col. 952]
Nor does it say that there cannot be expressions of opinion about the two elements.
I am sure that the Government do not wish to suggest that the vote in the referendum will be the sort of vote one sees in a totalitarian state, where the people are required to show support for any proposal that comes from the head of state and they have no alternative. So what are we to make of the notion of a referendum, still a very new procedure in the United Kingdom? My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire at the last stage distinguished between referendums and plebiscites. Plebiscites are what governments do to demonstrate the illusion of consultation but to get their will. Referendums are real consultations with the public. There are different views about what referendums should comprise, what they should be expected to
342
achieve. But there is the common element that they should involve a process of education of the public and encouragement to participate, of consultation and involvement; all values which are certainly values of my party, but I believe that they are expressed to be values of new Labour.
The noble Baroness spoke at an earlier stage of not having imposed upon the Government a constitutional settlement other than the package which is on offer; a settlement, as she described the possible outcome, which the Government believed to be fundamentally wrong. Of course not. I do not believe that a referendum can impose—certainly not the referendum that we are talking about in this context; it can guide.
I agree with my noble friends Lord Wallace and Lord Dahrendorf that public debate about what is the real role of plebiscites and referendums would be useful. But even without that debate I am in absolutely no doubt that what Londoners expect is to be asked their views. The propositions are novel: a mayor, a very strong mayor with powers of which we have no experience. They expect to be able to express their views on the novelty.
The notion that this is presented as a package has been greeted with some amazement by a number of people to whom I have spoken who have not followed the detail of the argument in the way that your Lordships will have done. Their common sense approach is, "This is something on which we should be consulted. We should be able to say what we want. But there are two parts to it. We want to express our views on both parts".
I have referred to it being a package which is on offer. I hope I do not sound impertinent in saying that it is intellectually a very respectable argument to say that we propose a package, we do not want to disaggregate that package, we will ask views on that package. What I find less easy to understand is how the Government could proceed if there was a no vote because they will not know what the voters regard as being objectionable.
Our approach is quite different. It is setting out the context of the package, that the Government propose an authority made up of an assembly and a mayor. Then it asks the two questions because, whatever my preferences and those of my noble friends, and I believe those of the Conservative Party, we do not believe that any of those who support the amendment before your Lordships this afternoon would say that politicians should be pre-empting the views of Londoners. The Government may say that if only the mayor were to be approved from a two question referendum it would not wish to proceed with the mayoralty. It is up to the Government, and indeed, up to my party to argue against an authority which comprises only a mayor with insufficient checks and balances. But if, nevertheless, this is the outcome, that there is not support for both elements, then of course the Government will have to think again. I cannot believe that that is an inappropriate outcome because a constitutional settlement which does not have the resounding support of Londoners must have an element of instability.
The Minister referred at the last stage to the referendum not being an oversized research project. Equally, it is not a directive which the Government are

343
bound to follow if their proposals do not receive support. She said it is a package with interdependent parts. Yes, then that is what should be argued during the referendum campaign. It is not a matter of offering two alternative choices to the people of London. If there is a preference for one element—the authority—but not for the other, there will have to be further work on how and if that element might operate. But overwhelmingly, I suggest that it is Londoners not Labour who should decide. I beg to move.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I support this amendment that stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and myself. This was a matter discussed in Committee. At that time I withdrew the amendment that was in my name and promised to read carefully the reply that the Minister gave to the debate on both that amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I must tell the Minister that I have done just that. And just as I did after reading the Minister's response to the issue when it was raised during the Second Reading, I still believe that in resisting two questions the Government are seeing complications where complications do not exist.
The proposal is a very simple one. We would like the people of London to be able to vote separately on the two elements of the Government's proposal. I emphasise that the question does not seek to put before the citizens of London anything different from that which the Government are proposing. Nor, I should say for the avoidance of doubt, does it seek to have a situation where there is either a mayor alone or an assembly alone. Our reason for wanting the question to be posed in two parts is that by then, if we do not have a Bill, we shall at least have a White Paper and some of the details will be very much clearer.
It has to be said, however—and I do not believe that this can seriously be gainsaid—that having seen the details, people may well have a different view about the proposals from those which they currently hold. It is quite conceivable that a voter wishing to see an authority for Greater London might feel that the powers to be given to a directly elected mayor were, for example, too great with insufficient constraints, in which case he might wish to vote in favour of the assembly proposals but not for the mayor. Similarly, voters may dislike the powers and functions to be given to a directly elected assembly. They might consider that those constrain not just the mayor but the boroughs themselves, making it difficult for the mayor and, indeed, the boroughs to do their jobs as envisaged in the proposals or as they would seek to argue they should be done.
The Government appear to have no trust in people's ability to see the difference between the two questions and to answer something more sophisticated than this Government's demand for a simple "yes" or "no". I believe that in what will be a very complicated situation, voters may have a variety of different views and they are entitled to be given as many opportunities as possible to express them
344
The problem with the Government's approach is that it must be accepted or rejected in its entirety. Indeed, the Government seem to make a virtue of that. They acknowledge it and say that it is a package which the voters must take or leave; there can be no picking or choosing. The Government say that there are no choices on offer. One is bound to ask why they bother with a referendum at all. However, I leave that to one side.
Surely it is possible for the referendum to take place against the background of informed debate and to seek a view of the public in the most meaningful way. Your Lordships will know that given that the Government have decided to go down the referendum route, at the very least the draft Bill should be available. But let us suppose for a moment that it is not. Even the Government's second-best plan envisages a White Paper with proposals being available before the vote. Even the Government propose that. Critical to that debate will be the balance of power not only between the mayor and the assembly but between the mayor, the assembly and the boroughs. As a result of that debate, it is perfectly possible for the voters to say, "We like the plans that you have for an executive mayor but not the plans for the assembly", and vice versa.
Contrary to what the Minister said at earlier stages, that does not commit the Government to proceeding with their plans for a mayor and not an assembly or for an assembly and no directly-elected mayor. The Government can make it quite clear, as they have done, that they view this as one proposal and a package and will not proceed with one element only. No doubt the Government will campaign individually for a "yes" vote on both counts but that does not preclude the proposals being divided and put to the people to seek their views on the two essentials.
If the Government fail to achieve two "yes" votes, they will have to think again on whichever element received a negative vote. It will be up to them. No one else is going to decide how to proceed. Nothing is going to be forced on anybody by having two questions and conceivably two different answers.
In Committee the Minister asked how a voter should vote who wanted a mayor and assembly but only with the proper checks and balances. I should say to the Minister that I have pondered on that question. I hope that I understood it. In asking the question she is assuming that it is only the relationship between the mayor and the assembly which is the relevant question. As I have suggested, there are the matters of functions and relationships with the boroughs which need to be considered.
I believe that the Minister's voter would vote "yes" twice if satisfied on the question which she posed and "no" to both questions if not satisfied. But the Minister did not pose the problem of a voter who is convinced about the need for a mayor, a voice for London and an advocate for the capital who likes the directly-elected concept but who is concerned about the powers and functions to be given to a new assembly.
The advocate for an assembly but not a directly elected mayor might make a similar case. Why should the voter have to make a stark choice instead of being

345
able to give a considered reply to the two elements of the Government's plans? In my submission the case for two questions is very strong and is not a distinctly Conservative position.
In Committee in another place it was pointed out that not only did The Times and the Telegraph support two questions but so did the Guardian, which supported the Government's proposals in their entirety. I am sure that the Minister will be aware that the editorial in the Guardian said:
"We subscribe to neither view, but to deny them",
that is, the public,
"any expression on the ballot seems peculiar. After all, the whole point of a referendum is to allow all the people their say".
I believe that the case for two questions will be even stronger when the debate takes place against the background of the details to be put forward by the Government in their White Paper. I support the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. I have some concerns about the impact of the amendment, both in terms of the principle of the Bill before us but also in terms of the practical effect that those amendments would have which could lead to both delay and confusion and may thwart the very clearly expressed desire of Londoners to have strategic leadership in the capital as soon as possible.
As both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord pointed out, the Government are proposing a package which embraces both an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly. The proposals were based on the Labour Party's manifesto. They were incorporated within the Green Paper and the consultation that went with it.
The beauty of what is proposed is that the public in London are being given a clear choice to vote "yes" or "no" with the implications of that choice well understood. They can be very clearly implicated if Londoners vote in favour of the proposals.
Once one moves into a two question situation, that undoubtedly complicates the picture. I should say, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that you could end up with several outcomes: either a mayor and an assembly together, a mayor alone, or an assembly alone. The White Paper that preceded the referendum would then need to discuss that range of options. I suggest that it would present a confusing picture to the people whom we are asking to vote instead of presenting a clear-cut choice. Londoners would have anything but that.
It becomes even more complicated if a Bill must be published eight weeks before the referendum. The danger is that confusion and delay may occur. I believe that our capital city has suffered so much for too long from a lack of clear strategic leadership. The Bill offers us the clearest, quickest and most straightforward way to proceed. We should resist the amendments.
Earl Russell: The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of King's Heath, objects to the amendment for exactly the same
346
reasons that I objected to the Government's decision to have a two-question referendum in Scotland. I was wrong. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is wrong for the same reason. Both of us at different times have been too fearful. We have been too reluctant to allow the will of the people to be expressed clearly.
We have here two logically distinct questions. They are far more obviously logically distinct than the two questions put forward in the Scottish referendum. Therefore, since we actually have two questions, I believe we need to know what the people think about both questions. I am sure that your Lordships know the story of Hobson's choice: when you came to the stable you were allowed to choose any horse that you liked, as long as it was the one nearest the door. Hobson was actually a real person. I discovered the fate of his estate in the Record Office of your Lordships' House. He was a Cambridge University carrier who made a fortune of £30,000 but, because he died intestate, the lawyers got it all.
In much the same way the Government may possibly risk getting their come-uppance if they will not allow the voters to make a real and genuine choice. On opinion poll evidence at present, it is perfectly clear that it is overwhelmingly likely that a "yes" would be given to both questions. I know that people tend to get anxious, but I really do not think that the Government need to be this anxious. I believe that they can afford to take the risk.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I just wanted to remind the Minister that, in Committee, she quoted with approval part of the speech that my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf made on Second Reading. She said that he was absolutely right when he said that,
"referenda should not he exploratory and open-ended. They should test the views of the people about government proposals. The first duty is therefore that of government to make such proposals and to argue for them. … If the people of London do not like the Government's proposals—for two separately elected components of the Greater London authority—the Government will have to think again".—".— [Oflicial Report, 15/12/97; col. 430.]
I believe that the Minister quoted those words because she thought that the arguments expressed supported her case. However, I suggest to her that those words could equally support the argument for two questions in the referendum.
The first point made by my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf was to say that the Government must argue for their proposals. What we have heard is the suggestion that, with two questions in the referendum, the Government will have the proper democratic duty of arguing and explaining their proposals very strongly and that the quality of debate will be all the higher for it. In other words, the interests of Londoners in the debate is likely to be greater and there will be the prospect that some of the issues facing a London authority will be discussed, rather than what is happening at present with the debate being distorted by speculation on the personality who is likely to run for the position of mayor. That is most unhealthy.

347
The second point made by my noble friend was that if the people do not like the Government's proposals the Government will have to think again. The point has been well made in this debate that the referendum is a consultative process. In that respect, perhaps I may answer a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who said that the referendum would be based on the proposals in the manifesto. If the manifesto and the General Election result were all that was necessary, one could say that there was no point in having a referendum. If we are to have a referendum, it is because we want the specific approval of Londoners for the scheme put forward by the Government. If the Government have to argue strongly for their proposals for an assembly and a directly-elected mayor—which, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out, is a constitutional innovation in that it is rather novel—I believe that the debate will be all the stronger.
Another important point which has arisen from the debate is that the Minister has said at various stages that the Government are wary of the situation where voters could reject the assembly and opt only for a mayor and that, as they do not support having a mayor only, they would be unable to implement that result. I believe that would be dealt with by the fact that, clearly, they would have to think again. However, I hope that the quality of the arguments will ensure that it will not come to that.
Can the Minister also address the following point? If voters are faced with the package only and do not like one element of it, they will have to vote "no" to the whole package. If they are not happy with the suggestion of a directly elected mayor, they will have no option but to vote against the assembly. That seems to me to be a very sorry situation and is one of the reasons why we on these Benches have consistently supported the restoration of a strategic authority for London. We would prefer a first-best solution, but a second-best solution is better than no London authority.
We are worried that the atmosphere in which this proposal will be debated will rather sour the debate. Frankly, it looks as if the Government are open to the charge of being rather arrogant in imposing only a single package and, indeed, that they may be getting rather defensive about the whole idea of a London authority. The spirit in which this should be presented and debated is that of an exciting step forward in that London will be better governed when it has a London authority. If the Government are coming over as rather stubborn about this—indeed, perhaps rather defensive—and unwilling to argue strongly for the different elements in the package, there is a risk that the nature of the reception that Londoners will give the proposal will be slightly discouraging and we shall end up with less support and enthusiasm for what should be a bold and exciting step forward.
Before the Minister replies, I should add that it is important for us to remember that the amendment is supported by those who actually want a directly elected mayor. Supporting this amendment does not depend on whether you want the outcome of only an assembly or only a mayor; indeed, it is supported by those who simply want the quality of democracy and of debate to
348
be enhanced by giving Londoners the choice. The Government would go up in the estimation of all those who support democracy and who vote for choice if they were to concede that the best way in which the referendum can be conducted is to allow Londoners not to have their vote distorted by the package approach.
4.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, we have been through this territory both in another place and in your Lordships' House on several occasions. I shall try to restate the Government's position on the issue of two questions as clearly as I can. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was very clear in her exposition and very frank as regards the history of the two Front Benches opposite finally finding a form of words upon which they could agree in terms of the proposed amendment. The noble Baroness accepted that, in a sense, that masked a very real disagreement between those two Front Benches and certainly in regard to this Front Bench about the best constitutional settlement for London.
There is disagreement on the issue. The Government's position is absolutely clear-cut. It was clearly stated in our manifesto and, indeed, it has been there all along. We believe that there should be a Greater London authority comprising a directly-elected mayor and a separately directly-elected assembly. We have stated that we need the leadership and the legitimacy of a directly-elected mayor and the accountability and the monitoring of a separate, directly-elected assembly. Moreover—and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, because it represents the difference between us—we believe that those people should be separately elected to that job. In other words, they should not be doing it as a second job to their leadership of the London boroughs. I know that the noble Lord's party believes that there should be an indirectly-elected assembly, in the same way as the noble Baroness's party believes that there should be an indirectly-elected mayor. These are absolutely legitimate political differences for parties to hold.
I have no problem with these arguments being propounded by parties. Indeed that was done during the general election campaign to some extent. The Government's position was clear and has been consistent. I believe that the position of the Liberal Democrats was clear; namely, they have never been in favour of a directly elected mayor. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has accepted that the Opposition—
Lord Ogmore: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I am sure that most noble Lords know exactly what the noble Baroness means. However, I should be grateful for some clarification. When she uses the words "directly elected", does she mean that both the assembly and the mayor are directly elected by

349
the electorate of London? Or, is the assembly elected directly by the electorate and the mayor elected by the assembly? There may be slight confusion here.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord has illustrated the kind of confusions and difficulties we get into when we start opening up different options. The Government's proposition is quite clear; namely, that there should be elections for a mayor. There will he a slate of candidates for the mayoralty. There should be elections for the assembly. There will be names of people and the constituencies they would represent. The voting systems will be set out in the White Paper. As I say, there will be separate elections for the assembly. There will be a disposition of powers between the mayor and the assembly; the inter-relationships will be set out clearly. Those two together will form the Greater London Authority to which we committed ourselves in our manifesto.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Before she concludes I hope that she can answer the question of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. If the manifesto concludes the matter and the package cannot be divided, why do we want a referendum?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that I have not finished yet. However, he has thrown me slightly. I was trying to express the matter clearly. There are different views as to the most appropriate way forward. Those views can be propounded by different political parties and put to the electorate at a general election. To an extent that was done. The general election of last year gave a clear endorsement to the Government. Perhaps my next point will answer the questions of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The Government also committed themselves to testing the assent of the people of London to a Greater London Authority.
I rather resent the accusations of totalitarianism and not giving the people any choice. We are imposing another layer of assent and public consultation. We saw what happened when the GLC was abolished. One does not need a referendum to change government in London; one can do that by Act of Parliament. However, we stated in the manifesto that we believed it was important to create strategic, city-wide London government and to test whether the people of London agreed with the Government's proposition. We never said that we would also offer them propositions that appealed more to the Liberal Democrats or to the Conservatives.
I wrote down what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said. He said that in the past we had been reluctant for the will of the people to be clearly expressed. We are trying to allow the will of the people to be clearly expressed. I stress the importance of the word "clearly". I suggest to the House that there would be no clarity in the kind of propositions that have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, or the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. If we detect different degrees of support for different parts of the package, the Government will have to think again. How will the electorate know what
350
their clear choice is when a variety of results could emerge on the issues of whether the mayor or the assembly should be directly elected? The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said people were considering many other issues, for example the relationship with the boroughs.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I hope she will concede that I did not say there were an even greater number of outcomes; I said there were a number of issues that the people would wish to consider when casting their vote. I did not argue for more than two questions. That strictly limits the possible outcomes.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it strictly limits the possible outcomes but people would not know with any clarity what the outcome of their vote would be as they would not know how other Londoners would vote and they would not know what the Government's response would be. I return to the accusation of totalitarianism and imposing a referendum to which people can vote only yes. That is not correct; people can vote yes or no.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I hope the Minister will address that point. People may have to vote no when they are voting no to only one element of the package. However, they will be forced to vote no to the whole thing precisely because the Government are not giving them the option to vote no to only one element. Would it not be better to have some government for London rather than none if people's votes are being distorted by the Government's refusal to give choice?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness that it is definitely better to have some government rather than none. Neither I nor the Government want to have an unaccountable mayor. We do not think that is the right way forward. I do not wish to see—I do not think those on the Bench opposite wish to see this—a recreated GLC without the leadership and the counterbalance of a mayor. We need some clarity here. We were accused of not being able to risk the judgment of the people. However, we are willing to risk the judgment of the people on the package that we are putting forward. I do not think it is appropriate to analyse the speeches of a noble Lord in his absence in terms of the thinking behind them. I believe that the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, that I mentioned were absolutely clear. People can read them in the Official Report and draw their own conclusions.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I have listened to the argument with great interest that was academically given to the House with all the forensic skill of the noble Baroness. Will she be kind enough to explain to me why in Scotland there could not have been one question: "Do you want an assembly with tax raising authority"?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in Scotland there were two separate issues which were not interdependent. They were separable constitutional areas. The reason we

351
had one question in Wales was because the issue of tax raising powers was never proposed as something that would be implemented. In the case of Scotland there was a package of constitutional measures, without a pick-and-mix; for example, "Do you want a first Minister or not a first Minister?", or, "Do you want to change it around, or anything else?" There were two separate issues comprising the constitutional set-up of the Parliament and the tax varying powers. There was a clear yes or no answer to either question. I have said time and again that the Government's case is quite clear; namely, this issue concerns responsibility of government. I have forgotten the point that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I referred to the danger that people would have to vote no to the whole package.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness said that people would have to vote no when they were only 90, 80, or 70 per cent. against a measure and that they would not be able to express the nuances of their views. I am afraid that life is sometimes like that. At general elections we have to take the totality of a party's policies and come to a view on them. It would be irresponsible of the Government to offer the people of London the possibility of splitting up a constitutional settlement when the Government do not believe that would be in the interest of Londoners. We are willing to risk the judgment of the people of London on the proposition for which we shall definitely argue. We have no temerity about that. We are not uncertain about the robust nature of the proposals, but we wish to see some clarity.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, the Minister speaks about the robustness of the proposals. Does the noble Baroness agree that there are no proposals? The Government have produced no White Paper or Bill. The Government intend to put forward an unknown proposal to the people of London. They are not even prepared to divide the proposal so that the people of London can make a considered judgment when they have a few details, which will presumably come from the White Paper rather than the Bill as we would prefer.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that there will not be "a few details" in the White Paper. The White Paper will be comprehensive. It will deal with all the issues with which this House is rightly concerned across the range of complex issues involved in the government of London. The White Paper will be published in the week of 23rd March. We shall make sure that a summary of that White Paper goes through the door of every household in London.
We have talked seriously in this House about how we can make people aware clearly of the details of the proposal. To do so clearly, and to give proper information, in such a complex area will not be aided if many variable answers may result—the mayor without the assembly; the assembly without the mayor. If we are to have clarity, we cannot also have a variety of outcomes other than "yes" or "no".
352
That leads me to another issue that I hope your Lordships will consider carefully if the amendment is pressed to a Division. I refer to the behaviour of the Chamber, and the amendment which was passed in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, discounted his victory in Committee; but victory it was. The Committee amended the Bill so that a Bill has to be published eight weeks before a referendum is held. The Government advised your Lordships' House that that was not appropriate. We thought that it was wrong. We did not think that it would aid clarity and understanding; and we knew that it would delay fatally the referendum. It would mean that we could not hold the referendum on 7th May of this year, the same day as the local elections. Nevertheless, the Committee took a different view. It took the view that there should be a Bill and those who propounded the amendment were clear that it should contain the detail of the Government's proposals. The Bill should not contain clauses which provided for the relationship were there to be an assembly but an indirectly elected mayor, or, alternatively, the relationship were there to be a directly elected mayor with an indirectly elected assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was clear that the Bill should contain the specifics of the Government's proposals so that people knew exactly what they were voting for or against.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive my intervention. I do not wish to delay the House longer than necessary. Does the noble Baroness agree that we proposed that there should be a Bill? That is the decision of the House as it stands. The Government's proposal—it is second best in our view—is that there should be a White Paper with proposals. Does that not support—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that we are on Report. This is the third intervention and interruption of the Minister's winding up speech. Normally one is considered sufficient.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, clearly I am in the hands of the House. But the Minister referred specifically to what I said. It seems to me that she was misinterpreting the position we put to the House.
We want as many details as possible put forward. Does the Minister agree that in the light of those details it would be quite possible for the people to express one view about one aspect and a different view about another?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, that is the point on which I differ with the noble Lord. While I do not think that it is justified, there is an intellectual coherence in being more specific, getting more detail, and having the legislation in front of people before they vote in the referendum so that they know the government's proposals and exactly what would be entailed in voting "yes" or "no" for the package of the greater London authority, which is the assembly and a mayor.
The House should consider carefully whether we should ask another place to amend the Bill in two diametrically opposite directions. The amendment

353
already passed asks for more clarity and more detail on the exact government proposals. This amendment increases uncertainty. It has been said by Members of both parties opposite that the Government would have to think again as a result of the different votes and degrees of support there might be for one proposal or another on the mayor or the assembly. This House rightly prides itself on being scrupulous about the internal consistency of its decisions. I do not think that it would be sensible, the House having amended the Bill in one direction, then to amend the Bill in a completely different direction.
Each amendment has a logic of its own. It makes the outcome either more black and white, more certain, with a more specific background against which people vote "yes" or "no"; or it opens up the situation and makes the referendum less a test of assent to a given proposition and more a consultative exercise on different options. But together the amendments pull in completely different directions. Together they destroy what was a clearly set out commitment by this Government in their election manifesto to implement proposals for a directly elected authority for London; that it should comprise two separately directly elected elements, and that we would test that proposition with the people of London. We were willing to risk the people of London rejecting what we put forward. As a responsible Government we were not willing to put before people a false menu of a constitutional settlement for London which we do not believe to be workable or in the interests of the capital. On that basis I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister suggested that disagreement between the two Front Benches was masked by the amendments. That is not so. I and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, have been perfectly clear about our decisions. It is not a question of masking disagreement but of reaching agreement as regards part of the process.
I shall not take up too much of your Lordships' time in responding. I sense that noble Lords would not be entirely tolerant of the arguments being rehearsed fully again. However. perhaps I may respond to points made by the noble Lord. Lord Hunt, and the Minister. It was suggested that there could be several outcomes to a referendum containing more than one question. I hope that I have made the position clear, but I shall do so again. I am not suggesting that if the votes do not produce the package that the Government are promoting they would then be bound to proceed immediately with one element.
It has also been suggested that this amendment is inconsistent with the one agreed by your Lordships at the previous stage—the question of publication of a Bill before the referendum. The Government immediately went on record as saying that they would reverse that amendment in another place. I recognise that that will not be the end of the process. However, I propose this amendment in the light of that history.
It has also been said that the will of the people can be clearly expressed by means of one question, but that more than one question would lead to a variety of results. I dealt with that point by explaining that I do not propose that the results would mean an immediate move to some other form of constitutional settlement.
354
The matter can be simply summed up in this way. There are entirely different approaches to assessing the will of Londoners. We have heard the Government's approach. We do not agree with it. I seek leave to test the opinion of the House.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 104.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Marlesford, L.

Alderdice, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Massereence and Ferrard, V.

Annaly, L.

Mayhew to Twysden, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bath, M.

Meston, L.

Bathurst, E.

Methuen, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Milverton, L.

Bethell, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Blaker, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Bowness, L.

Monson, L.

Brahazon of Tam, L.

Naseby, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Norfolk, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Norrie, L.

Burnham. L.[Teller.]

O'Cathain, B.

Calverley, L.

Ogmore, L.

Carlisle. E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Carnock, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Rawlings, B.

Chorley, L.

Razzall, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Rea, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Redesdale, L.

Colwyn, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Romney, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Rowallan, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Russell, E.

Denham, L.

Seccombe, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Donegall, M.

Stallard, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Elton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Erroll, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Feldman, L.

Sudeley, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Swansea, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swinfen, L.

Goodhart, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Gormanston, V.

Teynham, L.

Granard, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Haig, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thomas of Wallis Wood, B.

Harding of Petherton. L.

Thurlow, L

Higgins, L.

Thurso, V.

Holderness, L.

Tope, L.[Teller.]

Hood, V.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Trenchard, V.

Kenyon, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Tugendhat, L

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Wallace of Saltaire,L.

Ludford, B.

Weatherill, L

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Westbury, L

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wharton, B

McNair, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Maddock, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Young, B

355

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Irvine of Lairg,L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Amos,B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Ampthill,L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jeger,B.

Barnett, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Bassam of Brighton,L.

Levy, L.

Berkeley,L.

Lincoln,Bp

Blackstone,B.

Lockwood,B

Bledisloe,V.

Lofthouse of Pontefract,L.

Borrie,L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller.]

Bruce of Donington,L.

Mallalieu,B

Burlison,L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,L.

Mishcon,L

Carnarvon, E.

Molloy,L.

Carter,L.

Monkswell,L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos,L.

Montague of Oxford,L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Manchester,L.

David,B.

Murrary of Epping Forest,L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Peston, L.

Desai,L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Diamond, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dixon,L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donoughue, L.

Puttnam, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Randall of St.Budeaux, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Falkand, V.

Richard, L.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Fitt, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Gilbert, L.

Sewel, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Shore of stepney, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Simon, V.

Gordon of Potternewton, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hardie, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

symons of vernham Dean, B.

Haskel, L.[Teller.]

Taverne, L.

Hayman, B.

Tenby, V.

Healey, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hoyle, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hughes, L.

Whitty, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.20 p.m.
Clause 4 [Referendum: supplementary]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) Where the polls referred to in subsection (1) are taken on the same day—

(a) polling for the referendum shall be between the hours of 7 in the morning and 10 at night on the day of the referendum: and

(b) polling for the election shall be between the same hours and regulations shall be laid pursuant to section 36(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 accordingly.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an amendment to Clause 4, and I hope it is a less contentious issue. It returns to the question of polling
356
hours and proposes that polling in both the referendum and in local council elections shall be from the hours of seven in the morning to 10 at night.
We previously focused on the hours of the referendum. I take the point that has been made that if the hours of the referendum and the borough elections held on the same day are different, there could be confusion. Noble Lords will be familiar with the argument over the need not to disenfranchise those who travel long distances and work long hours in London. At a previous stage, the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, commented on our becoming more of a 24-hour society. I accept what was said about encouraging turnout through other means and not only relying on the polling hours, although I suggest that that is not an adequate answer to the point which I and other noble Lords made.
I also understand the point about the costs, but there are costs to democracy. It was said that there could be administrative disruption, but that would not be the case if the hours of the two polls were the same. It was also said that the local election results would be delayed. Yes, but only by one hour.
Returning to the question of extended hours leading to higher turnouts, it was accepted that there was no evidence either way. The Minister said that if there was any evidence as to the effect of hours on turnout, then she would bring the matter back to the House. I know that very often in local elections there is a rush to vote between the hours of 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. when the polls close at 9 p.m. I also know that sometimes there is great difficulty in persuading people to turn out and vote straight away when they come home at 8.30 p.m. Because I live opposite a polling station, I have seen people turn up before 8 o'clock in the morning thinking that they can vote on the way to work but they find that the polls have not opened.
I believe it is likely that the referendum will be regarded as more like a general election than a local election and therefore the hours should be those of a general election. I realise that the hours are a matter for statutory instruments. So too are the hours of the local elections, but under other legislation. Hence my reference to the Representation of the People Act 1983. I hope that the amendment will give the Government the opportunity to convince us, with evidence, if there is any, that we will not disenfranchise—I use the word deliberately, knowing the argument on absent voting—those who wish to exercise their vote but who, for good reasons, find themselves unable to do so because of the pressures of work and other pressures in their lives. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, it is a slightly less contentious issue than the amendment we have just debated. As someone who always draws the short straw at general elections and seems to be responsible for taking numbers outside polling stations between the hours of 9 p.m. and 10 p.m., I have waited in vain for many people to come through the doors when it is cold and dark. I have taken a particular interest in the issue. My experience has been reflected by many other people, not just in London but

357
in other parts of the country. One needs a good deal of convincing before extending the hours suggested in this way in relation to the London referendum.
As the noble Baroness said, it will cost extra money. I have seen one estimate which puts it at around £0.5 million. I suspect that it would also disrupt the preparations which returning officers have to make for the election and to meet the challenge of running two elections on one day.
We should not consider the matter in isolation. We have in place a government review of electoral procedures which may well consider the issue of hours of voting, alongside a number of other issues. Surely it would be better to consider the whole issue of procedures and hours of voting in relation to voting generally rather than specifically in the case of just one election. We could spend £0.5 million more effectively in terms of public information about the nature of the referendum and the issues to be decided.
At heart, the issue that will most get people to the ballot box is the degree to which people in London feel it is important. That does not rest on whether there is an extra hour in the morning or evening, it rests on the importance of having a mayor and elected assembly in the city. That is what will get people to the ballot box, not this amendment.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, opened his remarks by referring to the inconvenience for tellers of having to stay at polling stations until 10 p.m. I venture to suggest that the convenience of tellers is not the issue. It is the convenience of voters that is the point. In a world, particularly London. where supermarkets are open all night, or certainly till late in the evening, it is strange that our democracy should lag behind in terms of convenience for citizens.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made the point, if I did not misunderstand him, that if people think it important enough, they will make sure that they get to vote. I should have thought the more interested they are. the more they wish to vote and the more they wish to express opinions, the more frustrated they might be if they turn up, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee suggested, on their way to work and find polling stations do not open until 8 a.m.
The noble Lord may be right, there may be implications for future elections if voting hours are looked at. But this time we want the maximum turnout, as the Minister rightly stressed at numerous points, we want the maximum support and consent of Londoners and it is important that Londoners are able to vote in the greatest possible numbers. They may find it strange that they were not given the best opportunity to do so.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I read carefully the Minister's speech on Second Reading. I wonder whether she will be able to tell us, when she comes to the Dispatch Box, how many people or what percentage of people voted between the hours of 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. in the general election. She kindly said she would look into that. During that speech she
358
also said that she would tell us of other ideas that she had to ensure that people realised that this was happening and in particular the way in which proxies would be held. I only remind her of those matters because, rather than making a long speech saying that that is what I want, I shall assume that the answers will be in her speech.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, that is my cue. As has been said, I do not think there is any debate within the House about the ends with which we are concerned. We all wish to maximise participation in the referendum and in elections generally. We are talking ahout the means and the priority for resources as well as the most appropriate way forward.
We are committed to a major publicity campaign advertising the referendum and the ways in which people can vote. It will make clear the possibilities for proxy and postal voting. At an earlier stage of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, asked about the circumstances in which people will be eligible for a proxy or postal vote. I explained that those eligibilities had recently been made more extensive and easier and that we would be publicising the ability to claim a postal or proxy vote.
We shall incorporate that information in the leaflet that will go to every London household. It might amuse the noble Lord to know that my 18 year-old son received a birthday card this week from the local borough. On the back it said,
"If you are going to he away on 7th May"—
I can assure the House that this relates to local elections; it is not anticipating anything—
"then you can apply for a postal vote or have someone vote for you. Simply call the above number and we will help you make the necessary arrangements".
Earlier it said,
"You don't need proof of identity. It is hassle free".
The publicity is therefore already starting in that regard.
I return to the undertaking that I gave at Committee stage that I would look carefully at the question of disruption, the difficulties and the voting patterns. Extending polling hours would disrupt local authority preparations and add significantly to the costs of the referendum, with no guarantee of higher turnout as a result. Furthermore, the amendment would not allow us to make best use of the resources we have available to maximise the opportunity for Londoners to vote.
Before I address the amendment in more detail, perhaps I can respond to the points raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on a similar amendment concerning the arrangements for a debate on the draft secondary legislation arising under this Bill. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that the use of secondary legislation to make detailed provision in respect of electoral matters is well precedented. The secondary legislation to which the noble Lord referred in Committee will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The House will therefore have an opportunity to debate and approve the secondary legislation concerning arrangements for the referendum.

359
I realise that that does not provide scope for amending the Order in Council, which was the main anxiety raised. However, I emphasise again that we have placed the draft secondary legislation in the Library for consultation and are happy to receive comments on that draft.
As the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, reminded the House, I said that I would look to see whether there was any available evidence of voting patterns and flows to see exactly when people cast their votes in elections. I have to report back that the data in London is limited. However, the figures we found indicated that in the last general election turnout in the three London parliamentary constituencies for which figures were available—the three Ealing constituencies—between the hours of seven and eight in the morning and nine and 10 in the evening numbers were below the average for the rest of the day. Taken together, something over 6 per cent. of those voting throughout the day did so between seven and eight in the morning and something over 5 per cent. between nine and 10 at night.
Noble Lords who have canvassed in elections will know—my noble friend Lord Hunt mentioned this—that the figures for the last hour of polling tend to reflect the efforts of canvassers to get people out to vote in the last hour, whatever hour that may be. That can happen whether the last hour is between eight and nine or nine and 10. It does not strike me therefore that that makes an overwhelming case for special arrangements to be put in place to extend polling hours in this instance, particularly when we consider the administrative costs of such a measure, its potential impact on other aspects of the referendum and local elections and the ready availability of absent votes for those who cannot vote at any other time. I must stress again that not all of those voting between seven and eight and nine and 10 do so because they cannot vote at any other time
We are seeking to hold an efficient combined poll. In drawing up our proposals we have greatly appreciated the hard work and co-operation of London local authorities and returning officers in preparing for the poll. Their views deserve our attention. Mr. David Wechsler, the chief executive of Croydon, in his capacity as chair of the Working Party of London Chief Executives on Electoral Matters—a group which represents all London returning officers—wrote to my honourable friend the Minister for London expressing his concern about discussion in Committee in relation to extending polling hours. In his letter he sets out a number of objections. In particular, he highlights the delay and higher costs that would arise. Subject to his agreement, I shall be happy to put a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.
Those are the considered views of the working group representing all returning officers in London. They are concerned, as are we, about extending polling hours. Amendment No. 2 would disrupt meticulous preparations and add significantly to costs for what we believe would be a limited return in terms of increased turnout. The chair of the Association of London Government, Mr. Toby Harris, also wrote to the
360
Minister for London to express his concerns, again in relation to the increased costs and delay in getting out the results.
Local authorities calculated that increasing polling hours would lead to additional costs—hiring staff for additional hours and extending the rent of polling stations and count venues comes to about 8p per elector—of some £400,000 or £500,000. That represents an increase of almost 50 per cent. on the total budget that we have available for referendum administration. That money will have to come from somewhere. Local authorities and returning officers would rightly resist such a burden falling upon them. The only alternative would be to use the limited resources set aside for other aspects of the referendum, particularly the publicity. I do not believe that that would be desirable.
It is crucial—we debated this at great length at an earlier stage—that people are informed about the referendum, about the detail of the proposals and that they can come to informed conclusions on the issues on which they will be voting. I would be reluctant to cut back on that exercise of informing the population. As I said earlier, we intend our campaign to focus on reaching those who may need an absent vote; those who may not be able to get to a polling station whatever hour it is open; and those who may not be able to get there before seven in the morning because they would need to be there at six in the morning.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said that we have a 24-hour society. No extension will cover everybody's convenience in terms of personal attendance. That is why it is important to make the option of absent voting well known, so that there is a high turnout in that regard.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. I apologise for not warning her that I would bring up this matter. She used the words "our campaign". I hope that it will be a campaign in which all sides of the House can join on equal terms, that it will not look as though it is a campaign being promoted by 10 Downing Street or by certain Ministers in the Labour Party in the Lower House and that those of us who are just as interested as they are will be allowed to express our views. We will not have the £500,000 to spend that the Minister mentioned.
Baroness Hayman: The noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, tempts me to talk about campaigns and the effectiveness of the campaigning by individuals and parties as well as the Government. I should make it clear that the campaign about which I am talking involves informing people about the election taking place. It is factual, non-partisan campaigning. It is not campaigning for a yes or no vote or for a particular candidate. It is a campaign to inform people about the election which, I believe, is correctly government responsibility.
In that very limited, specific and non-partisan campaigning—I hope that a variety of individuals and groups will be involved in the referendum campaign as in the local government election campaign—I believe that we have made a correct assessment of where limited

361
funds should best be applied. We have a fixed budget for the referendum drawn up, bearing in mind constraints on public expenditure. We have taken the view that the best use of available funds is to have a substantial absent-vote campaign. Such a campaign may also have valuable spin-offs for other elections, for example, for people who experience difficulty in attending polling stations. They may realise for the first time just how easy it is to obtain an absent vote and to apply for it in subsequent elections. That would do much more for extending democracy than simply a one-off extension of hours in this particular referendum.
On the broader issue, the Government are committed to improving access to democracy. Last week the Government launched a review of electoral procedures. The working party charged with carrying out the review includes representatives of central and local government and of the main political parties. In that context, clear recommendations will emerge on improving people's experience of participating in the democratic process. Some of the wider issues that have been brought to bear in this debate will be properly covered there. That is the proper avenue for those kinds of areas to be addressed. In view of what I have said, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I take the point that work is being carried out on electoral procedures. With some reluctance, I shall not push for an alteration as there might be further alterations very close at hand in the pipeline.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that he had drawn the short straw in having to be outside a polling station between 9 and 10.00 p.m. It is an even shorter straw to have to run a committee room, trying to get people to continue working between those hours. That is my experience. But I shall volunteer for that. I do not discount the point about cost and hours. That could lead one to ask why in general elections and European elections polling hours are two hours longer. I note that the Minister understands the thrust of that point.
She said that the application is not hassle-free. It is not very difficult, but it has to be made early. I believe it has to be 13 working days before the election. I have checked rather quickly so I might be wrong, although I do not think so. On this occasion it will mean an application by 20th April. That is the Monday following the week in which Easter Monday falls. In other words, that will be the week after the Easter holidays. I also guess that it will fall within some school holidays. Those who are able to be away for Easter are likely to be absent until that weekend.
There is the hard work that the political parties will do besides the information published in the press. People are unlikely to catch up with the need to make an application until it is too late to do so. I was fascinated by the figures available from Ealing. They were 6 per cent. and 5 per cent.—11 per cent. overall. Some of those people may have voted at other times, but that appears to me to be far too large a percentage to discount. I hope that the expressions of concern raised at various stages of this Bill on this matter, even if they are not to have any effect on the conduct of the polls
362
on 7th May, will feed into the work on the electoral arrangements in a constructive manner. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) Where the polls referred to in subsection (1) are taken on the same day registered electors may apply to vote by post or proxy at the referendum and the election on a single form.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment refers to a related matter. It is a probing amendment regarding the application form to be completed by electors who apply for absent votes. The Minister has advocated the use of the absent voting procedure. The published forms ask if the applicant requires an absent vote either in general or for particular elections.
I raise the point because I understand that when the county and general elections coincided, there was some confusion. Two forms were required from voters, one for each election. It may be that the point was not considered early enough in the arrangements for the elections. I am sure the Minister will agree that it is important to make the application as easy and as straightforward as possible.
I can well imagine voters saying, "I have filled in that form". The proxy will go to the polling station or open the envelope for the postal ballot, and find only one ballot paper. I do not believe any noble Lords would want to see that situation. I hope that the Minister can give some assurances about necessary steps being taken, which I would not wish to see on the face of the Bill. Alternatively, perhaps she can give an assurance that if the box for the local government election is ticked, that refers to the referendum for London, if that takes place on the same day. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness on this point. I understand her concerns. We would certainly not wish the circumstances she described to occur.
This amendment seeks to ensure that people can apply for a postal or proxy vote for the referendum and the local election on a single form. I hope to explain to the House why this amendment is unnecessary.
We have made quite clear in the secondary legislation in Part I, Schedule 2, paragraph 7(1) that anyone who applies for a postal or proxy vote for either the referendum or the local election will automatically be sent an equivalent postal or proxy vote to participate in the other poll, unless they specify that they do not want one. Therefore, there is no need for this amendment. If people apply for one or the other, they will get both. They need not of course exercise their vote if they do not wish to do so. But we are determined that no one should miss out on their chance to vote in both polls. That will be made clear.
As I said earlier on in talking about opening hours—I note the point that the noble Baroness made earlier about the timeframe for applying for postal and proxy votes—we hope that because people will he getting

363
information about that well in advance of the poll at the same time as information about the referendum, it will encourage them to apply early on and in good time. With those assurances in mind, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that reply is extremely helpful. I am sorry that I did not spot that detail in the draft of the secondary legislation, which I have read. It is the sort of document which causes one's eyes to glaze over a little. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
INDEPENDENT STATUTORY COMMISSION
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint an independent Statutory Commission, which shall monitor the conduct of the referendum provided for under this Act, and shall, in the light of the referendum and of the referendums carried out under the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997, draw up recommendations for the conduct of future referendums, having regard to the 1996 Report of the Commission on the Conduct of Referendums.
(2) Any report containing recommendations under this section shall he laid before each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10. Some noble Lords may recognise these amendments. I see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in his place. He will certainly recognise them. They are exactly the same amendments that I proposed to the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill. I shall try to shorten my arguments although I notice a number of noble Lords in the House who were not present when I advanced them as regards the earlier Bill, including the Minister. As a new Minister is to answer me this time, I live in the hope that I may get a slightly more positive answer than I received from the Lord Advocate. However, the very fact that the noble and learned Lord is here suggests that he will ensure that the noble Baroness does not stray from the text.
We are moving towards the third referendum in less than a year, with the probability of more to come. I shall not go into the detail of whether referendums sit comfortably in our Westminster model. It is a model that has served us well over time and I am pretty sceptical about the use of referendums inside our model of parliamentary democracy. However, we know that the Government intend to have a number of referendums in the future. As their so-called "reform"—I prefer to say "change"—to the constitution is of a very piecemeal fashion, who knows what other piece they may decide to try to change? If they have a grand plan, they are certainly not telling us.
If we are to continue to have referendums, it really is time that we had a proper generic referendums Act. We should not conduct each referendum piecemeal. The noble Baroness would not get into problems such as
364
those she encountered earlier this afternoon on the question in the referendum if she took my advice on board.
The Constitution Unit and the Electoral Reform Society established a Commission on the Conduct of Referendums in April 1996. Those two bodies are not naturally in my part of the political spectrum but, as I said in August, if we are to have referendums, I very much agree with the commission's conclusions. The commission's briefing paper states:
"The conduct of referendums should be entrusted to a statutory independent body, accountable to Parliament, in order to ensure maximum confidence in the legitimacy of the results. This could he a free-standing commission—a 'Referendum Commission'; or an Electoral Commission, if one were established.
The responsibilities of an Independent Commission could include: advising on the wording of the referendum question: liaising with and funding campaigning organisations: the fair presentation of public information and equitable access to the broadcast media: and the organisation of the poll …
A generic Referendum Act could establish an Independent Commission and a statutory framework for the efficient, fair and consistent conduct of referendums. Those matters which will be different in each referendum and are likely to he of Parliamentary concern could he the subject of primary legislation on each occasion".
I shall probably quote from that document once or twice again.
I stress that the commission's membership was by no means narrowly drawn. Perhaps I may mention a few of those who served on it. It was chaired by Sir Patrick Nairne; its vice-chairman was Dr. David Butler and, to take just three names at something like random, the membership also comprised the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton; the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, and Mr. John Whittingdale, MP, from my party. The commission was broadly based and its conclusions were very clear. I do not think that those conclusions represented a minority view. I hope that the Government will give me some reassurance that they will address this issue.
When I raised such issues in August, I was told that I could not expect the Government to establish a commission in the time available between August and the holding of the Scottish and Welsh referendums. I was told that that was impossible; and that was more or less that. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will say the same thing now, but I must advise her that I do not accept that argument now because the Government have had since last August to deal with the issue and to come forward with a more substantial and more positive reply than that which they gave then. I am afraid that the same argument simply will not do today.
It is interesting to note that if a proper Bill were introduced we could discuss then some of the issues that I raised in August. I am raising one or two of them again today, but I could certainly have kept the House going all evening (if I had chosen to do so) by tabling a series of amendments covering a variety of issues that should be properly addressed. As happened last time, the noble Baroness will have to bring forward orders to change the Representation of the People Act. As I said previously, you will only be able to understand those orders if you sit in the Library with a copy of the

365
Representation of the People Act beside you and work your way through it. The orders will change legislation which Parliament passed and which was designed specifically for general elections with parties and candidates. That legislation is to be changed in a piecemeal way to meet the circumstances of referendums. That is not satisfactory.
An independent commission could address a number of issues. Indeed, paragraph 47 of the report outlines them. It refers to:
"advising on the wording of the question; allocating funding, to campaign groups; liaising with and acting as moderator between any campaign groups; acting in an ombudsman rôle to deal with any complaints; monitoring balanced access to the broadcast media; providing public information, including a balance statement of the opposing arguments; supervising the organisation for each polling station; counting and declaration arrangements".
All of those matters could be dealt with by the commission. That is the first part of my argument.
The second part of my argument is that a generic Act would mean that guidance could be drawn up. Guideline No. 1 states:
"Guidance should be drawn up dealing with organisational, administrative and procedural matters associated with holding a referendum. Established guidelines should include fixed rules for some matters (for example, the organisation of the poll, the election machinery and the count). For other matters, on which it is impossible to determine rules in advance (for example. wording the question), the guidance should state how a decision should be reached".
It is not an elegant way to conduct a referendum if part of the argument here and in another place relates to what the question should be. Having sat through the arguments on why there should be two questions in the referendum Bill relating to Scotland which the Government advanced against amendments which some of us tabled to provide that there should be only one question, it was most interesting to listen to the Government turning that argument on its head in relation to London. A commission could sort out just such issues. They would therefore no longer be matters of party argument on the Floor of the House with decisions having to be made in the Division Lobbies and, dare I say it, the Government being defeated. My suggestion would hugely help in any future referendums which the Government intend to hold.
I am not asking for such an electoral commission to be set up; I am using this amendment, as I used the same amendment in the summer, as a trigger to start the process. I am saying, "Let us have a commission that can inspect how the London referendum works. Let us have a commission that can look back at how the Scottish and Welsh referendums worked and then propose to government—and government can come to Parliament with—a generic Bill before we have the next referendum". I believe that that will be on the day that Tony and Gordon agree that we ought to join the single currency. I hope that we shall have a generic Act before then and that we shall not have to go through the same procedures then as today.
I turn now to my three other amendments. They would not need to be discussed if we had an Act such as I have suggested. Amendment No. 8 is straightforward. I raised the same argument last time and I received
366
assurances, but I am afraid that I shall have to raise the same points again and get assurances again that no public money will be paid to any organisation established to campaign for either side on the question and that no civil servants shall engage on the side of—I presume—the Government's case in any referendum. I received perfectly satisfactory reassurances from the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, last time and I hope that I shall receive such assurances this time, but if we had a generic Act, I would be saved asking the same questions every time.
The same point is made on broadcasting. Guideline No. 17 states:
"A balance should he maintained between the 'Yes' and 'No' viewpoints rather than between the different political parties. Broadcasters should be encouraged to provide a limited amount of airtime for setting out the arguments for each option in the referendum. The content of such broadcasts would be the responsibility of any formally recognised campaign organisations. In the absence of such organisations the Independent Commission should appoint production companies to produce such broadcasts. Party political broadcasts should not normally be transmitted during the referendum campaign".
I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could provide me with assurances in that regard.
In a contribution from the noble Baroness a few moments ago I noted that the Government had set in train a review of electoral procedures. I would be perfectly willing to withdraw my new clauses if I received an assurance from the Minister—normally, the Government are teased about reviews—that the whole subject would be seriously considered and that the Government intended to act upon it; otherwise, I have to say that the procrastinating reply that I received in August will not do this evening. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, these amendments address important issues about the conduct of the referendum. I hope to be able to reassure the House as to how we intend to proceed and make clear to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that these amendments are unnecessary. Amendment No. 4 seeks to establish an independent statutory commission which would monitor the conduct of the referendum and make recommendations as to the conduct of future referendums. I was not present for all of the prolonged discussions on the referendum Bills for Scotland and Wales, but I am well aware of the keen interest that the noble Lord has taken in these matters. I hope that he will not be too disappointed when he discovers that I shall not respond any more favourably to his amendment than did my noble friends at that time.
The noble Lord is right to anticipate that the Government cannot accept Amendment No. 4 because of some practical problems concerning the London referendum. An independent commission would need careful preparation: a clearly defined remit and so on. No doubt there would be pressure for inter-party consultation on its role. It would not be possible to have such arrangements in place in time for a referendum on 7th May. Any delay in the date of the referendum would lose the advantages of a combined poll, add about

367
£3 million to the costs and diminish the advantage in terms of turn-out both for the local elections and the referendum.
I should like to make clear that the Government's position does not depend simply on the issue of timing. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate does not need to be here to keep me in line on this matter. I totally agree with the stance that he took during Committee stage on the Scotland and Wales Acts that the Government see no need to set up such a commission. Each referendum is different. There are bound to be different arrangements appropriate to referendums of different scale. Current arrangements whereby Parliament makes specific provision for each referendum have served us well in Scotland and Wales and I believe will do so in London.
I do not agree with the noble Lord that his amendment would obviate the need for debate on specific issues. The prolonged debate on the wording of the question in this Bill shows that Parliament takes a keen interest in matters such as the wording of a proposition in a referendum. The answers to issues such as how many questions should be on a ballot paper or their wording will depend not on generalities but the issues in the particular referendum in question. It is quite right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider the legislation which provides for each referendum, to debate the detail and press the Government to explain their proposals. I do not believe that this amendment should be accepted.
I turn to the amendments relating to broadcasting. We believe that these are unnecessary given that all broadcasters are obliged by law to maintain due accuracy and impartiality in reporting any matters of political controversy or current public policy. I do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate in this Bill on this matter. To add further provision on top of the long standing general obligation or to give a new role to an independent commission would serve merely to muddy the waters. The broadcasters are answerable to their independent regulators and the courts for satisfactory compliance with their duty to maintain due accuracy and impartiality. I am confident that the existing framework of regulation will be quite adequate to ensure that impartiality is respected during this referendum campaign.
Amendment No. 10 would require the independent commission to monitor the publication and distribution of campaign material. Amendment No. 8 would prohibit the use of public funds to fund campaign organisations. We have made it absolutely clear that we do not intend to provide any state aid to campaign either for or against the proposal. I am happy to repeat that undertaking to the House today. We do not believe that it is feasible to try to identify umbrella campaign organisations as potential candidates for financial support. If people wish to oppose or campaign in favour of our proposals they are free to do so. But the Government will spend their money on ensuring that people are fully informed about the referendum so that they are able to exercise their right to vote. Government-funded publicity will be factual and neutral. A summary version of the White Paper will be distributed to every household and there will be other
368
initiatives to ensure that everyone in London is aware of the issues. Information about absent voting in particular will be integral to the campaign.
The creation of an independent commission is not necessary to ensure that the proposed referendum on the GLA is both fairly conducted and effective. Obviously, campaign material produced by organisations either pro or anti the proposition put by the Government will not be impartial. Provided that it is within the law—for example, that it is not obscene or libellous—its content is and should remain a matter for those who produce it. Moreover, I see no reason significantly to delay the holding of this referendum for which the people of London indicated their support at the general election when two important fair and successful referendums have already been conducted during the course of this Parliament.
We do not believe therefore that these amendments are necessary. We have made our position quite clear on questions of campaign funding and will follow the precedent set in Scotland and Wales.
As far as concerns the specific issue of Civil Service conduct, the Cabinet Office will publish clear guidelines well in advance of the referendum. They will be based on the normal rules which apply to civil servants as respects political impartiality. Similar guidelines were in place in Scotland and Wales and I believe that they proved to be wholly sufficient for the task.
I hope that I have reassured the House that the provisions in place will ensure that the referendum is conducted in a fair and proper manner. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the assurances that she gave about the Civil Service, funding and broadcasting. I expected the assurances as I received them when we discussed the Scotland and Wales Bills. I am grateful to her for giving them to me on this Bill.
However, I am not nearly so happy with the answer provided by the noble Baroness to Amendment No. 4. In my original contribution I said that the Government had had since last August to prepare for an independent statutory commission if that was what they agreed to. It seems perfectly clear—perhaps a little clearer from the reply of the noble Baroness than in August—that the Government have no sympathy with the idea of either an independent statutory commission for referendums or a generic referendums Act. I believe that an Act would be helpful. Of course, for each referendum a piece of primary legislation would be needed, but it would be a small piece of primary legislation that simply slotted into the generic Act. That Act would govern all other issues that the orders govern under the Representation of the People Act. The argument of the noble Baroness could be applied to the Representation of the People Act. Each time there was a general election another series of rules could be brought forward. We have not gone down that road, but have used a more sensible method.
I am not always, although frequently, persuaded by my own arguments, but on this occasion I am persuaded by the arguments in the report of the commission. The more

369
I read them the more persuasive I believe they are. I shall not be put off quite as readily as I was in August. I shall demonstrate my seriousness about this matter by asking for the opinion of the House. Whatever the outcome, next time the Government propose a referendum I sincerely hope that they will between now and then take the kind of steps that the commission has proposed. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 116.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Bowness, L.

Kenyon, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Burnham, L.[Teller]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carnock, L.

Marlesford, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Coleraine, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Milverton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Moson, L.

Donegall, M.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Feldman, L.

Naseby, L.

Granard, E.

Ryder of Wensum, L

Halsbury, E.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

Harding of Petherton. L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Sudeley, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Tugendhant,L

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Addington, L.

Hamwee, B

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hardie, L.

Amos, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Haskel, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hattersley, B.

Barnett, L.

Hayman, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hollick, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Borrie, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hughes, L.

Burlison, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Carter, L.[Teller.]

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

David, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Jeger, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Desai, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Dholakia, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Diamond, L.

Levy, L.

Donoughue, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Longford, E.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ludford, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Fitt, L.

Gallacher, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Gilbert, L.

McNair, L.

Goodhart, L.

McNally, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Maddock, B.

370

Mallalieu, B.

Russell, E.

Meston, L.

Serota, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Sewel, L.

Mishcon, L.

Simon, V.

Molloy, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Monkswell, L.

Stallard, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Nicol, B.

Taverne, L.

Peston, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Thomas Of Macclesfield, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Tope, L.

Puttnam, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Razzall, L.

Watson of Invergowire, L.

Rea, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Whitty, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Richard, L.[Lord Prily Seal.]

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Winchilsea and Notingham, E.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.20 p.m.
Clause 6 [Exclusion of legal proceedings]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 11, at end insert ("except in circumstances where different guidance has been received by the counting officers in one or more areas on the conduct of the count").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. The amendments relate to Clause 6 which provides:
"No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the number of ballot papers counted or votes cast as certified by the Chief Accounting Officer".
The clause was contained in the Scotland and Wales legislation. My noble and learned friend and fellow clansman Lord Mackay of Drumadoon probed the Government on this point. We received what at the time was a satisfactory reply from the Lord Advocate.
Noble Lords: What has changed?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the change is that with the Welsh referendum some serious problems arose. They did not arise on the "No" side; they arose on the "Yes" side. The matter was drawn to our attention by no less an organisation than the Caerphilly Constituency Labour Party, which expressed some concern—I have to say in total privacy—and sent letters which, unfortunately, winged their way outside the sacred walls of the Caerphilly Constituency Labour Party to people such as me.
The letter from the secretary, Mr. Lamb, indicates a number of concerns that the constituency Labour Party had about the conduct of the count. The clause relates to the conduct of the count. There were a number of problems. It was concerned, for example, about the information it was given; about where the ballot boxes

371
came from; about the list; and about the way the count was conducted. Although the letter does not say it, I understand from other papers it was concerned that it could not see the official mark.
I suggested in August, in order to be helpful to the Government, that I thought the day of official marks was over and done with. The Government told me that it was not and that they were important. So, they were important. The scrutineer should have been able to see them. The whole question of who were the scrutineers and whether there were enough of them was part and parcel of the same problem.
The Caerphilly Constituency Labour Party was in the difficult position of having that concern in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Wales. It recognised that and its letter stated:
"Of paramount importance was the fact that the implication of what in our view contravened the Representation of the People Act 1949, 1969 and 1983, and the Referendum Act should not become a formal issue because of our MP's position as Secretary of State for Wales. Ultimately the buck stops at the Welsh Office, and we realise that politically we have to be extremely careful because of Ron's position there".
I appreciate its concern for "Ron's position", but the issues it raised were important: the number of polling agents; the boxes and verification not being announced; the counting officer would not allow polling agents to know which were "Yes" and which were "No" allocations; the design of the ballot paper made it almost impossible for polling agents to see official frank marks, to the extent that even the top paper was invariably covered by a counting officer's hand; some supervisors allowed their counting assistants to count haphazardly, with ballot papers being turned face down, upside down—particularly regarding potential spoils—no announcement of the count proper being started in part was made; polling agents were not allowed to check the final bundles; and there was inordinate delay in announcing the result. Out of 145 boxes, after the first 50 boxes or so had been counted, five out of a total of 10 teams were taken off verification, thus prolonging the count.
I do not want to prolong my remarks, but those matters are all of concern. The biggest concern was that doubts arose that evening about how to count papers which were not marked with a cross. It was easy enough when in answer to:
"Do you agree that there should be a Welsh Assembly?"
people put "Yes" or "No"instead of a cross. That was clear. The problem arose with "I do not agree" with the answer "Yes" or "No", because there was a double negative. There was some doubt about that.
During the course of the count the officers in that counting station asked for and received advice about what to do. It was advice which was not transmitted to everyone judging at all the counts throughout Wales. That is a serious point, which is why I tabled Amendment No. 5 which provides that one should not be able to go to court unless:
"different guidance has been received by the counting officers in one or more areas on the conduct of the count".
372
Amendment No. 6 relates to observers admitted to the count not receiving full access. If the Caerphilly Labour Party had not been in the embarrassing position of having the Secretary of State for Wales as its MP—it is doubly embarrassing because that portion of the Welsh Labour Parzty seems to have been in favour of the "Yes" vote—I suspect that the matter might have been taken further. It could not have been taken any further because of the clause in the Scotland and Wales legislation.
I am concerned that if something like that arose with the London referendum, no one aggrieved who believed that there was a legitimate point to be made would have recourse to the courts if your Lordships pass the clause unamended. With that explanation of why I tabled the amendments—as a fall-back—I suggest leaving out the clause altogether so that people could challenge in the courts on any grounds, not just the two I exempt. I beg to move.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I hope that I shall be able to establish that the concerns of the noble Lord. Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, are misplaced. As he pointed out, the purpose of Clause 6 is the same as that of an identical clause in the Referendum Act 1975, the Scotland and Wales Act 1978 and the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997. The aim of the provision is to ensure that the Government can respond without delay to referendum results.
As my noble friend Lady Hayman explained in Committee, the clause is designed to prevent any, save serious, challenges to the certification of votes or ballot papers under the Bill. Any challenge which was to be made in court would be time-consuming. So long as there was an application before the court, there would be considerable doubt about the fate of the legislation establishing the GLA. In effect, the position would be politically frozen until such a court challenge were brought to an end. The provision is designed to exclude all, save serious, challenges to the certification of votes or ballot papers under the Bill.
We recognise that the clause does not prevent all possibility of legal challenge in connection with the certification of referendum votes. The courts are rightly jealous of their jurisdiction, and look carefully at provisions which seek to oust their jurisdiction. There is a substantial body of case law, including an important decision of this House in its judicial capacity, concerning the proper interpretation of such statutory provisions.
Should any legal proceedings be brought challenging the certificates of the chief counting officer, or a counting officer, it would be for the courts to decide, having regard to the case law and the particular circumstances of the case, whether a challenge could be entertained in the light of Clause 6. A balance is being struck between the clause stopping challenges which are not serious, but with the court having power to investigate those challenges which might be serious.
I have taken some trouble to explain what the clause means, because I can see that, on the face of it, its terms are all-embracing. It may be helpful if I remind your

373
Lordships that there is a presumption that Parliament legislates in the full knowledge of the existing state of the law. Clear and express provision would be needed in an enactment to over-rule the effect of the case law to which I have just referred.
It is therefore within the conventions for a well-precedented clause such as this one to be enacted in the knowledge that it is not the end of the matter. Like all other similar provisions, it is subject to the construction of the courts and the intervention of the courts in those cases that the courts think are serious enough.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, appeared to suggest that he was satisfied with the answers that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate had given to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, because he introduced the amendments on the basis that things have changed because of the position in Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, identified a number of matters which he said gave cause for concern. The most important one that he identified being advice given on how to deal with something other than a cross in relation to those who wanted to vote "No".
The position, as the Secretary of State said, is that there were 22 counting areas in Wales. In relation to the problem of a cross rather than a "No" or a "No" rather than a cross—I cannot remember which—the chief counting officer gave advice which was disseminated to 20 out of 22 areas on the night. In respect of those two areas where it was not disseminated there may have been a few hundred "no" votes which were not recorded in accordance with the advice given by the chief counting officer. It would not therefore have affected the result. Moreover, it would have been most unsettling for there to be a court challenge that would have not made any difference.
In my respectful submission that is a very good example of why one needs a clause like this. If there are more serious complaints about the conduct of the Welsh referendum, the Scottish referendum or any other referendum, including this one, to which this clause applies then, as I have made clear, this clause would not prevent the courts considering whether or not such a challenge should be considered by those courts. I believe it is a sensible balance, I believe it permits the matter to be dealt with quickly and efficiently but gives the court a residual jurisdiction in relation to serious cases.
Perhaps I may turn to the particular amendments proposed and deal with them very briefly. First, with Amendment No. 5 the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, seeks to insert the words,
"except in circumstances where different guidance has been received by the counting officers in one or more areas on the conduct of the count".
That, in my respectful submission, is an ill-conceived suggestion for an amendment. The effect of it will be to make the courts consider that the only circumstances in which they can intervene is where different guidance has been received by the counting
374
officers in one or more areas. On the basis of the speech the noble Lord made that is the last thing that he would want. Moreover there may well be good reasons in relation to the London count as to why different guidance should be given in one area as opposed to another.
I take just one example. The City of London. which is one of the areas for the poll in Greater London, will not be having local elections. It would therefore be sensible that different instructions or guidance be given there as to how the poll should be conducted in other areas where there will be local elections.
Having said that, I would say that it is my hope that the chief counting officer in the London referendum will issue guidance to counting officers well in advance of the count and that he will consult with experienced returning officers before doing so. Moreover, if we are talking about guidance aimed at ensuring consistency in the way in which doubtful ballot papers are to be judged, clearly I would hope that the guidance given will be the same for all boroughs.
More than that I cannot say without entering into matters which will, under this Bill, be the responsibility of the chief counting officer. But noble Lords can be reassured that we have the problems well in mind. It is on that basis that I urge the noble Lord to withdraw this first amendment.
As to the second amendment, the particular circumstance which he suggests should be an exception to Clause 6 is where observers admitted to the count have not received full access to scrutinise all aspects of the count as they are entitled to do under the Representation of the People Act. The aim expressed in this is an aim with which I am fully in agreement. We have provided in the draft secondary legislation currently available in the Library of the House for the appointment of observers to scrutinise both the poll and the count. We have already included in it a provision which is absent from previous referendum legislation enabling counting observers to be present at the dispatch and receipt of postal ballot papers. They will, of course, also be present at the count itself and, in general, all those things which are normally required to be done in the presence of counting agents at an election are, at the referendum, to be done in the presence of these specially appointed counting observers.
Again, however, inserting the exception, will have the effect of limiting the effects of the circumstances in which the court would intervene to those referred to in the exception rather than to those cases which the court itself determines are sufficiently serious to justify intervention.
There are three short points in relation to the appointment of observers. First, if organisations campaigning for a particular referendum outcome want to have counting observers they must invite the counting officer to appoint their representatives. I understand that in some cases organisations in Wales failed to respond to counting officers' requests for nominations with the result that they were not

375
represented. Therefore, it is for each campaign side to ensure that they have made the request to the counting officer to have representatives present.
Secondly, in view of the terms of the proposed amendment, it seems to me worth reminding your Lordships that there is nothing even in ordinary election law which says that every counting agent has the right to observe everything. Electoral legislation says that counting agents are entitled to attend the count which should be arranged so that they have all reasonable facilities to observe the proceedings and that certain things must be done in their presence if they have attended for that purpose.
The present clause is only apparently an all-embracing exclusion of legal proceedings. For the reasons I have indicated Amendments 5 and 6, far from having the effect of extending the circumstances in which the court can intervene, will, I believe, limit them.
Finally, if what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, described as his fall-back position were adopted—namely, to leave out Clause 6 altogether—there would not be the balance between preventing non-serious applications, but on the other hand leaving the court with a residual discretion. I therefore ask whether, upon reflection, the noble Lord will consider withdrawing all three amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his detailed reply. I have listened to it with great care and I can divide it into two parts: one part is the same reply we received from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in August, which satisfied us at the time, that the courts would still have a role in certain circumstances. I am pleased to have a repeat of that assurance. On the second part, which really arose from the problems in Caerphilly, it has been useful to have on record what really ought to have been done. I hope that similar problems will not happen for any local Labour parties in London at the referendum on London.
In trying to keep my remarks short I omitted to say that another of the complaints was that the observers were not allowed into the postal vote part. I was therefore delighted with the assurance from the noble and learned Lord that it would be clear that observers will be able to attend the postal vote, sending out and opening, as they do at General Elections. I thank the noble and learned Lord for that assurance.
It is an interesting point. The noble and learned Lord suggested to me that in Wales it would not have made any difference. I do not think that is the point. These things cannot be done by looking backwards. Nobody knew that it would make no difference. Indeed, a lot of the problems in Caerphilly arose
376
because the local Member of Parliament, the Secretary of State, declared that it was the 6,000 majority in Caerphilly that actualy delivered the "yes" vote for his party in Wales by a margin of 6,700. How he actually knew that that was the case is quite hard to decide, given the fact that it was a bigger area. But never mind; he said that.
I know that I will be accused of being theoretical but let us assume for a moment that it had been even closer in Wales. Than I think the importance of the points made by the local Labour party there are underlined. There should not be any doubt about the result. It is interesting that the story started in a Scottish newspaper. I suspect that the Welsh newspapers did not want to touch it for a variety of reasons. However, when the Scotsman started the story, it raised very serious issues which deserved to be aired both in the press and in your Lordships' House.
The noble and learned Lord will be pleased to hear that I accept his assurances. I hope that the words which he spoke on the two specific issues will be heeded. I am grateful to him for his remarks about postal votes. I am persuaded by the noble and learned Lord's argument about the general principle and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 10 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Functions of the Local Government Commission]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 26. at end insert ("and
( ) specifying the electoral systems for the purposes of the election of members of any assembly and of any separately elected mayor established following the referendum held by virtue of Part I").
The noble Baroness said: I return to the issue of the electoral systems to be used in the elections, if there are to be elections, following the referendum.
At the last stage, we approached this matter in the context of the powers of the Local Government Commission and my noble friend and I realised that we had concentrated particularly on the systems to be used for the election of members of the assembly. I shall use this occasion to put on record our concerns about ensuring the fairest systems, both for the election of the assembly members and also for the directly-elected mayor, if there is to be one.
It may be that the Minister will tell me that since the direction to be given under Clause 7 will specify the number of electoral areas and the number of members, that direction cannot be given unless full consideration has been given to the electoral system to be applied. The need to reflect the size, cultural diversity and general differences across London needs to be recognised and I believe that a proportional system argues for quite large constituencies in order that that proportionality can be reflected.
For example, if the constituencies for the London authority are based on two or three boroughs, there would be problems of fairness because of the different sizes of the London boroughs. I do not choose the

377
example of a constituency coterminous with any London borough because I believe that the Government have ruled that out.
As regards the mayor, it is important that voters are able to express their full preferences; in other words, to go on voting until they have exhausted their preferences. That may mean voting all the way down a list of eight or 10 candidates. As I have observed before, among other things, it gives one the opportunity to register who is one's least favourite candidate by putting him at the bottom of the list.
More important, a fully preferential system allows everyone to have the opportunity to vote for the winner and to generate something of a feeling of ownership of the result. Even if one's preference for the eventual winner is half way down the list, one has, at least to some extent, signed up to that candidate.
In addition, it does not require the voter to make any tactical decisions. Genuine preferences can be expressed all the way down the list.
If the voting system is first-past-the-post, to which we are all so accustomed, it will be entirely possible, given the large number of candidates, for the winner to have the support of a very low proportion of electors. That would be an undesirable outcome. The system to which some people have pointed which is in between, known as the supplementary vote, allows, as I understand it, only two choices. Of course that is a little fairer. It allows a little more expression of preference. But it is more complicated than simply voting one's way down a list. It means that one cannot put one's least favourite candidate at the bottom. It means that one must exclude all but two of the candidates in voting. If the position is that there are two clear favourites in the campaign, voters will have to guess which of those two is most likely to do well; in other words, such a system would not achieve the involvement of electors in the way that other systems may do. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has returned to the discussion which we had in Committee on the basis that the Local Government Commission should be able to make recommendations on the electoral systems to be used both for the mayor and for the assembly. I accept her point that we dealt mainly with electoral systems for the assembly at an earlier stage and that the argument applies to both.
Perhaps I may take the opportunity to restate why the Government find unacceptable the argument that the commission should have that responsibility. I understand very clearly that the noble Baroness and her party feel strongly about electoral systems. She made those views clear in proposing the amendment today. The Government do not dispute that that is a crucial issue for the assembly and the mayor. In fact, in the Green Paper New Leadership for London, we asked seven separate questions about electoral systems and we are now spending considerable time and effort analysing consultation responses to that Green Paper.
378
We shall set out in the White Paper proposals, after looking at the results of the consultation, as to how the mayor and assembly should be elected. I suggest to the House that the results of that consultation, the details of the electoral system, will be a vital piece of the jigsaw which adds up to people's understanding of the proposition put forward in the referendum.
But this amendment would devolve important questions of policy to the Local Government Commission, asking it to consider issues which are far beyond its remit. The commission is an independent body which advises on boundary issues. There is no case for asking that commission to make recommendations on how the mayor or members of the assembly should he elected. We have said that we shall set out clear proposals on how the election should be conducted, and that quite rightly, the commission will then be asked to provide expert and independent advice on the technical framework necessary to put that policy into practice. That is the right way round. The commission should not be asked to make recommendations beyond its remit on policy issues.
As I said to the House at an earlier stage, such amendments would make it nearly impossible to write the White Paper. If the commission were to be asked to make recommendations, presumably it would not be acceptable for the Government to pre-empt those recommendations by publishing their own proposals on electoral systems in the White Paper. In turn, that would reduce clarity and certainty as to the basis for the new assembly.
In that case, the people of London would be forced to vote in the referendum without having a clear idea about how the mayor and assembly would be elected. That is not good for democratic choice and I do not believe that it is good for informing clearly and specifically on the Government's proposals.
How the mayor and assembly will be elected are very important issues. I do not dispute that for a moment. However, we believe that they are integral to people having a clear understanding of the proposals which we are putting before them. Therefore, I do not believe that there is a case for asking the Local Government Commission to make recommendations on electoral systems. Such central policy should and will be addressed in the White Paper. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. Of course, I accept the difficulties inherent in the amendment as put forward. The noble Baroness has indicated her understanding of our desire to get on record our concerns about the election of the mayor, as well as the assembly with which we dealt last time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In the Schedule:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, leave out lines 3 to 7 and insert—
("The Government propose the establishment of a Greater London Authority made up of an elected assembly and a separately elected mayor, both to be elected by Londoners.
Question I: Are you in favour of an elected assembly?
Put a cross (X) in one box:

YES⁭

NO⁭

Question 2: Are you in favour of an elected mayor?
Put a cross (X) in one box:

YES⁭

NO⁭")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Human Rights Bill [H.L.]
6.50 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend while he is on his feet. However, I wish to draw attention to the time at which we are starting to debate again this important measure. It is ten minutes to seven o'clock in the evening. We had a full day of deliberations on the first day of the Report stage and the proceedings went on until midnight. At that time we covered 31 amendments. Even allowing for those amendments which are marked on the groupings list as having been previously debated, which is not entirely accurate, there are certainly 33 more amendments to consider this evening.
It is quite inappropriate for us to start on such deliberations at this hour. No more important measure is likely to be before your Lordships' House this Session. At the beginning of the last Parliament we repeatedly sat very late hours. However, after repeated protests, the Rippon Committee. which studied the sitting hours of the House, reported on the matter. After that, the then government loyally abided by those recommendations. But we are now right back to pre-Rippon days in the conduct of this Bill; indeed, that committee might just as well not have reported. I endeavour to protest at our being asked to consider the Bill in this way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, one day was originally set down for consideration of the
380
Bill on Report. It was anticipated that that would be quite sufficient. As it happens, a number of us present in the Chamber today remember that our discussions and deliberations on Report took rather a long time and, therefore, a second day was provided by agreement between the usual channels. We do not believe it to be unreasonable to get on with the Bill. Indeed, many of the issues, if not flogged to death, have at least been carefully examined on a number of previous occasions. As I said, we do not believe it to be unreasonable to get on with the proceedings at ten minutes to seven on a bright evening.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I support the sentiments behind the noble and learned Lord's submission. Undoubtedly constitutional Bills of this nature bring forward unexpected problems of considerable difficulty; indeed, we encountered that situation on the first day of the Report stage. Therefore, while I truly appreciate the Minister's wish to get on with the Bill, I hope that he will take to heart the observations that have been made.
I anticipate that many unexpected problems may arise, which will take much longer to debate than originally envisaged, during the course of our consideration of other Bills which come before your Lordships' House this Session. I am sure we all agree that it is thoroughly undesirable to be discussing at midnight constitutional reform of such importance, as was the case on the previous day of the Report stage.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I believe that the Third Reading of the Bill is scheduled for 5th February. Moreover, on the same day, the Third Reading of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill will also take place. On that occasion, could we not come before the latter Bill on the Order Paper so that we can get a clear start?
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may also intervene from these Benches. In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, my understanding—and this is subject to discussions between the usual channels—is that it is the intention next week that this Bill will be dealt with before the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, which preceded us today.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, obviously we could spend a great deal of time discussing how much time we should spend on the legislation and complaining about the lateness of the hour. However, that would not be profitable. I understand the Government's problems in handling their business and, indeed, I have sympathy with them in that respect.
It is because the Report stage took so long last time that we are here again this evening. It was because the House was so thinly attended on the last occasion—as, indeed, is the case this evening—that I did not move an important amendment on proceedings, but indicated that I would do so on Third Reading. It is for the same reason that I have given advance notice that I shall not

381
be moving an important amendment tonight about the human rights commissioner but, again, will do so on Third Reading.
I realise that Third Reading is not normally the occasion to do so, but it seemed to me to be the best way of reconciling the need to get business through with the need for a full debate on important issues. I believe that to be a satisfactory outcome, even though I realise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will continue to be unhappy about the situation for quite understandable reasons.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall respond as briefly as I can. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester; namely, that the longer we spend discussing the timetable the longer the time taken will in fact be. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and also that made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Such matters will be discussed by the usual channels. If we were by some happy chance to go before the London matter next Thursday 5th February—my birthday—then I would be able to bear it with some fortitude.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 7 [Proceedings]:
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Judicial remedies]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 5, line 11. at end insert ("to give full and effective protection to Convention rights").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in the immortal words of my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who I am sorry to see is not in his place in the Chamber, I can deal with my amendment very shortly. I do not do so because of the way that it has been referred to in the groupings list today, because it is quite wrongly described as already having been debated. I had a discussion with the usual channels about the matter well before lunch and persuaded them that it was wrong. I have confirmed with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been informed that this amendment will be moved; indeed, it had not been moved previously.
Your Lordships will recall earlier attempts to amend Clause 1 so as to make specific reference to Article 13 of the convention which reads:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity".
Your Lordships will also recall that, when the matter was raised originally in Committee on 18th November, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that the provision gives effect,
"to Article 13 by establishing a scheme under which convention rights can he raised before our domestic courts. To that end, remedies are provided in Clause 8. If the concern is to ensure that the Bill provides an exhaustive code of remedies for those whose convention rights have been violated, we believe that Clause 8 already achieves that and that nothing further is needed".—[Official Report. 18/11/97; col. 475.]
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor then added, also at col. 475, that if Article 13 were mentioned,
"The courts would be hound to ask themselves what was intended beyond the existing scheme of remedies set out in the Bill".
When the matter came before your Lordships on 19th January at Report stage my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said,
"Our objection is that the amendments add nothing to the scheme in the Bill. On the contrary, the only effect they could have is to disturb the carefully crafted structure of the Bill in some unforeseen way. I do not know what the courts would make of amendments which, on the face of it, contain nothing new. I therefore suggest that the amendments would either cause confusion or uncertainty".— [Official Report, 19/1/98; col. 1266.]
One thing which my amendment will not do is to cause confusion or uncertainty because in order to make assurance doubly sure it adds the words of the amendment to Clause 8 of the Bill. It therefore does no violence of any kind to the Bill as it stands. It makes it perfectly clear that all one is seeking to do is to ensure that the words,
"to give full and effective protection to Convention rights"
get rid of any doubt as to the overall cover of the Bill.
I appreciate that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor takes the view that this is unnecessary and that it is surplusage. I refer him to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said when the matter was before your Lordships on Report on 19th January, in particular at cols. 1267 and 1268 of the Official Report; namely, that there are occasions when additions put in for the abundance of caution pay off. He referred to the Judicature Act of 1875 which was concerned with divergences between rules of equity and rules of common law, and how a clause in that measure managed to cope with an unexpected problem which arose. The noble and learned Lord on that occasion also quoted Cromwell:
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, [to consider that] you may be mistaken".
That is all this comes to. I seek my noble and learned friend's generosity in making sure, out of the abundance of caution, that the anxieties which have been expressed at the omission of any reference to Article 13 can be put happily to rest. That cannot cause any ambiguity or give rise to any difficulty or confusion. It is as short and as simple as that. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, it may be for your Lordships' convenience if I try to summarise the story so far, supplementing the account explained so clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The starting point is that the White Paper indicated, in the Prime Minister's preface and in the body of the White Paper, that the purpose of the Bill was to incorporate the convention into domestic law and to create effective remedies for breaches of convention rights. The problem was that when the Bill was drafted neither the Long Title nor any provision of the Bill stated that purpose, so there was a mismatch from the start between the White Paper and the text of the Bill.

383
A further problem was, and is, that, on the face of it, Clause 1(1)(a) gives the impression that Parliament is innumerate and illiterate in terms of the law of the convention by inviting us to count from two to 12 and 12 to 14, omitting Article 13 altogether, even though we know that Article 13 creates a substantive right which has to be complied with by all the public authorities of the United Kingdom, including the courts. The problem is then aggravated by the fact that although. Clause 8—with which this amendment is concerned—gives ample powers to the court to grant just and appropriate remedies there is still no link with Article 13 of the convention. Various attempts have been made to create that link. Notwithstanding the assurances that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given in previous debates which are, as it were, Pepper v. Hart assurances, it is essential that our courts should be able to continue to do what they have already been doing in developing the common law and in interpreting statutory discretion.
As I explained earlier, in libel cases the Court of Appeal has at least twice referred to Article 13, and the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House has done the same in ex parte Khan. It would be most unfortunate if the deliberate exclusion of Article 13 in Clause 1(1)(a) were to be construed as intended to cut down the power of our courts to have regard to Article 13 as well as to the other substantive provisions of the convention. That is why it seems to me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with his skill and elegance has, as always, produced a formula which, without mentioning Article 13, creates a necessary link between the domestic obligation to give a remedy and the convention obligation that there should be an effective remedy. I cannot see that that can do any harm at all, and nor did the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicate that it would on the previous occasion that this was discussed. It would clear up once and for all the problem I have attempted to summarise. For that reason I support the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I still hanker after the inclusion of Article 13 because I think its omission might well have a disproportionate effect on a court of interpretation. They might well say, "Why is Article 13 exceptionally not specified in the schedule?" It is rather like when a child loses its milk teeth. Until the tooth is replaced, every eye is drawn to the gap. That might well be the effect of the lacuna.
However, my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has skilfully gone a long way to mitigating any adverse effect by his amendment. I wish to add only this. Between the two days of Report, there has been an important occurrence. A leading constitutional lawyer—none is more eminent than Mr. Geoffrey Marshall—has written to The Times and drawn attention to two matters in which the Bill is defective. One is the absence of Article 13; and the other is the refusal to reinforce and to nominate in the Bill the doctrine of implied repeal, both of which matters were canvassed on the last occasion. Mr. Marshall seemed to think that those
384
matters can now be put right only when the Bill goes to another place. He may be right on that. He is probably right as regards implied repeal because I do not think that I shall be entitled to put that down for discussion again at Third Reading.
However, if my noble and learned friend's amendment is accepted, the matter may be reconsidered at Third Reading. What he proposes can only do good: it cannot possibly do any harm. But it may be thought preferable to go back expressly to Article 13 in view of what I have just said.
In view of what Mr. Marshall wrote and what has been said by the two noble Lords who preceded me, I hope that the amendment may be accepted.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have already had a full argument on this proposed amendment. Clause 8(1) provides that,
"In relation to any act (or proposed act) of a public authority which the court finds is (or would be) unlawful, it may grant such relief or remedy, or make such order, within its jurisdiction as it considers just and appropriate".
In my respectful view, that gives the courts the amplest discretion. I am not persuaded by an argument which proposes an amendment on the basis that it may well be unnecessary but where no specific argument is advanced as to how it may do some positive good. In my view that is likely to be productive only of uncertainty. I therefore oppose the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I do not know from where my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gets the proposition that we have already had full argument on this issue. We have had no such thing. At Committee stage, when the Lord Chancellor criticised the suggestion that Article 13 should be referred to, I intervened before he sat down and said that perhaps the whole problem may be solved by adding at the end of Clause 8(1) the very words that are the subject matter of the amendment. Your Lordships said that if one wishes to do that one raises it on Report. That is exactly what I have done. I have raised it on Report. The matter was not referred to by way of any argument when we were on Report a few days ago. I reserved the matter specifically saying that it was a matter which I would move at a later stage.
It rather looks as though my submissions have fallen on totally deaf ears because your Lordships thought that it had already been dealt with. It had not. If I am wrong, I shall be happily interrupted to be corrected. The matter has not been argued before.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord says. The amendment was originally grouped with Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 70, the purpose of which was to include Article 13 in the convention rights. Your Lordships debated that set of amendments on 19th January when I explained the Government's position: that the Bill provides a coherent and effective scheme for providing remedies and that nothing was to be gained by adding Article 13 to the list of convention rights.

385
All I was saying was that in principle we have effectively debated these points. But there is nothing inappropriate, and the noble and learned Lord is well within his entitlement, in putting down the amendment for consideration now. I entirely appreciate that the amendment is to insert into Clause 8(1) a statement that the remedies granted by the courts are to be such as to give full and effective protection to convention rights.
The key point is this. Given the wealth of remedies available to a court under Clause 8(1), nothing further is needed, in the Government's judgment. We are confident that Clause 8 will allow the courts to do full justice in the cases that come before them. I repeat that it is noteworthy that on the several occasions that we have now debated this general issue, no one has been able to point to any particular deficiency within Clause 8(1).
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Will he deal with the point I raised: that our courts have already expressly had regard to Article 13 of the convention?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the convention that once the mover of the Motion has spoken at Report any further interruptions are purely on matters of detail.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am just finishing my reply because I had invited the noble and learned Lord to interrupt me if I had got the position wrong.
I clearly have not. I said in terms on the last occasion that I should be moving the matter at a later stage notwithstanding the groupings. The groupings were not accepted by me. In fact I had asked, but it was overlooked, that the amendment be grouped separately. The matter has not been argued.
The Lord Chancellor has not answered the point I seek to make. It is that whereas the amendments to Clause I were, so he said, amendments which could cause confusion or uncertainty, what I propose now would do no such thing. It would make clarity doubly clear. Therefore the objection to the amendments to Clause 1 has absolutely no relevance to the amendments I put forward. That is why I had hoped that that particular point would be addressed; it cannot be in the same category as the amendments to Clause 1. That is why I did not move this amendment with those amendments.
I do not know whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would like to deal with that point. But if he does not, then it merely means that my argument has not been properly addressed. I cannot accuse the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of a lack of generosity of spirit. When it comes to later amendments concerning judicial pensions, he has been very generous. All I can say is that I am sorry that that admirable feature of his character has not shone forth at an early stage in this particular debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 5, line 26, after ("account") insert (", but need not he limited by,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment raises an issue in relation to Clause 8(4) of the Bill. It arises out of a matter suggested to me by the Law Society of Scotland. The Society also gave notice of the matter to the Government. The amendment seeks to probe the issue as to whether or not, in exercising the power to award damages under Clause 8(4), a court in the United Kingdom would in any sense be limited to the principles applied by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the award of compensation under Article 41 of the Convention.
Those of us who have from time to time considered and been involved in cases involving the European Court of Human Rights sometimes take the view that, in instances where compensation is awarded, the awards are of a fairly modest nature, and had the applicant been able to prosecute a right in the British courts under the common law for some breach of statute for a similar wrong or injury, the damages that he or she would have received, if successful, would in all probability have been somewhat larger—in some instances significantly larger—than the levels of compensation assessed by the European Court of Human Rights.
I fully accept that the words in subsection (4), "must take into account", could be construed as being such that the courts need not be limited by the principles applied. It is to probe and seek the Government's assurance that no such limitation is intended that I move this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, if I thought that the Government's intention was that the words, "must take into account", in Clause 8(4) were to be given a different meaning from the words, "must take into account", in Clause 2(1) in relation to the Strasbourg jurisprudence, I would certainly support this amendment. It would be quite wrong to fetter or clog the discretion of the English, Scottish and Northern Ireland courts in deciding upon the appropriate principles for the award of compensation for what is really to be a new form of public law tort; that is to say, a breach by a public authority of a convention right. It would be absurd, if, for example, domestic law concepts such as that of exemplary damages in an appropriate case, which is not a concept that has been developed by the European court, were to be excluded. It would be absurd if our courts were not able, in developing the common law, to stick to our own principles.
On the other hand, I support the way in which the clause as it stands is put. I look forward eagerly to the Minister's explanations. As I understand it, what is envisaged is that guidance should be given as to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to what is now called Article 41 of the convention, previously Article 50, in giving just satisfaction.
What I like about that case law is that it is fairly mean. In a routine case, the Strasbourg court does not award massive damages. It is quite right that the courts

387
should be guided by that mean spirit. This Bill could be destroyed in practice if there were excessive damages awards. Therefore, it seems to me to be well calibrated. The courts "must take into account" that austere case law, but they are not restricted in a gross case where, for example, a person under colour of law deliberately and wickedly tortures somebody or inflicts upon him or her some other barbaric practice in breach of Convention rights and in a context where the Strasbourg court may not even have dealt with such a case. In that case, it is quite right that our courts should be free to use their well-known principles for the award of damages in common law cases. If my understanding is correct, then I should be opposed to this amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is very important to note in discussing this amendment, and indeed any matter to do with Clause 8, that we are not dealing with any conflict of law between European Convention law and our own substantive law, whether primary or secondary. That matter was dealt with under Clause 4, under the rubric, "Declaration of incompatibility". Here, we are dealing simply with the power of the court to award damages. In that connection we should bear in mind not only the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, but also the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in amplifying the argument.
A factor which neither of them mentioned, although they may have had it in mind, is this. There is such a thing as inflation, or at least changes in the value of money. In awarding damages, our courts would be neglecting their duty if they failed to bear that point in mind when fixing an amount of damages. I therefore see this amendment as doing no harm; indeed, it is essential.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I find this amendment somewhat surprising. In connection with Clause 2, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, put down an amendment which stated that in determining a question which has arisen under this Bill, a court,
"shall he hound by any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights."
The words he sought to replace—"must take into account"—were apparently not strong enough for the noble Lord's liking.
But in Clause 8, the wording of subsection (4) is consistent with that used in Clause 2; namely, that in determining whether to award damages, or the amount of an award, a court "must take into account" the principles applied by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the award of compensation. On this occasion, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, would appear to find that phrase too restrictive, and that the courts are to be enjoined not to be limited by the principles of the European Court.
I have no hesitation in advising your Lordships that the similar expressions in two parts of the Bill will bear the same meaning. The intention of Clause 8 is that people should, so far as is possible, receive the same remedies from our domestic courts—albeit with much less delay—as they would receive if the case went to
388
Strasbourg. For that to happen, it is necessary that our courts should take into account the principles adopted by the European Court of Human Rights. I see no need for the added gloss that they "need not be limited by" such principles. As I explained when talking to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland's proposed amendment to Clause 2, the phrase, "take into account", allows the courts to use their discretion where appropriate in applying Strasbourg jurisprudence generally to cases before them. It would be unnecessary and confusing to have a different phrase in Clause 8 from that in Clause 2. It would suggest that the courts were to apply a different test in questions of damages, which is contrary to our intentions. In view of what I have said, I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. In tabling as in moving my amendment, I was indeed conscious of the terms of Clause 2 and the extensive debate we had about that matter at an earlier stage of the Bill. Nevertheless, it had struck others, as well as myself, that the matter was worth clarifying. The answer given certainly does that.
Quite how that squares with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, about exemplary damages I am less certain, particularly in view of the absence of such damages within the powers of the Scottish courts. They will be required to apply the provisions of Clause 8(4). So yet again we have an instance of how the Bill, which seeks to bring rights home to the United Kingdom, will end up having different results in different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom. However, I am grateful for the answer I have received and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Clause 9 [Acts of courts and tribunals]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 5. line 33, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 35 and insert ("a judicial act may he brought only—

(a) by exercising a right of appeal;

(b) on an application (in Scotland a petition) for judicial review; or

(c) in such other forum as may he prescribed by rules.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to government Amendments Nos. 35 and 36, it may be helpful if I also speak to Amendment No. 37 by the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
I am sorry that the noble Lord has been put to the trouble of tabling again on Report the amendment that he moved in Committee. We reached his amendment rather late on the second day of Committee and therefore had less time for discussion than I had hoped.
The noble Lord will now be aware that the Government have themselves tabled an amendment to this clause to provide an enforceable right to compensation for breaches of Article 5 by judicial acts. The noble Lord will see that this is a rather more

389
detailed amendment than his own, but I hope that he will accept that it makes the same provision as that which he is concerned to ensure.
May I explain the overall purpose and the detailed provisions of this amendment, because they are of some importance. It has two purposes. The first is to provide an enforceable right to compensation for breaches of Article 5 by judicial acts. The second is to preserve judicial immunity generally for judicial acts undertaken by judges, magistrates, tribunal members and court staff performing judicial functions or acting on behalf of the judge or on the instructions of the judge.
Noble Lords will remember that at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Meston, moved an amendment, identical to that which he has now put down on Report, to make explicit provision for the requirement of Article 5(5) that everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of Article 5 shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
I indicated at Committee stage that the Government were alive to the need to make appropriate provision for the Article 5(5) requirement and that we were considering how best to give effect to this obligation in relation to judicial acts of courts and tribunals. The effect of Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill is that there is an enforceable right to compensation in relation to public authorities generally. But special provisions are needed in relation to judicial acts of courts and tribunals.
Where a complaint is made that Article 5 has been breached as a result of a judicial act or omission it will be necessary first to establish whether the judicial act complained of was unlawful, then to rule on whether the aggrieved person is entitled to compensation under Article 5(5) and then to determine the amount of compensation. In determining those questions the court will take into account the Strasbourg jurisprudence on unlawful detention and on the award of damages, as required by Clauses 2 and 8 of the Bill.
Subsections (1) and (2) of the clause require that proceedings under Section 7(1)(a) in respect of a judicial act may be brought in three ways: by exercising a right of appeal; on an application for judicial review (or in Scotland a petition for judicial review) or in such other forum as may be prescribed by rules.
A finding that an inferior court has acted unlawfully will most commonly be reached in England and Wales by way of appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Divisional Court, or by an application by way of judicial review to the High Court. The higher court will then be able to reach a decision of unlawfulness and make an award of damages. Clause 8(2) will enable the courts, which already have power to award damages, to do so in proceedings under this Bill. However, in criminal proceedings in Scotland, if the High Court on appeal finds that some act of an inferior court has contravened the complainant's rights under Article 5(5) it would have no power to award damages. It would therefore be necessary for the amount of damages to be determined by the civil courts. The clause therefore enables proceedings to be brought in such other forum as may be prescribed by rules. The Court of Appeal in England, as a single entity, has the power to award damages.
390
Rules will provide as to whether the Criminal or Civil Division should hear compensation claims. Again, Clauses 9(1) and 7(2) provide the necessary powers to make rules.
Subsection (2) underlines that no new right to judicial review is being created. For example, a challenge to a decision of the Crown Court in a matter relating to a trial on indictment will be made on appeal since there cannot be judicial review in respect of trials on indictment.
Subsection (3) has two purposes. It restates the current position under common law and statutory rules that the Crown is not liable in respect of judicial acts and that judges and magistrates acting within their jurisdiction, or outside their jurisdiction if doing so in good faith, are immune from proceedings for damages. But it also makes provision that damages may be awarded to compensate a person to the extent required by Article 5(5) of the Convention in respect of a judicial act of a court.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has written me a most helpful letter in which he has indicated that he himself had thought of making clear in Clause 9 that existing personal immunity of judges and magistrates was preserved, but he had decided that it was probably unnecessary to do so. It is helpful to know that he had in mind the second purpose of the government amendment—that is, preserving judicial immunity—as well as the first of providing an enforceable right to compensation under Article 5(5).
I believe that now he has seen the draft of the Government's amendment to this clause, he will agree that it is helpful to spell out that judicial immunity is preserved, given the way the clause is now drafted.
Subsection (4) provides that an award of damages permitted by subsection (3) should be made against the Crown rather than against the judge personally. It also ensures that whichever Minister is responsible for the court or tribunal concerned is joined to the proceedings if not already a party. This is similar in effect to the provision of Clause 5 which provides that where a court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility, the Crown is entitled to notice and, on an application to the court, to be joined as the party to the proceedings. In practice, the Lord Chancellor will be the appropriate person in many cases concerning judges and magistrates, in England and Wales. In Scotland, the relevant Minister will usually be the Secretary of State. But there may be cases where the breach of the Article 5 provisions arises from a wholly proper judicial decision required by inconsistent legislation, primary or secondary legislation. In this case it would be helpful for the Minister responsible for the legislation to be joined. "Appropriate person" therefore allows me, or the Secretary of State for Scotland to nominate a person or government department.
The definitions in subsection (6) make it clear that judicial acts include acts undertaken by court officers performing judicial functions or acting on behalf of the judge or on the instructions of the judge.
At present, this clause refers both to a "judicial act", in subsection (1) and to a "judicial act of a court" in subsection (3). This may give rise to confusion and the Government will therefore be moving a minor amendment at Third Reading to clarify this small point.
I said in Committee that the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, might be the best way of providing compensation for breaches of Article 5 by judicial acts. I warned the Committee then that the complex and delicate issues of judicial immunity and Crown liability for judicial decisions required consideration before an amendment was made to this clause. The government amendments before the House seek to deal with that situation. They go rather further than the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that he will therefore consider withdrawing his amendment and that the House will agree that the government amendments achieve what is required. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for swiftly and fully meeting the point raised in the amendment moved at Committee stage. I shall not move Amendment No. 37. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining, in answer to the only question that I would have asked on Amendment No. 35, what is meant by the phrase.
"such other forum as may be prescribed by rules".
The amendments are most welcome.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, from these Benches I offer no objection to Amendments Nos. 35 and 36, which address fully the point raised previously by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. With an element of diffidence perhaps I can ask one question. Is it proposed that these amendments will apply to the courts of the Church, about which we have had certain discussions during the passage of the Bill? If so, looking at the terms of subsection (5), set out in Amendment No. 36, I doubt that one could say,
"the Minister responsible for the court concerned".
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Meston on introducing this matter at Committee stage and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his colleagues on what I regard as an appropriate and necessary amendment.
The amendments represent a significant change in existing law. As I understand it, until the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 came into force it was possible for someone who had been unlawfully detained by order of a magistrates' court to take civil proceedings against the relevant Bench of magistrates. In cases in which imprisonment was unlawful, compensation could be paid.
Sections 44 and 45 of the 1990 Act introduced a requirement for the plaintiff to allege and prove malice before compensation could be ordered. That in effect rendered such litigation impossible and ended the right to compensation for unlawful detention by a magistrates' court. The Strasbourg case law is that
392
a requirement to prove malice as a precondition to compensation does not conform to Article 5(5) of the Convention. The amendment deals with that problem extremely well. It extends to a judicial act of a court done in good faith so that damages can be awarded to compensate a person to the extent required by Article 5(5). It impliedly repeals Sections 44 and 45 of the Courts and Legal Services Act. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could think a little further about whether one needs to have something dealing expressly with that. It deals skilfully with the problems of judicial immunity and Crown liability, as the Lord Chancellor indicated.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps I can raise a small drafting point on subsection (4) of the amendment. It says,
"An award of damages permitted by subsection (3) is to be made against the Crown",
and so forth. Does not that mean "may" be made against the Crown? Is not that the normal manner of drafting? Matters of drafting are not positively debated across the Floor of your Lordships' Chamber, but perhaps my noble and learned friend will consider that point with the draftsmen, if he thinks it worth considering.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am relieved to have it put clearly in the Bill that the judiciary is immune. In relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, one can make a mistake in the Crown Court as well as in the magistrates' court and this is an admirable arrangement for some of us.
The only question I would ask the noble and learned Lord is this. Now that the explanatory memorandum has disappeared, I cannot check whether there is to be a financial provision introduced by another place in order to pay for all this. It will come out of the public pocket, out of the Treasury, and I imagine that it will be necessary to bring forward an amendment which we cannot introduce in this House, but which may be introduced in another place.
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am disinclined to be drawn into argument about the Church courts. The short answer is that if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, had in mind the Church of Scotland or indeed the Church of England, I am not aware that they make any decisions that could breach Article 5. I have difficulty therefore in understanding how the question of compensation in relation to Article 5(5) could arise.
I note what was said by the noble Lord. Lord Lester, in relation to the interaction of these provisions by way of an amendment with pre-existing civil and statute law. However, having regard to the position of the hands of the clock, it would not be wise for me to embark extempore upon that. However, I undertake to write to the noble Lord.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, invites us to consider subsection (4) from a specific standpoint. I am happy to do so. I understand the

393
significance of the provision to be no more than to emphasise that the liability is in the Crown and not the judge as an individual. I shall look at that. I do not believe that any specific financial provision needs to be made for liabilities that may arise at law against government departments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 5, line 38, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—
("(3) In proceedings under this Act in respect of a judicial act of a court done in good faith, damages may not be awarded otherwise than to compensate a person to the extent required by Article 5(5) of the Convention.
(4) An award of damages permitted by subsection (3) is to be made against the Crown; but no award may be made unless the appropriate person, if not a party to the proceedings, is joined.
(5) In this section—
"appropriate person" means the Minister responsible for the court concerned, or a person or government department nominated by him;
"court" includes a tribunal;
"judge" includes a member of a tribunal, a justice of the peace and a clerk or other officer entitled to exercise the jurisdiction of a court;
"judicial act" includes an act done on the instructions, or on behalf, of a judge;
"rules" has the same meaning as in section 7(8).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Power to take remedial action]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("one or more of the Convention rights") and insert ("a Convention right").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 6, line 8, after ("rights") insert ("and, if an appeal lies—

(i) all persons who may appeal have stated that they do not intend to do so;

(ii) the time for bringing an appeal has expired and no appeal has been brought within that time; or

(iii) an appeal brought within that time has been determined or abandoned").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 40, it may be convenient for me to speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 to 43. Amendments Nos. 40 and 42 place limits on the power of a Minister to make a remedial order under Clause 10 following a declaration of Convention incompatibility by a court. Both are specific responses to concerns expressed by your Lordships in Committee.
Amendment No. 40 prevents a remedial order being made following a declaration of incompatibility if there is any prospect of an appeal against the relevant court decision. That is a specific and I hope helpful response to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I summarised it shortly, but I believe rightly. The noble
394
Lord asked what would happen if the remedial order procedure were initiated before all avenues of appeal had been exhausted. We believe, as we believed then, that that situation would be unlikely to arise in practice. Having said that, we see no harm in making the position clear on the face of the Bill. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 40.
The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, helpfully raised the question in Committee as to whether or not the power conferred by Clause 10 may be used retrospectively in respect of findings in proceedings against other states or parties to the Convention. Again, we believe those outcomes to be unlikely but, having reflected on the helpful comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, we are content to make the position clear on the face of the Bill.
Both noble Lords have re-tabled their amendments. I can assure them that the government amendments achieve what their amendments tried to do. The drafting is slightly different. But we believe, modestly, that perhaps the parliamentary draftsman has done a good job here as regards Amendments Nos. 40 and 42. In the light of my brief explanation, I hope that both noble Lords will seek leave to withdraw their amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn said, in effect, the terms of Amendment No. 40 match the terms of my own Amendment No. 41. I am grateful that the Government have taken this step. I have a certain attachment to my own wording, but I accept that he has covered the point. In those circumstances I shall not move Amendment No. 41.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I too would like to thank the noble Lord for accepting the arguments which I put forward in Committee about this small matter. I am very happy that his amendment should pre-empt mine.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I, too, support this amendment and those associated with it, to which I shall speak briefly. I wish to draw attention to one matter. I realise that it is right in principle that remedial action should be confined to proceedings against the United Kingdom, made after the coming into force of the relevant section. However, there is the problem of what happens in relation to proceedings before that occurs.
That is best illustrated by the position in the case of Goodwin v. the United Kingdom. In that case there was a finding by the European Court of a breach as a result of an interpretation given by the Appellate Committee of this House. Then the problem was translating that into our own legal system without legislation, given the doctrine of binding precedent.
The problem has been exemplified more recently by a decision of the Court of Appeal in a case called Camelot. There is now an awkwardness in that there is no equivalent of the remedial procedure by subordinate legislation to give effect to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights where it is necessary to over-rule domestic law. This problem is going to continue as regards pre-Human Rights Act cases.

395
I realise that it would be wrong to seek to widen this power, but I draw the attention of the House to the problem. I am not quite sure how we resolve it if, for example, a journalist in the same position as Mr. Goodwin found that the judgment is given binding effect against him in breach of his rights under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I draw attention to that not in order to speak against the amendment or to suggest that it should be widened. It is quite a serious practical problem that will continue to exist and will not be solved by this Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that may be so, but the structure that we have carefully crafted is to tie in, with the assistance, which I re-acknowledge, of the propositions put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Coleraine. We have constructed the system of remedial action specifically in the context of this Bill. We believe that we have achieved the right solution. There may be anomalies which will have to be addressed in a different way, but not—and I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill—through remedial action. I am grateful that he has raised this question.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 6, line 10, after ("Rights") insert ("made after the coming into force of this section in proceedings against the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 6, line 11, leave out ("one or more of the obligations") and insert ("an obligation").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("one or more of the Convention rights") and insert ("a Convention right").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 6, line 34, at end insert ("and
(b)"legislation" does not include a Measure of the Church Assembly or of the General Synod of the Church of England").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment responds to concern expressed in Committee by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter. Subsequently it was the subject of quite extensive discussions between representatives of the Synod of the Church of England and officials at the Home Office. I am most grateful for
396
the opportunity that we had at those discussions. They were very helpful indeed. We proceeded on the basis that the Lord Chancellor indicated right at the outset at Second Reading that anything that would improve the Bill, consonant with its philosophic structure and basis, would be given careful attention. I am grateful for the personal discussions I had with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon when we were able to discuss other matters of general concern to the Church of England.
As it was indicated in Committee, Clause 10 would enable a Minister of the Crown to make a remedial order amending a measure of the General Synod or of its predecessor, the Church Assembly, following a declaration of incompatibility. The Minister of the Crown could do that without any reference to the General Synod.
The Church of England, perfectly properly, pointed out that that would sit uneasily with our present arrangements whereby a Church measure can only be approved or disapproved by Parliament in its entirety—in other words, with no opportunity for amendment. To provide for amendment of a Church measure by a Minister, even in response to the serious situation of a declaration of incompatibility, would obviously have significant implications for the Church. Neither do we feel that it would be appropriate for a Minister of the Crown to be in that situation. It would not tie appropriately with our present relations between Church and state.
Therefore, we thought about it carefully, particularly benefiting by the conversations to which I have referred. We came to the conclusion that if an amendment to Church measures were required to remove a convention incompatibility, it is better done by the Church itself rather than by the exercise of the order-making power by a Minister of the Crown. I express the Government's confident hope that if there were a court declaration of convention incompatibility, then the General Synod would speedily consider whether the measure should be amended. We do not believe that the Church of England would be found inactive if its legislation were found to be in breach of human rights. We are content to leave it at that. I beg to move the amendment on that basis.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, from these Benches I would like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for tabling this amendment. For over 70 years the Church Assembly—and more recently, the General Synod—have had delegated powers from Parliament to pass measures, subject to final parliamentary approval, relating to matters concerning the Church of England. These measures are part of the primary legislation to the law of the land. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said, by removing measures from Clause 10, the understanding between Church and state is preserved.
The position of the Church of England as an Established Church puts it into a unique relationship with Parliament. As the noble Lord has said, Clause 10, as it stood before this amendment, would have given Ministers the power to amend Church of England legislation without consulting the Church.

397
The amendment removes those measures from Clause 10. It does not affect the status of such measures as primary legislation and the courts therefore cannot strike them down. However, as the noble Lord said, the courts have the power to declare an incompatibility between the convention and measures, and the power under this amendment to remedy that incompatibility lies not with the Government but with the Church of England.
The Church of England—I am confident that I speak for other Churches also—does not wish to escape its proper obligations under the convention. We have been seeking an assurance that the Bill cannot be used to require the Church to act in ways contrary to its religious principles and beliefs.
This generous and welcome amendment gives a substantial assurance to the Church of England in this regard. I should like to express once again my thanks not only to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, but also to his officials for their careful consideration of this issue and my pleasure at the outcome.
In response to the noble Lord's final hope, I wish on behalf of the Church of England to give an assurance that if ever the courts made a declaration that a Church measure was incompatible with convention rights, the Church would of course give consideration of the utmost seriousness to the introduction of an amending measure into the General Synod for the purpose of rectifying the situation.
8 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I do not want to become involved in a contentious debate about Church versus state. That issue was probably debated at length earlier. However,I am unconvinced that there is any need to exclude the Church from any of the Bill's provisions.
I should like clarification on one or two points. As I understand the amendment from the way in which it was moved, and from the response from the right reverend Prelate, it basically restores the position to what it was before this Human Rights Bill was introduced. There is no real attempt to put the Church of England in an especially privileged position other than the especially privileged position that it was in before.
The whole purpose and thrust of the Bill is to repatriate the human rights Convention. No human rights have been taken away from anyone. We all understand the certain derogations in the Bill, but they in no way affect Article 9 of the Convention, which deals with religious freedoms.
Perhaps I may ask a question. Is it possible for someone who feels aggrieved by the procedures of the Church still to go to Strasbourg if he or she wishes? In other words, I seek confirmation that there is no cut-off point and that nothing in the amendment prevents that happening. If that is so, there would be no problem, but if it were the case that the purpose of the amendment inadvertently—if perhaps not advertently—was to reduce the possibilities of anyone going to Strasbourg to exercise their rights, in my view that would represent unfair discrimination in favour of the Church. I hope that an explanation of that point can be given.
398
If there are difficulties such as I have suggested, I hope that the Government will look again at this amendment to ensure that nothing is done which takes away the rights of any individual who may have a grievance against the Church.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, on the first day of Report stage, I spoke against the much wider amendment (which was defeated on a Division) to exempt the Church of England and, indeed, other religious bodies from much of the effect of this Human Rights Bill.
On this occasion, I speak in support of the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, because it seems to me to do no more than what is perfectly proper, which is to secure that the existing arrangements for the constitutional settlement between Parliament and the Church of England are maintained as now. We on these Benches are entirely happy with that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We are grateful for the generous response of the Church of England as articulated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and for his positive assertion, which we welcome and accept, that the Church of England would not be found wanting or dilatory were a declaration of Convention incompatibility to be made in respect of any court order.
To answer the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, nothing in this Bill takes away from any citizen of this country the opportunity of the journey to Strasbourg if that were eventually required. The whole point of the Bill is, to coin a phrase, to bring rights home. The Church of England is not being exempted from the provisions of this Bill. We are dealing with the relationship between Church measures and legislation. It is because Church measures can be only approved or disapproved—not amended—following parliamentary discussion and scrutiny that we think that the remedial fast-track procedure is not appropriate for the reasons outlined briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, upon which exposition I cannot improve.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Remedial orders]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 6, line 35, leave out from beginning to ("may") and insert ("A remedial order").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Meston, commented that the phrase "a remedial order" seemed to make its first entry into our world in Clause 11 although the power to make it was conferred by Clause 10. Scrutiny of the Bill will show that the phrase does not appear first in Clause 11, but in Clause 6(6)(b) which is concerned with acts of public authorities. It is not defined in that clause but in Clause 21, which defines a number of expressions used in the Bill. Clause 21 states that "remedial order" means,
"an order under section 10".
I agree with the noble Lord that the drafting of Clause 11 could be improved. Where we detect improvements, as is now notorious in your Lordships'

399
House, we are always willing to act upon them. That is why this drafting amendment has been tabled. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 7, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) The power to amend or repeal primary legislation under this section may be used only where it is deemed necessary to correct the incompatibility with the Convention rights.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment draws on the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, paragraph 23 of which states:
"This [remedial fast-track procedure] is a Henry VIII power of the utmost importance, which the Committee wishes to draw to the House's attention …We have noted the Lord Chancellor's statement to the House at Second Reading that the power can only be used under strictly limited circumstances. Without strict limitations, a secondary power of such potential width would be unacceptable".
On 27th November, at col. 1143 of Hansard the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said in reply:
"It is clear from Clause 10(2) that a Minister will be empowered to make only such changes (apart from any consequential changes) as are appropriate to remove the incompatibility".
The Minister was referring to appropriateness as being the test.
The purpose of this amendment is to require the fast-track procedure to be invoked where it is not merely appropriate but necessary in order to give effect to the court's declaration of incompatibility.
When the Lord Chancellor replied, he indicated that the Government had considered with great care the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation and had concluded that Clause 12 was adequate. The noble and learned Lord then said these important words:
"In the present Bill remedial orders are limited specifically to amendments to legislation which are necessary to remove an incompatibility with the convention".—[Official Report, 27/11/97; col. 1145.]
That is not what the Bill says; it is what the amendment says.
I regard it as of great importance that the words of the Lord Chancellor should be reflected on the face of the Bill because of the unease on all sides of the House, shared with different levels of disquiet, about Henry VIII clauses. I note that when we come later to Amendment No. 49 we shall look at attempts to impose further safeguards on the fast-track procedure. My attitude to those amendments will be greatly affected by the reply from the Government Benches to this amendment, and whether the Government are willing to create the necessary safeguard. I know it will be said that it goes without saying and that the courts are likely to read into the Bill a test of necessity and not just appropriateness, but the words "appropriate" and "necessary" are not the same. Therefore, it is very important that before delegated powers to amend primary legislation are invoked—powers with which I entirely sympathise for the reasons given by the noble
400
and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor during the previous debate—the test of necessity should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. He referred to my amendments which are in the next group. Those amendments take the idea somewhat further and I believe are more in line with the suggestions made in paragraph 24 of the sixth report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. Obviously, I would prefer to go down the line of Amendment No. 49 and the associated amendments, but if the House is unwilling to go that far at this stage I should like to support Amendment No. 48. If the House is prepared to accept both I shall be even happier because the two groups of amendments are not incompatible. I believe that my amendments, to which I shall speak at slightly greater length, do more to achieve that which was suggested or recommended by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, this particular amendment attracted a good deal of support in Committee. We were then told to go away and ponder the matter further. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that he would also ponder further upon it. He said at the time that I was pressing for both belt and braces. That is correct. I see no objection to the combination of belt and braces. Indeed, that may be a very useful motto for everyone to bear in mind on some occasions.
I cannot see any objection to this amendment. Either it is the Government's intention to draw as narrowly as possible the powers that Ministers will have under these clauses or it is their intention to try to satisfy Parliament that the powers used are absolutely essential. I believe that on both tests this amendment is not objectionable. I hope that in responding the Government will make it plain either that they accept it or that there are very good reasons why they cannot do so.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I too support the amendment. Your Lordships are now sensitive to the allegation of Henry VIII powers, particularly since the setting up of the committee which investigates them. These provisions allow the Henry VIII provision to go to quite unnecessary lengths. I ask your Lordships to look at Clause 11(1) which provides that a remedial order may make consequential provision. In subsection (2) it is provided that subsection (1) powers include powers to amend or repeal primary legislation—that is the Henry VIII proposal—including primary legislation other than that which contains the incompatible provision; in other words, it goes beyond what is required to remove an incompatibility and what is consequential to that. Put another way, the provision in this amendment is necessary. It picks up the word used by my noble and learned friend in justifying it. It is necessary in order to limit the quite undesirable ambit

401
of the Henry VIII provision; in other words, it includes other primary provisions beyond what is incompatible and consequential on the incompatibility.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I should also like to express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, moved in Committee. I have one query on the drafting which centres on the word "it". I believe that the word should be "power". Obviously, the remedial order will not be made except where it is deemed necessary to correct the incompatibility with Convention rights. The Government will not amend the legislation except where necessary to correct an incompatibility, but it is important to make clear that it is the power which is deemed necessary.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I confess that I am a little puzzled. Your Lordships will appreciate that the amendment under consideration is an amendment to Clause 11, not Clause 10. Therefore, the subject matter under consideration is correctly addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Clause 10 allows a remedial order to be made to amend a piece of primary legislation so as to remove an incompatibility that has been found to exist in one of its provisions. Clause 11(1)(a) provides that a remedial order under Clause 10 may contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provisions as the person making it considers appropriate. Clause 11(2)(a) provides that the power to make incidental changes includes power to amend or repeal primary legislation, including primary legislation other than that which contains the incompatible provision.
Thus, Amendment No. 48 bites on the power to make incidental changes to legislation in addition to the main changes necessary to remove the incompatibility. I gained the impression from the language used by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that he believed his amendment would alter the whole basis for remedial orders. But they are made under Clause 10 and this amendment relates only to the ancillary powers in Clause 11.
I hope that I can reassure your Lordships, as I and my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn sought to do both at Second Reading and in Committee, that the Bill contains sufficient safeguards to meet concerns about the powers conferred under Clauses 10 and 11. These powers have been carefully tailored to ensure that a remedial order can perform the job that it is designed to do; namely, to remove incompatible provisions of legislation in an effective and tidy way. A remedial order would not be used, and in our view could not be used, for any other purpose.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, would not the word "consequential" be sufficient to tidy up the amendment?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I will explain in a moment the effect of Clause 11(1)(a). It provides that a remedial order under Clause 10 may contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provisions as the person making it considers appropriate.
402
Clause 11(2)(a) adds that this provision includes a power to amend or repeal primary legislation including primary legislation other than that which contains the incompatible provision.
It is in relation to that power only that the amendment would bite. It would limit the power to make incidental, supplemental and consequential changes to primary legislation which were themselves deemed necessary to correct an incompatibility with the Convention. In doing so it would prevent the amendment or repeal of provisions of other primary legislation that are not in themselves incompatible but whose amendment or repeal would be a natural or sensible corollary to the successful curing of the incompatibility of the legislation found to have been wanting. In other words, the effect of the amendment would negate the purpose of the provision which is made in Clause 11 for changes incidental to this which are needed to correct the incompatibility.
For example, there may be cases where changes to other legislation which is not itself incompatible, are necessary not to remove an incompatibility but for consequential or supplemental purposes. For example, if a section of an Act has been deleted, any references to that section in other Acts would be otiose and should also be removed. Changes under this category would be ruled out by the amendment.
The Government understand the desire to ring-fence the powers in Clauses 10 and 11 so far as possible, consistent with the purposes of the remedial order; but we believe that the existing provisions provide appropriate safeguards. I will list the elements. The order-making procedure is only available where a declaration of incompatibility under Clause 4 or a Strasbourg court judgment has been given or there is an urgent need to replace subordinate legislation quashed on convention grounds. Crucially, for present purposes, the power is to be used to remove incompatibility found by the UK or the Strasbourg court, and plainly it cannot be used in any connection for any other purpose.
The power to make incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision is not novel; it is a well precedented supplementary vires provision. I emphasise "supplementary". It is not a basis on which a Minister could properly tackle some unrelated issues. Supplementary provision can only be added to a Clause 10 order, and the object of the Clause 10 order must be to remove the incompatibility found by the United Kingdom or Strasbourg court. In other words, while the power extends to amending other legislative provisions, it is heavily circumscribed because of the plain purpose of Clause 10.
Our view is that it is necessary to have the extra powers in Clause 11 in addition to the main powers in Clause 10 if the job is to be done properly and remedial orders are to make proper sense. We think that the amendment would make this impossible.

403
The purpose of Clause 10(2) and Clause 11(1)(a) is to ensure that the removal of an incompatibility is complete so far as the statute book goes. As we see it, that is all that there is to it, and on that basis I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, that was a most powerful and impressive reply, which I should like to read in Hansard and think about tomorrow. If I have been guilty of a certain confusion of thought, then I plead guilty as between Clause 10 and Clause 11. I understand why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had gained that impression of what I said.
I do not share the view of noble Lords who have criticised Clauses 10 and 11 as creating a vast Henry VIII clause with jackboots added on, doing violation either to parliamentary accountability or rule of law. I made clear at an early stage that I approve of this fast track procedure for the reasons given by the Lord Chancellor—that is to say, it is to uphold the rule of law to ensure that a declaration of incompatibility in judgments of the European Court are speedily and effectively translated by Parliament into effective remedies required, among other things, by Article 13 of the convention. Therefore I have no disagreement with the purpose of Clauses 10 and 11.
Much of what the noble and learned Lord said sounded like a judgment of the Appellate Committee in the House of Lords in an argument of vires about whether a particular form of delegated legislation came within or outside Clauses 10 and 11. I believe that the law Lords would be most likely, if not certain, to give a judgment in that way.
We have been given assurances, which I should like to consider further, about the need to ring-fence the safeguards the Lord Chancellor has indicated and the difficulty of seeking to limit the remedial orders in Clause II by a test of necessity when one does not, for obvious reasons, seek to limit the power to take the legal action by a similar test of necessity in Clause 10.
I hope I will not be considered by noble Lords who have been generous enough to support this amendment to have sold the pass; but I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Procedure]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 7. line 7, at beginning insert ("subject to the provisions of subsections (1 A) to (1 D)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 54 and 59. We have briefly discussed the matters in relation to the earlier amendment which, sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, did not press to a Division. The other amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 50 and 55 and 51, 56, 57 and 58, are all different approaches to the same issue and I trust that on this occasion we have all found the right clause to put them in. Even if they are not in the right clause I
404
hope that the Government will not address the issue tonight because that matter could be resolved on another occasion.
I suspect that the group of amendments in my name and in the name of my noble friend are nearest to the approach put forward by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.
I moved similar amendments at Committee stage and therefore I do not intend to speak at great length on these amendments. I received a degree of support from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and then I offered her a degree of support on her amendments, just as I do on these amendments. Having debated the amendments, I have made some modifications to appease the Government by reducing the period of delay from 60 days to 40 days; but I suspect that that was unnecessary because the Government's amendments now seem to accept a 60 day delay period. I made the concession but it was not necessary.
At Committee stage I made reference to the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I will not repeat paragraph 24 of that report except to remind noble Lords of the sentence which stated that the House may wish to consider whether there is a case for developing a new procedure to scrutinise such orders modelled on that for the second stage parliamentary scrutiny of deregulation orders.
It is important that Parliament has a means of amending these orders. That is what my amendments do, and what, I regret to say, the other amendments do not do. It would obviously be possible, if one followed the lines pursued by the Minister's amendments, for the Executive to produce amendments following the consultation period. That is not sufficient. This is one of those occasions where it is important that Parliament itself can make amendment to the orders before they go through.
Committee stage was some time ago, and since then we have had the final stages, which the Minister will remember, of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Bill. That Bill came to this House for the last time on 2nd December last year, and, as I understand it, it was designed to rectify a problem following a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.
As the Minister will remember, my noble friend Lady Blatch, who was at the time dealing with Home Office matters, on a number of occasions pressed amendments to that Bill, but they were resisted in this House by the Minister. Following my noble friend failing to move, as it were, the Minister, but no doubt on his advice, his colleagues in another place agreed largely to accept the points put forward by my noble friend. Again, I hope on his advice, his honourable and right honourable friends in another place accepted the spirit of her amendments.
Without my amendment, it would not be possible for Parliament to make those amendments. No doubt the Minister will respond that it would be possible for the Government, should they wish, to use primary legislation to rectify those problems. Similarly, it would be possible for the Executive, in moving the orders

405
following that procedure to make amendments, but it would not he possible for this House or another place themselves to put right the wrong. That is why I believe that my amendments are the right way to take forward this matter. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have been asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, whose name stands first in the list of those tabling Amendments Nos. 50 and 55, but who is unable to be here tonight, to speak to those amendments on her behalf.
On the issues raised by the amendments, the parties seem to have been moving, to some extent, towards a consensus, but unfortunately they have not quite reached it. We who have tabled the amendments, welcome the amendments to be moved by the Minister. We also have a good deal of sympathy with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Henley.
Two principles are involved. One is that there should be an opportunity to scrutinise a draft remedial order before it takes effect; the second is that there should be power to revise or amend a draft order in the light of defects shown up by that scrutiny.
I shall look first at the question of scrutiny. It will of course be for the Government to decide whether to invoke, in any particular instance, the fast-track procedure. If they do so, the purpose of the scrutiny will not be to review that decision, and decide whether or not it was correct, but to look at the draft of the proposed order to see whether it is an appropriate and effective way of correcting the incompatibility which has been discovered by the court, and to ensure that the order does nothing more than correct that incompatibility.
Wide public consultation will not be needed. What will be needed is expert scrutiny by a body familiar with parliamentary draftsmanship. That body should be a human rights committee, either of each of the two Houses or a joint committee of both. I recognise that it is of course for Parliament to decide whether to set up such a committee, and not for legislation. Our amendments are intended to emphasise the importance of ensuring that there is scrutiny by an appropriate committee, without being prescriptive as to the nature of that committee. So far as Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 seek to achieve the same purpose, we of course agree with them.
The Government's White Paper on the Bill made it clear that they would welcome the creation of a parliamentary human rights committee or committees. I assume that that remains their view. I should welcome confirmation of that and also that the Government see scrutiny of draft remedial orders as one of the functions of a parliamentary human rights committee.
I turn now to the question of amendment. It is surely pointless to have scrutiny if the result of the scrutiny cannot be taken into account in deciding the final form of the order. It is not generally open to either House to amend the text of a draft Order in Council. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is an ingenious solution to that problem, though in our view it involves some element of overkill and may lead to unnecessary delay, because it will require, before the order can come
406
into effect, two successive 40-day periods—one involving the looking at what may be called a pre-draft and then the actual draft.
I hope that the fast-track procedure will be rarely needed, and that when it is needed it will often be easy to see what amendment is needed to ensure the compatibility of the existing legislation. For that purpose, an 80-day stand delay will not be needed. But it may not always be as simple as that. It is important that the Government should have power to amend an Order in Council by means short of the withdrawal of the existing order and the laying of a new order.
In Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor took the view that Clause 12 was adequate as it stood. He also at that stage took the view that a 60-day period of consideration was unnecessary. On the latter point, the Government's view has now changed. Amendment No.58 will extend the period for consideration to 60 days. Presumably the point of the Government's amendments, extending the period of consideration to 60 days, is to enable more detailed consideration of the draft Order in Council to take place. But what is the point of having a period for scrutiny and consultation if the draft has already been laid before the House in a form which can be amended only by withdrawal and relaying?
The consultation process may well make it clear that the order is capable of improvement. I would ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to reconsider whether it would be possible to introduce a procedure to enable that order to be revised after it has been laid before the House in draft.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, this is an important group of amendments. One of the reasons why the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, and I moved the original Amendments Nos. 50 and 55 was to give a substantial parliamentary element to the consideration of remedial orders. I greatly welcome the new amendment tabled by the Minister. I have just one reservation. It is the one made by my noble friend Lord Goodhart; that is, it makes no reference to the scrutiny by Parliament as distinct from consideration by the Executive.
I recognise that the Minster has gone some way towards meeting the point raised in Committee by extending the period of consideration to 60 days, but I should be most grateful if he, or his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, would say a little more. I recognise the difficulties because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said more than once that this must be a matter for Parliament; but if it is a matter for Parliament it is one where the Government's assurances and statements will be taken into account. Perhaps a little more could be said about how the Government consider the possible responsibilities and developments of the committee were it to be set up.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that this is an important group of amendments. In Committee your Lordships discussed in some detail the procedure for making a Clause 12 remedial order. There was undoubtedly feeling that the procedure should be amended to make it easier for

407
Parliament to exercise its scrutinising role. Amendments were tabled on that occasion to lengthen the period for consideration of remedial orders to provide for the scrutiny by a parliamentary committee and to enable them to be amended by Parliament. Similar amendments have been tabled for Report. They are before your Lordships again. In Committee, we undertook to reflect on the concerns that had been expressed. As your Lordships will see, we have responded and we have concluded that some changes to the procedure should be made, although we have not adopted all the suggestions made in Committee. Nonetheless, we hope that the government amendments will give a measure of satisfaction.
The first change we propose relates to the period for consideration of draft remedial orders. Under Clause 12(1)(a), no remedial order may be made unless a draft has been approved by Parliament. No period of time is prescribed for this procedure, so it would be possible for a draft to be approved, and an order made, very soon after the draft was laid before Parliament. The effect of government Amendments Nos. 51, 57 and 58 is to provide a minimum period of 60 days' consideration before a draft of the order may be approved by Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, was good enough to call attention to that. This is designed to allow interested parties an adequate period of time in which to comment upon a draft remedial order. It responds to amendments tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and to one aspect of the amendments tabled by the Opposition.
I ought to point out that the government amendments depart from those tabled in Committee in not providing a 60-day period for the consideration of urgent remedial orders made under clause 12(1)(b). In these cases the order will expire after 40 days unless approved by Parliament. These orders are to be made without prior parliamentary approval, and we do not want to extend the time in which they may have effect without such approval. A 60-day period for consideration of these orders would simply delay the point at which Parliament could, if it chose, express its disapproval of the order.
The other change that we propose is in the government Amendment No.56. It would require a remedial order, or draft, to be accompanied by an explanatory statement. This would contain particulars of the court case in which the declaration of incompatibility had been made, and would seek to explain what the incompatibility was. It is designed, therefore, to facilitate the consideration of remedial orders by Parliament.
We think this would be helpful because we still believe, as we said in Committee, that it would not be appropriate to create a statutory, and I emphasise statutory, requirement for the scrutiny of remedial orders by a parliamentary committee, as the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness and others would do. We assume that this will be the parliamentary committee on human rights, and we have said before, and I say again, that we would welcome the establishment of such a committee, but it is a matter for Parliament. We do not want to anticipate what the functions of that Committee might be. As we said in Committee, it is not normal practice for provisions of this kind to be set out in statute, and I have to say that I do not think there is a case for departing from
408
the normal practice on this occasion. But I made perfectly plain what the position of the Government is in relation to the establishment of a parliamentary committee on human rights. Nor do we think it necessary to provide for the amendment of remedial orders once made or laid in draft, as proposed in the Opposition amendments. Statutory instruments cannot be amended. An instrument has to be revoked, remade or another amending instrument made, and remedial orders are no different. The advantage of the draft affirmative resolution procedure in Clause 12 is that Parliament can decline to approve so the order cannot be made and a further order would then have to be prepared to meet Parliament's concerns; otherwise the incompatibility desired to be removed would simply continue. The explanatory document that we propose will make it possible for Parliament to have an informed debate about the incompatibility which has been exactly identified by a court and what the Government's proposals are for removing it.
In proposing these changes I can say that I am conscious of looking ahead to the possible establishment of a parliamentary committee on human rights. Such a committee, I can readily say, would be able to look afresh at the issue of procedure in the light of the experience gained in operating these provisions. If it recommended that a closer Parliamentary scrutiny of remedial orders was needed, I am sure that the Government would be very much influenced by that. But for the present, although we cannot accept the Opposition amendments or those in the name of the noble Baroness, and others, I hope the House will accept, particularly in the light of the explanations that I have given, that we do offer the government amendments for approval by your Lordships' House in a spirit of conciliation and as improvements which go some considerable way towards meeting the concerns expressed in committee. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having gone just a little way towards meeting some of the demands and requests made both by myself and by noble Lords from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
However, I have to say that I do not think that the noble and learned Lord went far enough on this occasion. I referred earlier, as did other noble Lords, to the report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that whenever that Committee made recommendations when we were in government we were always most scrupulous in taking up those recommendations and in acting upon them. It would be right if we allowed the House at least to have the opportunity on this occasion to consider the matter.
I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord has made a number of concessions. He has lengthened the period of delay from 40 days to 60 days at a time when I was suggesting bringing it down from 60 days to 40 days. I do not think that the actual period of time available for scrutiny of these orders is a matter of great importance. What I do believe is important is that Parliament itself, and not just the Executive, has some power, some ability, for developing a procedure whereby it can amend these orders. That is what was recommended by the Delegated

409
Powers and Deregulation Committee and that is what I think this House ought to be given the opportunity to consider this evening. For that reason I do not wish to withdraw these amendments. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
8.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 49) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 63.

Division No.3

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Kingsland, L.[Teller.]

Burnham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Byford, B. [Teller]

Lyell, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Naseby, L.

Coleraine, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Rowallan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Amos, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Berkeley, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Blackstone, B.

Levy, L.

Borrie, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mishcon, L.

Chandos, V.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Desai, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dubs, L.

Rea, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Gilbert, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Serota, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sewel, L.

Hardie, L.

Simon, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Straholgi, L.

Haskel, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hayman, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hoyle, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Hughes, L.

Whitty, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 7, line 8, after ("Parliament") insert ("made after the end of the period for consideration").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 55 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 56 to 58:
Page 7, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) A remedial order (or draft) laid before Parliament must be accompanied by a statement containing—

(a) an explanation of the incompatibility which the order seeks to remove, including particulars of the relevant declaration, finding or order: and

(b) a statement of the reasons why the person making it (or proposing to make it) considers an order in those terms appropriate.").

Page 7. line 18, leave out ("In subsection (2)").
Page 7, line 18. after ("means") insert—

("(a) in subsection (1), the period of sixty days beginning with the day on which the draft was laid, and

(b) in subsection (2),").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 49. I should have liked to respond after he had spoken on that group of amendments, as I should have been entitled to do. However, I felt that it would be confusing to the House if I tried to intervene between the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend winding up on Amendment No. 49.
At this time, when the Government are being so generous in so many ways on this Bill, would it not be a collateral advantage for the statement to be made as set out in Amendment No. 56 to extend not only to the reasons why it is appropriate for the order in those terms to be made, but also why it is appropriate to proceed by way of remedial order?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on that subject.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Other rights and proceedings]:
Lord Williams of Mostynmoved Amendment No. 60:
Leave out Clause 13 and insert the following new clause—
SAFEGUARD FOR EXISTING HUMAN RIGHTS
(".A person's reliance on a Convention right does not restrict—

(a) any other right or freedom conferred on him by or under any law having effect in any part of the United Kingdom, or

(b) his right to make any claim or bring any proceedings which he could make or bring apart from sections 7 to 9.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to clarify the purpose of Clause 13 and to remove any possible misunderstanding. Clause 13 as presently drafted, and as it would be in this new clause, is simply to provide a saving for other human rights. It is there to ensure that if a person has existing rights, nothing in this Bill shall detract from them in any way. We believe that this amendment brings that out more clearly than the current formulation. That, briefly, is the purpose of the amendment.

411
There are, of course, two kinds of relationship created in the Bill between convention and domestic law: the interpretive principle in Clauses 3 to 5, and the right to rely on convention rights against a public authority in Clauses 6 to 9. We do not wish to have any misunderstanding. We believe that the new formulation makes the position, as was intended, rather plainer. We hope that your Lordships will find the amendment to be a useful clarification. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I greatly welcome the amendment. I do so because it makes clear that which is already implicit in the Bill—namely, that the European convention contains a floor of minimum rights guaranteed under international law, but does not create a ceiling. Therefore, if Parliament chooses to go further or if the common law goes further in protecting our basic rights and freedoms, which are inherent in us as citizens and human beings, the convention and the Bill are not to restrict that. The fact that that is a minimum and not a maximum is made clear in the convention itself. It does not mean that there will never be conflict and difficult questions to be resolved as a result of people arguing that, say, the Race Relations Act is an infringement of some basic right in the convention, or other such points. It is important that one does not concentrate only upon the convention as a guarantee of rights. As the amendment makes clear, the common law will continue to develop in a creative way and no doubt the convention will be used, as the Bill makes clear, in the course of developing the common law.
I, for one, believe that one should approach convention rights through out common law and through the statute book, not round the common law or the statute book. That is to say, one intertwines convention rights into our domestic legal system. One of the many virtues of the Bill is the fact that those who have thought it through and drafted it have found ways to create very subtle connections between convention rights and our own statute law and common law. This modest looking amendment is designed to make all of that clear. It is to be welcomed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lester of Herne Hillhad given notice of his attention to move Amendment No.61:
After Clause 13. insert the following new clause—
("Human Rights Commissioner
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint a Commissioner, to be known as the Human Rights Commissioner, to perform any or all of the following functions—

(a) to provide advice or other assistance, including legal and financial assistance, to persons—

(i) bringing, or proposing to bring, proceedings under section 7; or

(ii) relying or proposing to rely upon a Convention right in any proceedings,
412
provided that the Human Rights Commissioner considers that such proceedings raise a question of principle of general public importance;

(b) to bring proceedings under section 7 or intervene in proceedings—

(i) brought under section 7: or

(ii) where a Convention right is relied upon,
provided that the Human Rights Commissioner considers the bringing of such proceedings, or such intervention, to be in the furtherance of the main purposes of this Act;

(c) to undertake research and educational activities connected with the main purposes of this Act; or

(d) to review and report to the Secretary of State on the appropriate machinery to give effect within the United Kingdom to the Convention rights set out in Article 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination).

(2) No order may be made under subsection (1) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the reasons that I outlined at the start of our deliberations today, I shall not move the amendment on this occasion but will return to the matter on Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Appointment to European Court of Human Rights]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 10, line 5, leave out ("12") and insert ("12(1) to (6)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 63, 64, 67 and 74. The issue which the amendments address was most helpfully drawn to the attention of the House in Committee on 27th November by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, when he moved his Amendment No. 97, as it was then, and spoke in the subsequent debate. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will regard the amendments that I now move as a completely satisfactory response by the Government to the issues which he then explored.
The Bill makes provision for the appointment of a UK judge to the European Court of Human Rights. It is possible, although not necessary, that the appointment will be made from among the ranks of serving judges. If that happens, the judge will be in a unique situation; and, in announcing the pension arrangements that will apply to him, I emphasise that no precedent is being set that could apply to any other position. The Government are concerned to ensure that, should a judge already serving in the United Kingdom be the preferred choice for appointment to the ECHR, he or she should not be adversely affected in pension provision when compared to every other judge serving in the UK. The amendments taken together ensure that a UK judge who is for a time serving in the ECHR will be treated for pension purposes as if he had not left his UK office.
Amendment No. 62 paves the way for that process by restoring the provision about pensions in the Supreme Court Act. It is, as I have explained, no longer appropriate to apply the rest of Section 12 to an ECHR judge, as it would mean paying his United Kingdom salary in addition to his European salary, even though he was not actively performing any judicial duties in the

413
UK. Therefore, he will not have two salaries, but only his European salary. However, it is obviously right that his pension rights should not be prejudiced.
As it is our intention that his eventual pension should be paid as if he had not had a period of service at the ECHR, it is right that the provision in Section 12(7) should remain applicable. Amendment No. 64 removes the general power to make pension provision for the ECHR judge; this is because it is replaced with a much more specific duty to make such provision. In changing the power to make arrangements to a duty to make specific types of arrangements, I am confident that the concerns expressed in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will be met.
Amendment No. 74 introduces a new schedule to the Bill, Schedule 3. This schedule contains the detail of how that pension provision will be made. It is intended that orders made under Schedule 3 will be subject to the negative resolution procedure, and Amendment No. 67 gives effect to this. Schedule 3 imposes a duty on the relevant Minister, who will usually be the Lord Chancellor, to make an order making pension provision for any serving UK judge appointed as a judge of the ECHR. It further provides that any such order must allow a judge who is a member of a judicial pension scheme to remain in that scheme, that the terms of membership must be as if he had not been appointed to the ECHR and that entitlement to benefits will be calculated in accordance with the salary as increased from time to time of the UK office which that judge holds. The order may also contain provisions as to how contributions will be collected from the UK judge. This is needed because contributions towards dependants' benefits are normally deducted from the judicial salary received by a judge, but the judge serving in the ECHR will not be receiving a salary in this country so that alternative arrangements will be needed for the collection of these contributions.
There is also power to amend relevant judicial pension legislation in order to facilitate the proper administration of a scheme. This will enable the modification or disapplication of pre-existing legislative provisions, should this prove necessary, to enable suitable administrative arrangements to be made to give effect to the policy. It is not envisaged that this power will be needed to any extent, if at all, but the pensions legislation is inherently complex and such a power—limited for this purpose—seems prudent. These amendments together will ensure that a UK judge appointed to the ECHR will in due course receive the same pension as if the ECHR appointment had not taken place. I believe that this will remove what might have been a powerful disincentive for some of our most able and highly qualified candidates from the judiciary to seek appointment to the ECHR. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in Committee, in my capacity as judicial shop steward emeritus, I raised the amendments which have resulted in my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor tabling on Report the amendments which he has just described. They were
414
important amendments because they dealt with a constitutional matter of some importance. Section 12(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 states,
"Any salary payable under this section may he increased, but not reduced, by a determination or further determination under this section".
Pension is but deferred salary. I was concerned that the judicial pension, whose value has been much reduced by the judicial retirement and pensions Bill by requiring a judge to work 20 years instead of 15 years to achieve his 50 per cent. pension—totally out of line with pension provisions in Commonwealth jurisdictions—should not be further prejudiced if a judge were to accept an appointment at the Strasbourg Court. I therefore raised the objection that if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor were to remove the protection of Section 12(3), something must be put in its place.
I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having fought my battle with those who normally would defeat the claim for the judicial pension to be safeguarded, and to have fought it so well, so ably and so effectively. It is an indication of the generosity of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, although there are occasions when it is hidden so deeply that one does not immediately bear it in mind. I am most grateful.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, during the period since the creation of the European Court and Commission of Human Rights we have been fortunate in the quality of members of both institutions coming from this country. One recalls, for example. the very first British judge to that institution, the great international lawyer, Lord McNair, who was, I believe, the grandfather of my noble friend Lord McNair. One also recalls Sir Humphrey Waldock and Sir James Fawcett, who was, I believe, for 20 years a member of the European Commission of Human Rights. One comes to the present incumbents. I mention judges such as Sir Vincent Evans. and now Sir John Freeland, and Nicolas Bratza QC as the commissioner. They have all performed a vital public service, not always as well recognised in this country as it might have been. Most of them have been former senior legal advisers to the Foreign Office. None of them has ever been a serving British judge, or former British judge. In some ways that has been a pity because a more significant judicial contribution might have been made if we had had some of our great British judges serving in the European Court. There would have been a contrast with membership of the Court of Justice of the European communities.
I very much welcome these provisions which will enable effect to be given to some important principles. First, it is essential that members of this new European Court of Human Rights, who will become full time from November when the Eleventh Protocol comes into force, should be of the highest calibre, of outstanding quality. Some of us are concerned that with such a large court of perhaps 40 judges drawn from across Europe—east, west and central—it would be difficult to obtain judges of the highest quality.

415
Secondly, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has indicated, it is important that we ensure that there are no disincentives so that distinguished British jurists, whether drawn from the Bench or otherwise, are not deterred from forming that critical mass of intellectual and moral leaders who are needed if the new court is to succeed.
I therefore think that these are important provisions. They will facilitate those objectives. I ask this question only out of curiosity. Do we have similar provisions, or are they needed in respect of members of the European Court of Justice to ensure similar treatment? In my ignorance, I do not know whether similar provisions are in place. In practice, there seems to be no such problem for the European Court of Justice. It has always had judges of outstanding quality who have often sat as judges in this country before going to Luxembourg. These provisions apply only to the Strasbourg court for the good reason that the Bill is concerned only with the European Convention.
I apologise for taking so long in explaining the provisions. I welcome the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 63 and 64:
Page 10, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) Schedule (Judicial Pensions) makes provision about judicial pensions in relation to the holder of a judicial office who serves as a judge of the Court.").
Page 10, leave out lines 28 to 30.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 63 and 64. If Amendment No. 64 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 65.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Orders under this Act]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 11, line 8, after ("1(4)") insert 7(9A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 11, line 10, after (" 18(6)") insert ("or Schedule (Judicial Pensions)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Interpretation, etc.]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 67A:
Page 11, line, 26 at end insert ("and includes any Act of the Parliament of England or of the Parliament of Scotland passed before 1st May 1707 ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was put down at the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. It is merely a probing amendment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to satisfy me on this matter.
He will see that in the Bill the words "public general Act" are used. Our concern is whether the phrase "public general Act" covers Acts of Parliament from the English Parliament or the Scottish Parliament passed before the Act of Union in 1707. I am advised that there are still some Acts on the statute book and could therefore be relevant. We were unsure whether "public general Act" covered those cases. An assurance from the noble and learned Lord that the words cover Acts of Parliament passed by both those Parliaments before 1707 would satisfy us. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, I think it is fair to say that we are dealing here with what is a purely drafting point. This amendment would insert into the definition of primary legislation in Clause 21 of the Bill an express reference to Acts of the Parliaments of England and Scotland passed before the union of England and Scotland in 1707. As the noble Lord opposite explained, the concern is to ensure that such Acts are treated as primary rather than subordinate legislation under the Bill. At present the Bill defines primary legislation as including a "public general Act" but it does not further define what is meant by a public general Act. In fact the term is nowhere defined in legislation.
The question whether the definition of primary legislation should expressly include references to the various pre-union Parliaments was one which the Government considered before the Bill was introduced.
The issue arises not only in connection with the former Parliaments of England and Scotland, to which this amendment refers, but also in connection with the Parliament of Great Britain which existed in the period from 1707 to 1801; that is, after the Union of England and Scotland and before the union with Ireland, and in connection with the Parliament of Ireland in the period before 1801.
As noble Lords may be aware, the treaties of union themselves affirm the continuing validity of former legislation so far as not altered or repealed by the successor Parliaments. Article XVIII of the Preamble to the Union with Scotland Act 1706, for example, preserves (with certain exceptions) the validity of all,
"laws in use within the kingdom of Scotland".
Similarly there is no doubt that pre-1801 Acts of the Parliament of Ireland form part of the body of legislation in Northern Ireland. That follows from Section 1, Eighth Article of the Union with Ireland Act 1800 and the express savings provided by Section 61 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
We concluded that there was no need to make express provision on the point raised. The Bill invites a judge presented with a piece of legislation to conduct a very simple exercise to decide whether the legislation is primary or secondary. There can be no serious risk that the enactments of old Parliaments which preceded the United Kingdom Parliament in its present form could ever be regarded as subordinate legislation. In our view the enactments of those Parliaments must be primary

417
legislation for the purposes of this Bill. In the light of that explanation I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have every intention of withdrawing the amendment, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for staying here all evening purely to deal with this one amendment. I can only offer an apology to the House that, as a Peer of Ireland as well as a Peer of the United Kingdom, I failed to include Acts of the Irish Parliament and Acts of the Parliament of Great Britain that existed between 1707 and 1801. I shall not return to this matter at Third Reading. I believe that the assurances given to me by the noble and learned Lord are perfectly correct. However, should the issue arise again, I shall remember, when putting forward such amendments, to include other Parliaments as well as those that I did include. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Short title, commencement, application and extent]:
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [The Articles]:
[Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 74:
After Schedule 2. insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE JUDICIAL PENSIONS
Duty to make orders about pensions
1.—(1) The appropriate Minister must by order make provision with respect to pensions payable to or in respect of any holder of a judicial office who serves as an ECHR judge.
(2) A pensions order must include such provision as the Minister making it considers is necessary to secure that—

(a) an ECHR judge who was, immediately before his appointment as an ECHR judge, a member of a judicial pension scheme is entitled to remain as a member of that scheme;

(b) the terms on which he remains a member of the scheme are those which would have been applicable had he not been appointed as an ECHR judge; and

(c) entitlement to benefits payable in accordance with the scheme continues to be determined as if, while serving as an ECHR judge, his salary was that which would (but for section 18(4)) have been payable to him in respect of his continuing service as the holder of his judicial office.

Contributions
2. A pensions order may, in particular, make provision—

(a) for any contributions which are payable by a person who remains a member of a scheme as a result of the order, and which would otherwise be payable by deduction from his salary, to he made otherwise than by deduction from his salary as an ECHR judge; and

(b) for such contributions to be collected in such manner as may he determined by the administrators of the scheme.

Amendments of other enactments
3. A pensions order may amend any provision of, or made under, a pensions Act in such manner and to such extent as the Minister making the order considers necessary or expedient to ensure the proper administration of any scheme to which it relates.
Definitions
4. In this Schedule—
"appropriate Minister" means—

(a) in relation to any judicial office whose jurisdiction is exercisable exclusively in relation to Scotland, the Secretary of State; and

(b) otherwise, the Lord Chancellor;

"ECHR judge" means the holder of a judicial office who is serving as a judge of the Court;
"judicial pension scheme" means a scheme established by and in accordance with a pensions Act;
"pensions Act" means—

(a) the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959;

(b) the Sheriffs' Pensions (Scotland) Act 1961;

(c) the Judicial Pensions Act 1981; or

(d) the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993; and

"pensions order" means an order made under paragraph I.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 75:
Line I, leave out ("further") and insert ("domestic").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to the Title of the Bill. I moved it in the same form in Committee very late at night. I had hoped to move it before a full House this evening. There is nobody on the Government Back-Benches, so far as I can see. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has been faithful on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and there may be somebody else. I did the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, a disservice; I did not see him enter the Chamber. As usual, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has rightly come to invigilate on questions of statutory construction.
Tribute has rightly been paid to the draftsmanship and construction of the Bill. However, even with the best drafted measure the courts can be assisted by indications as to how it should be interpreted. There need not necessarily be an ambiguity. There is quite often matter for argument.
There are two, or possibly three, ways of indicating how a measure should be interpreted. The first is by examining the whole of the enacting provisions; but in addition (and secondly) in appropriate cases a purpose clause can be introduced. In my respectful submission, this was a very suitable measure for the inclusion of a purpose clause, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, proposed one which met with general affirmation. He withdrew it in order to consider the matter further before Third Reading. It is erroneously reported in Hansard that the amendment was negatived. It was not, it was withdrawn.
The third method, by no means mutually exclusive with the other two, is an indication in the Long Title of a Bill. There is this to be said in favour of such an indication of construction, that unless the Long Title

419
does that, it serves no useful purpose at all. A few sessions ago we had a Long Title that ran to three-quarters of a page or even longer. We moved an amendment reducing it to four lines and finally compromised on seven lines. But even then it served absolutely no purpose. It merely reiterated what the table of contents said more conspicuously.
In the absence at the moment of a purpose clause, this is very much a case where the Long Title can be slightly amended in order to give an indication. At present, it reads:
"An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed tinder the European Convention".
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said quite correctly that that was perfectly true. So it is; it is a truism. There are two directions in which the Bill gives further force to the Convention. One is that it amplifies rights already given by our common law and contributes to the European Convention. The other is that it makes the Convention rights enforceable against public authorities in our own courts. But that is clear from the contents of the Bill.
What a court of construction wants to know is whether it is intended that the Convention rights should apply in domestic law. That is precisely what the White Paper said and what my noble and learned friend has said on many occasions. So all I suggest is that in place of "further effect", the Long Title should read "domestic effect". That will mean something to a court of construction, whereas the Long Title at the moment means nothing at all. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has put forward a case which deserves serious consideration. The word "further" is somewhat vague anyway. Further to what? We are in effect giving our domestic courts the jurisdiction relating to the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. It seems to me to be a more accurate way of describing the contents of the Bill and a more precise way to use the word "domestic" than to use the word "further".
I hope that I am in order in saying that I am glad that the noble and learned Lord also raised the question of what happened to Amendment No. 1 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, which, as he said, received a great deal of support right across the House. I was one of those who keenly supported it. I am not in a position to say whether it was actually negatived or negatived by mistake. However, when I saw in Hansard that it had been negatived, I was extremely surprised..
9.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I realise that when it comes to questions of statutory interpretation of Long Titles, purpose clauses and statements of principle, speaking after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I am a young boy among wise men. Therefore I shall say extremely little on the subject. However, I should like to say something.
420
First, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a former Prime Minister of New Zealand, when explaining the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, said something rather wise. He said, "Bills are made to pass". I use that phrase when I hear critics of this Bill saying that it has diluted the milk of pure principle in some way.
I am sure that the Government chose the words of the Bill carefully to enable the Bill to pass. That may explain some curious and ingenious formulae that have been used in the Bill. I suspect that the Long Title is defined as
"An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms".
rather than,
"to give domestic effect to rights and freedoms".
not because of some doctrinal or theological objection to the notion of giving domestic effect. That is already made clear in the White Paper, as I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree when he comes to reply. It is clear from the White Paper that this measure is designed to give domestic effect to convention rights and freedoms; it is designed to incorporate the convention into domestic law.
I cannot read the substance of the Bill in any other way. The only matter which gives me cause for concern and made me decide to put my name down in support of the amendment is that earlier in the debate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said something which I found extremely curious. He said something along the lines, "This Bill will not incorporate convention rights into the substance of domestic law". That seemed to me to be an almost mystical concept which I could not understand. It seems to me that if the Bill does anything clearly, it incorporates convention rights into the substance of our domestic law and it does so in a number of ways.
One way is by commanding judges to read statutes, where possible, to comply with convention law. That is where it embodies convention rights into our statute law. Another way is that it requires judges to be a public authority bound by the convention and therefore interpreting and applying the common law and statute law to give effect to convention rights. Therefore in those ways it surely does incorporate convention rights into the substance of our domestic law. If we can agree about that, it will go a long way towards assuring me that, whatever the reasons for those curious words in the Long Title, at least it is quite plain that the central object and purpose of this Bill is to give domestic effect to convention rights and freedoms. If that is clear it may well be that this amendment is otiose.
If there were any ambiguity about it then I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has the better of the argument. There is a powerful case. I wish that the matter had been dealt with by a purpose clause and at an earlier stage. This is the last amendment that we shall consider today. Before we say farewell to this Bill it is important that this matter is put beyond any doubt. I therefore support the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, in moving this amendment, which is the

421
last that we have to consider at Report stage, took the opportunity to remark that the House was not as fully attended as it might be at this hour. In the dying moments of Report stage on this Bill, I shall give the noble and learned Lord an additional opportunity to have the last word by rebuking me yet again on my unyielding disposition in relation to this jewel of a Bill.
I do not believe that there is much that I can add to what I said when Amendment No. 75 was debated at Committee stage. The word "further" is included in the Long Title because, in our national arrangements, the convention can, and is, already applied in a variety of different circumstances and is relied on in a range of ways by our own courts.
The Bill will greatly increase the ability of our courts to enforce convention rights, but it is not introducing a wholly new concept. As I have said before, the Bill as such does not incorporate convention rights into domestic law but, in accordance with the language of the Long Title, it gives further effect in the United Kingdom to convention rights by requiring the courts in Clause 3(1),
"So far as it is possible to do so"
to construe—in the language of the statute, to read and give effect to—primary legislation and subordinate legislation in a way which is compatible with the convention rights. That is an interpretative principle.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am very reluctant to interrupt the noble and learned Lord. I believe that he said just now that it was an Act to give further effect in the United Kingdom,
"to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights".
The words "United Kingdom" do not appear in the Long Title. It merely says, "further effect". If we say, "domestic effect" we make it clear that it is in the United Kingdom. The phrase that the noble and learned Lord has used would then be implemented.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, when I used the words "in the United Kingdom" I was not reading from the words of the Long Title. The words in the Bill are,
"An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights".
But I have not conceded that this Bill claims any extra territorial effect. I do not believe that it is a great flight of the imagination to read it as meaning in the United Kingdom.
I have to make this point absolutely plain. The European Convention on Human Rights under this Bill is not made part of our law. The Bill gives the European Convention on Human Rights a special relationship which will mean that the courts will give effect to the interpretative provisions to which I have already referred, but it does not make the convention directly justiciable as it would be if it were expressly made part of our law. I want there to be no ambiguity about that.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Lord Chancellor; but I wonder whether he would mind explaining the difference
422
between requiring our courts (as a public authority) to give effect to the convention; requiring our courts where possible to interpret Acts of Parliament to comply with the convention; requiring our courts in developing the common law to have regard to the convention rights, and requiring our courts to give effective remedies where there is a breach of those rights. What is the difference between all of that and incorporating the convention? What else would be needed over and above all that in order to incorporate the convention'?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is fast becoming something of a theological dispute and I should like to bring it to a conclusion as quickly as I may. The short point is that if the convention rights were incorporated into our law, they would be directly justiciable and would be enforced by our courts. That is not the scheme of this Bill. If the courts find it impossible to construe primary legislation in a way which is compatible with the convention rights, the primary legislation remains in full force and effect. All that the courts may do is to make a declaration of incompatibility.
I have a feeling that in these dying moments of Report stage we are behaving in a way in which judges sometimes behave at the end of a very long case. It is almost as if they cannot bring themselves to depart from the case and to be left to consider it themselves, and question after question continues. I have given the best argument that I may.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am quite satisfied that my noble and learned friend has given the best answer that can be given. We can therefore leave this to a later stage or to the other place.
I am most grateful for the cogent support that I have received on this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was altogether too modest. His intervention was extremely powerful. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is such an authority on statutory interpretation—not only in himself but because he comes trailing the clouds of glory of the Committee on Preparation of Legislation. The final word was said by him: further effect? What further effect? That is left entirely at large. There is no guidance to the courts at all.
My noble and learned friend said that this Bill is not intended to incorporate the convention into our domestic law. That is at variance with various points that have been made, but so be it for the moment. The amendment to the Long Title does not suggest that it should be. All that it seeks to do is to give "domestic" effect to the convention rights and that is incontrovertibly what it does. However, it is now nearly a quarter to ten, and I am 87 years of age, so I claim leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the National Lottery Bill [H.L.]
Thursday, 29th January 1998.
The Committee met at four of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi) in the Chair.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Objects]:
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky moved Amendment No. 37A:
Page 18, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—
("(a) helping to develop talent and achievements in the fields of science, technology and arts;").
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I slip out slightly before we finish this evening. Also, as this is the last day of the Grand Committee on the National Lottery Bill, I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for his courtesy and consideration in the last two sessions of the Committee. I look forward to renewing our engagement today and on Report.
In moving Amendment No. 37A I start by stating briefly our general concern about the way NESTA is being set up. First, we welcome it; it is a good and imaginative idea. We also like the fact that it has been endowed. This links it to an old British tradition in setting up public institutions going back to the Middle Ages. Had the method of endowment been used for our new universities or, to give another example, for the Royal Opera House these institutions probably would not have experienced their recurrent financial crises—or at least not so acutely—and would have been independent bodies in fact and not just in name.
Here our first worry creeps in. I quote what the noble Lord said at Second Reading:
"NESTA is the ne plus ultra of the arm's length principle".— [Official Report, 18/12/97; co1.790.]
However, we see some rather large fingerprints of the Secretary of State on it, especially in Clause 19. Our amendments are designed to give it more genuine independence. Unless some of the Secretary of State's powers are limited, the danger is that it will become his toy.
A second worry is duplication. The objects for which NESTA is being set up are already being partly fulfilled by other grant-giving bodies—for example, the research councils—but also by charities. We do not want either taxpayers' money or private donations to be diverted to NESTA. Again, the question of additionality, which has dogged our footsteps right through the Bill, rears its head. Will NESTA, for example, be able to consider an application from a university group which would otherwise have been directed to a research council or to the British Academy'? We want NESTA to be additional
CWH 108
to other initiatives including voluntary ones, not a substitute for them. Finally, we do not want NESTA, any more than we want the new opportunities fund in general, to suck money away from the other good causes. We shall therefore be seeking to limit the Secretary of State's powers to enlarge its endowment at the expense of the original good causes.
I turn to my amendment. Amendment No. 37A is simply a drafting amendment. The word "individual" in the Bill suggests that only individuals will be eligible for grants; it carries that suggestion. We do not want to exclude team and group projects: for example, fringe film companies is one object that has been discussed. We believe that our draft accomplishes this aim.
As for Amendment No. 37B, which relates to subsection(2)(b), I should like to ask how exactly NESTA is supposed to help people turn inventions and ideas into products and services. The Government's note on Clause 15 gives no examples. Is NESTA supposed to finance companies or groups to market their products? Is it supposed to enter into competition with banks? If so, is that not back to the bad old days of picking winners?
The contention seems to be that we are very good at inventions but banks or others are reluctant to back them, so they end up being exploited overseas. The argument that our innovators have suffered from lack of venture capital is an old one, but it is very hard to prove. Surely, whatever the case, NESTA should not seek to become a venture capitalist or business angel in its own right. We should have learned by now that government agencies should not try to second guess the private sector. In the end it is the taxpayer, or in this case other National Lottery initiatives, who suffers the losses of bad decisions.
Also, what does it mean "to help protect property rights"? Are these not already protected by copyright and patent laws? It seems to us that the Government are trying to edge NESTA into commercial activities in which it should not be involved. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: This amendment gives me the opportunity to probe the real intentions of setting up NESTA and to seek an explanation from the Minister as to why the Government's intentions in this field appear to be relatively limited. In reading the White Paper, and indeed the debate held at Second Reading, I am left with a considerable series of questions in my mind.
As I understand it, NESTA has an important, though limited, role. Like my noble friend, I am not quite certain how far it goes, particularly with this reference to individuals, and indeed what its limitations are. It is certainly perfectly possible to think of the development of scientific or intellectual ideas, but when we come to the arts, are we only dealing with the encouragement of the writer or the artist in creating a particular individual work? Are we, as has been indicated, going further and talking possibly about the ability to create scripts and productions in the world of film? If we are going that far, then what about artistic productions in the theatre or in opera?

CWH 109
That takes me to the central question that I have about this Bill, and it is something which genuinely puzzles me. My noble friend Lord Gowrie, in an eloquent speech at Second Reading, drew attention to the huge problems facing the arts at the present time, particularly with regard to the shortage of revenue funding. In column 773 of Hansard on 18th December, he spoke of the huge capital inflows, which he suggested had led the Treasury to cut our small revenue. He spoke of our suffering the worst arts revenue crisis in his adult lifetime, and he referred to specific examples.
A good many of the supporters of the Government have in recent weeks expressed their dismay, concern and surprise about the situation they now face. They criticise the present Government because they believe they are merely continuing policies which they strongly criticised when they were pursued by the previous administration. In making those criticisms, some of those most outspoken tend to paint a picture of the arts having been in a catastrophic period over the past 20 years. I shall go on to comment about the shortcomings which I believe have existed in government policy under both the previous administration and the present Administration, but I happen to believe that the past 20 years have in many respects been one of the most productive periods we have seen in modern times as far as large sections of the arts are concerned. Despite the recurrent problems that have arisen, I do not believe that we have ever in this country had such a wealth of talent in the opera companies, or have seen such a series of outstanding productions from a number of opera companies. The strength of some of our orchestras has been remarkable, and theatre too.
However, it is true that in the early 1980s the arts were greatly helped at a time when there were government constraints by the strength of funding from the private sector. That funding tended to fall away as we moved into a period of recession and the problems grew.
In criticising what is happening now, let me assure the Minister that I am not doing something that I did not do even when I was in government. I did something in this field—I sent a minute to the Prime Minister which I certainly did not make a practice of as Secretary of State for Wales—at some point in the early part of the 1980s expressing my acute concern about policies for funding the arts and expressing the view that even quite modest increases in funding could make a dramatic difference. I supported the then Minister for the Arts—now Governor of Gibraltar, having moved on to a different role in life—in the battle he was having in the PES exchanges in government.
I would add that as Secretary of State for Wales I made a practice of finding financial support out of my block grant in Wales for heritage bodies. I found the money to build the art galleries at the national museum. Indeed those policies were followed by some of my successors; at least one of them supported the Welsh National Opera, for example, in a moment of crisis. This is an ongoing saga, but the fact of the matter is we have a lottery which has been injecting vast capital sums, and we can be thankful for that, but we face the real risk that as
CWH 110
we move into the next millennium there will be no one to use the buildings. The companies that should be occupying them will be in a state of crisis.
This applies not only to the performing arts. Some of our national museums are still in a pretty bleak condition. I paid a visit to the Victoria and Albert Museum a little over a year ago. (I was practically brought up in the Victoria and Albert Museum. My father was keeper of the department of woodwork for many years.) I went upstairs to look at the British collections. I have to say I was almost in tears, tears of frustration and anger, as I left. I had earlier been admiring the superb exhibits of the Indian and the Far Eastern collections, to take two examples, funded on a magnificent scale by those from overseas. The display of our own collections at the present time in the Victoria and Albert Museum are a national humiliation and a disgrace. I think those involved would admit it. They keep talking about the difficulty of finding adequate funding to do anything about it. The collections are nothing like as good as they were in the period after the war, when those exhibits were first restored by the then director, Leigh Ashton, and others.
We have a pretty desperate situation right across the field of the arts. Here, as I understand it, with NESTA we are taking a modest but important step into a very limited area. I am not at all sure how limited that area is, and nothing I have read provides clarity. We keep hearing statements from those who now have the job of defending arts policy on behalf of the Government that steps are being taken to move away from the previous constraints that limited lottery funding entirely to capital projects. Indeed, the Secretary of State—facing a blitzkrieg from critics on television the other night—used words which indeed suggested that there was going to be a new ability to provide revenue funding for people and for activities taking place in the buildings, not just capital funding.
I am sorry I was not able to be present at Second Reading just before Christmas to make this point, but I do not understand why the opportunity was not taken in this Bill to go much further than appears to be the case with NESTA. Why was the opportunity not taken to give the ability—as we come to the end of the need to go on funding great capital schemes—to help the performing companies, individuals and galleries carry out to the maximum possible extent their own objectives within those buildings? It will be an absurd situation if, when the Bill is passed, we continue to face a series of crises right across the field about which I have been speaking with no real ability to do anything substantially about it out of lottery funding without further legislation.
It seems to me that we may be in the situation where we will be helping talented individuals in the fields of science, technology and the arts to develop their creative ideas, and then at the very moment when we might see them translated into vivid performances, into successful productions to strengthen the companies that invite the public in to see them, somehow the whole thing will fail and there will be no performing companies to take up the ideas. The productions that have been thought of, the ideas that will have been invented, will never be developed simply because we will be going on using money for a further range of capital buildings while the companies face an ongoing series of crises.

CWH 111
I simply take this opportunity to try to extract from Government a clearer idea of what their policy is, how far we can now go with the Bill as it now is, and to seek information as to whether there is any prospect as a consequence of this legislation of finding a way out of the mess which we are now in, a mess which I fully accept—and noble Lords are not going to have to use that defence—arose as much from policies of the previous administration as it does from those followed now by the present Government.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, began his treatment of the two amendments with some general remarks, and we are in complete agreement with the two main points that he made. There is no intention that NESTA will, as he put it, become the toy of the Secretary of State, and we certainly agree with him about the point which in brief was additionality, that NESTA should not be concerned with substituting for what is already available. We have tried to make this clear again and again in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said that NESTA should be more at arm's length, and I believe he mentioned Clause 19 as giving the Secretary of State too much control. However, Clause 19 is all about powers to allow the Secretary of State to provide safeguards for the lottery endowment, and the powers in Clause 19 are concerned only with financial control and accountability matters; he will have no powers to influence NESTA's policies and programmes.
The noble Lord asked specifically whether NESTA will fund matters that other bodies fund, for example universities. We recognise that NESTA's interests overlap inevitably with some other bodies. We want NESTA to work with or through those bodies. In our opinion NESTA's first task should be to assess current provision, look for partners and ensure that its contributions are truly additional. That is a very important principle that we have tried to embody throughout the Bill.
The noble Lord also asked how NESTA would protect property rights. Intellectual property rights are protected by copyright, patents, design rights and so on, but protecting those rights and seeking registration in the case of some rights is a complex matter, particularly where rights need to be protected not only in this country but also in many other countries. Our idea is that NESTA will be able to work with inventors and artists to ensure that these rights are properly protected and we will be able to help them achieve that.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, also raised this question of individuals. I now turn specifically to the two amendments that we are dealing with. NESTA is primarily about the talents and creativity of individuals and helping them to reach their full potential, but individuals can also be part of a wider group. It does not have to be one single individual. It can be one individual or a group of individuals. It is difficult to see how NESTA could address its support for talent to whole groups and teams without actually specifying individuals.
CWH 112
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, raised very important and serious points, which we would all echo, about the state of the arts in this country. Many of them will be dealt with under Amendment No. 39, with which my noble friend Lord McIntosh will be dealing later. We are concerned that lottery-funded buildings should have something to go in them. Other parts of the Bill and other actions we are taking will mean that lottery funding can address the needs of both capital and revenue of the good cause sectors. That is how the distributor strategies will address the framework which governs distribution.
Lord Crickhowell: I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could help me on one specific point. I am not very good at interpreting the legal jargon of Bills, and I have cast my way around this Bill. I keep hearing the statement that there are other parts of the Bill. I simply have not been able to identify them. If there is going to be this change of policy, I want to know where it appears and to what extent action is possible under it to deal with the problem to which I am referring. I simply have not been able to identify it so far, and reading everything that has been said about the Bill. I am as confused about it as I was when I began.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: But what will not be dealt with under parts of the Bill are the objectives of NESTA. That is a negative answer, but I can certainly tell the noble Lord what is not there. When we come to Amendment No. 39 and that part of the Bill I hope that this discussion can continue there.
It is fair to say that the proposals for NESTA have been among the most widely welcomed of all the proposals of our White Paper. Nine out of 10 of the people who responded commenting on NESTA supported its establishment. The proposals which are now embodied in the Bill have been the subject of lengthy discussion and consultation outside and inside the Government, both before and since the general election. The response to NESTA has been overwhelmingly enthusiastic. I was pleased to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, also gives his support to the concept of NESTA.
The reason why NESTA has so captured people's enthusiasm is that it is perceived that there is a major and damaging gap in our national life which NESTA will fill. Britain is a country full of talent, ideas, innovation and creativity. As well as a source of national pride, this surely represents a real economic as well as a cultural value. Many of the jobs of the future will depend upon creativity. If we are to make the most of the advantages of the creativity of the British people, we must ensure that we support and nurture that creativity.
Britain has too often failed to provide this support in the past. Too many of our talented young artists and musicians have found the way barred to them. Too many of our inventions have been exploited overseas because financial support could not be found to develop them here. Too many of our scientists have left to pursue their pioneering work in foreign laboratories. NESTA's primary object is,
"to support … talent, innovation and creativity in thc fields of science. technology and the arts".

CWH 113
It will do so by helping talented individuals reach their full potential, and by helping turn good ideas and innovations into marketable products and services at the cutting edge of technology where financial support is often hard to come by. In these ways, NESTA will help the most talented people in our country to give of their best.
The first of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, would remove NESTA's focus on,
"helping talented individuals reach their full potential".
Instead, it suggests that NESTA should help,
"develop talent and achievements".
On the face of it I would agree that this does not perhaps seem a significant difference but in practice we believe that the amendment is drawn far too wide. Developing talent and achievement is not the same as talented people reaching their full potential. The amendment seems to be aimed at a wider group of people, including those whose talents are not yet apparent or even noticeable.
It is not a primary objective of NESTA to improve general access and involvement in science, technology and the arts, however laudable these aims are. The Government support many other programmes and projects designed to promote exactly such access, but NESTA's concern is with the brightest talents whose gifts might otherwise be diluted, squandered or just not developed. The wider NESTA's focus, the less support it would in practice be able to deliver to those with the greatest potential. The Government, therefore, support the original wording, rather than the noble Lord's amendment.
The means by which NESTA is to achieve its objects, which are set out in Clause 15(2), include:
"(c) contributing to public knowledge and appreciation of science, technology and the arts".
We see this particular means as supporting NESTA's primary objectives—promoting talent and helping develop ideas. Ensuring public appreciation of the role of creativity will help to secure public support for NESTA's activities, but we do not expect NESTA to spend as much time and money on general public awareness activities as on its primary objectives. We are therefore considering whether we need to make it clear in Clause 15(1) that the public appreciation object in paragraph (b) is subservient to the main object at paragraph (a). If we consider that this needs to be made much more explicit, we will seek to return to this issue on Report.
The noble Lord's second amendment would remove altogether NESTA's capacity to support the development of new goods and services. At the cutting edge of innovation, it is often difficult to bring ideas to the marketplace. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said he had often heard this, but he was not convinced. However, venture capital often fights shy of creative genius and all its attendant risks. The clear market failure places the UK at an economic disadvantage, and has done so until now, and it leaves others—notably the United States and Japan—to exploit and capitalise upon what was, very often, British creativity. The Japanese Government have estimated that 57 per cent. of major technological innovations which have benefited the Japanese economy
CWH 114
stemmed from ideas or inventions from the United Kingdom. I know those figures are often quoted—at least, I have read them a great deal recently—but they are nonetheless telling for the fact that they have been reiterated. If one reflects on what that means, it surely makes an unanswerable case about the fact that something needs to be done to help British creativity be exploited in its own country.
We need to do something to address this failure and to ensure that most of the benefit of British innovation, talent and ideas is reaped here and not overseas. The noble Lord's amendment would, we believe, move this major plank of NESTA's activities. That is one of its activities that has been warmly commended by so many people who have been working in exactly those fields.
I hope that the noble Lord will, on reflection, agree with the central purpose and means we have set out for NESTA. I appreciate that at the beginning of his remarks he joined in welcoming the creation of NESTA and the fact that it was endowed by the National Lottery, but I hope that in the light of all this he will withdraw his amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Chorley: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment or otherwise, I wonder whether I could ask a question in order to try to understand a little better how this will work. I am not sure whether I am addressing myself to the amendment to subsection (2)(a) or the amendment to subsection (2)(b). But what happens in the case of an individual who works for a company—he may even own the company—which is trying to establish a new technology that it eventually wants to market? Will NESTA be able to give help to that individual? If the property rights—that is, the benefit of the invention— accrue to the company, does that preclude the individual from getting help from NESTA? Can the noble Baroness give me some guidance?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I am not sure whether I can be of complete guidance to the noble Lord, but it seems to me that it would depend very much on what agreement the individual had with his company. I do not know whether it helps to say that "persons", as used here, also includes companies. However, on the specific point of a person working for a company and applying for something that is his idea, it would depend on the relationship and the agreement between him and the company as to whether it could be treated as his personal idea or the company's. I may have misunderstood the question.
Lord Chorley: I do not want to prolong the discussion but subsection (2)(a) refers to "individuals"; I do not think that an individual can be a company. I can see that "persons" in subsection (2)(b) can be a company. Perhaps the noble Baroness will write to me in due course, but it will help tease out the scope.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: Yes, of course, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord. However, the point is that "individuals" in subsection (2)(a) does mean one or a few individuals, but "persons" in subsection (2)(b) also includes companies.
Lord Skidelsky: The Minister's reply has given us some indication of the difficulties of this subsection. That is why we are seeking to tighten it. For example, the provision in subsection (2)(a), which states,
"helping talented individuals in the fields of science, technology and the arts to achieve their potential",
seems to me to reflect a rather romantic view of the artist— the talented individual starving in the garret, and NESTA comes to his rescue. The trouble is that NESTA is the national endowment of science, technology and the arts. Unless it was purely for the convenience of the acronym that led to science and technology being put first, that has no relation to innovation in sciences and technology. These are team efforts, and creativity is a collective thing. They are laboratories, they are experiments, they are groups of people.
The word "individuals" just gives the wrong emphasis to the whole thing. It suggests that the Government have the idea of the starving artist as their paradigm. That is surely not the message that NESTA wants to be sent out, especially when coupled with the Minister's sad reflections on how inventions keep going abroad, are exploited by others and so forth, and that NESTA is designed to stop this happening. I suggest that wording does not relate to the objectives of NESTA centrally, as either stated by the Minister or in any of the notes we have had. That is why we want to change it. We may not have come across quite the right wording, but surely we have to find some way of getting "individuals" out of the central position, and making the provision more relevant to the needs of British science and technology, if indeed they are of the types that have been described.
The idea that our economy has lost a war over the past century because the British genius has not found expression in British industry and because owners are too stupid and banks too shortsighted—"Will Huttonism" one might call this—the Government have bought hook, line and sinker. It is totally unprovable. There may be something in it. there may not, but Iam interested in the mechanics of the process.
I asked a number of questions. Is NESTA supposed to enter into competition with banks in lending innovators money? Is its judgment supposed to supersede commercial judgment about the value of the products? If so, at the end of that do the losses fall to the taxpayer or to other National Lottery causes? We do not believe that NESTA should be set up to be a commercial organisation. I know the noble Baroness said this was a subsidiary aim and not the main aim, but there it is, and we believe that it should not be. That should not be the aim because only trouble will lie along that route.
I would beg the Government to take what we are saying seriously, not respond automatically, and do something to tidy up this subsection. It is going to land NESTA in trouble, and we are seeking to avoid that trouble.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I hoped that what I said would have persuaded the noble Lord that we were taking what he said extremely seriously and considering it very properly. I do not want to prolong this discussion too much at this stage, but I shall just deal with the two main points he made.
CWH 116
The word "individuals", the noble Lord pointed out, carried us away on a romantic idea about starving artists in garrets. Performing and creative artists usually have a pretty bad time financially, even if one hopes they do not starve in garrets. It is also true that talented scientists and inventors have similar problems. It is not true that one cannot have the same idea about helping people who are talented in the fields of science and technology just as in the arts—whether the performing arts or the creative arts—and giving them the help that they would not he able to get in any other way. That would be a very worthwhile thing to do.
On the issue of trying to help market British inventions, I do not quite know why the noble Lord keeps repeating that this is not provable. When the Japanese Government say that 50 per cent. of the inventions it processes come from Britain, that is part of the proof of something going wrong. I do not think it is arguable that Britain has been as successful as the United States and Japan, and even as some other European countries, in making full use of and fully exploiting economically and technically the inventions of its own scientists and technologists. The noble Lord spoke about whether NESTA is going to be in competition with banks.
Lord Redesdale: I apologise for intervening at this point. One of the problems that many of the people who develop ideas have at the moment—and my own brother-in-law is a designer—is that when taking your product to market it is often easier to get it developed and produced overseas, because the processing is so much cheaper over there. Would NESTA also look along those lines of the secondary manufacture of designed goods?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: Why not? This would be up to NESTA. NESTA will have as its object what we have put down. The way it could try to achieve its end of helping British inventors to market their inventions properly would be up to NESTA, and I would see no problem in it looking at all these potential ways of doing it.
With regard to the question of being in competition with banks, NESTA is not meant to be in competition with anybody and certainly not banks. What NESTA is about is reaching the parts that other methods do not reach in this sense of giving help and support. Yes, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is right in that there may be losses here, and the reason why venture capital is sometimes reluctant to help create a genius, as we have said earlier, is because there are big risks involved. We therefore must accept that NESTA will have to take risks, and NESTA will undoubtedly back some things which will lose money. That is why NESTA will have to take risks which venture capital will not be prepared to take, but that is one of the reasons why I believe we need NESTA.
Lord Skidelsky: We will not prolong this. One day I hope to persuade the noble Baroness that the Japanese examples she cited are part of what is called the diffusion of technology. There is nothing sinister whatever: it is a

CWH 117
very natural process that goes on the world over. She has, I believe, hinted that the Government will look at this. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 37B not moved.]
Lord Skidelskymoved Amendment No. 37C:
Page 18, line 13. leave out subsections (3) and (4)
The noble Lord said: We would see no need for these subsections if subsection (2) had been amended as we proposed. NESTA's remit in that case would cover everything which we believe it should do. If I am wrong about this, will the Minister give examples of the kind of changes in remit which might be required? We probably should not have a long discussion on this, because it may fall within the reconsideration of the previous amendment, but I should like to say that this was the reason behind it. If the Government accept the intention of our previous amendments, it seems to me that the Secretary of State's duties become largely redundant. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I should make it clear that we do not accept the intentions behind the previous two amendments. I was trying to be very reasonable and appreciative about the points that the noble Lord was making, but we do not accept the intention behind the previous two amendments. On this amendment—and it hangs together with the next one, Amendment No. 37D—it has been a principle from the beginning, as I tried to say when I was speaking to the first two amendments, that NESTA's policies and procedures should be at arm's length from the Government. Ministers should have no power of policy direction over NESTA; that is exactly right and as it should be. NESTA's objects are described in Clause 15(1), and there is no reason why these objects should change as time goes by.
Clause 15(2) describes the means by which NESTA is to achieve its objects. It is conceivable that those means might need to change, or other means might need to be added, if NESTA is to be able to meet its objectives. After all, NESTA is meant as a project for the 21st century. Science, new technology and the arts are developing at a fantastic pace, and we cannot predict what the circumstances will be in 10 years' time, let alone 20 or 30 years' time. We believe that it would be unwise to tie NESTA indefinitely to the means we have identified today.
NESTA's chair and trustees will need to be in command of the latest developments in their fields. They will be chosen to be able to do that. They will be charged with keeping NESTA at the forefront of encouraging new opportunities as they arise. As the arts, sciences and new technology develop, they may find in the future that they could achieve their objects more effectively by different means. Clause 15(3) and (4) give the Secretary of State power to amend the means by which NESTA is to achieve its objects, subject to an affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament.
CWH 118
I should emphasise that this power is exercisable only at the request of the chair and trustees of NESTA itself. There is no question of the Secretary of State being able to change the nature of NESTA's activity of his own volition. I should also say that the Government have no particular circumstances in mind in including this provision. It was felt that it would be too restrictive not to give the chair and trustees of NESTA the opportunity to put the case for different or additional means. With this in mind, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, will agree that, far from allowing ministerial influence on NESTA's policy, Clause 15(3) and (4) are important provisions to ensure that NESTA remains at the cutting edge of innovation. I therefore invite him to withdraw his amendments.
Lord Skidelsky: I note that the Minister said at the beginning of her remarks that the Government are not really disposed to accept the intention behind the previous amendment on which this hangs. Therefore, in withdrawing the amendment, I reserve my right to return to previous ones. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [General duty and powers]:
[Amendment No. 37D not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Initial and subsequent endowment]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 38:
Page 19. line 6, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone for drawing my attention to the point. Clauses 5 and 6 define the new good cause as "health, education or the environment", but Clause 17, as currently drafted, shows it as "health, education and the environment". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 19, line 11, leave out from ("allocated") to the end of line 14 and insert ("for expenditure on or connected with health. education and the environment.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to look at the funding of NESTA. Many of us believe that NESTA will be a very exciting and innovative project and we wish it the best of luck in all it does. However, one aspect about which we are concerned is that under the provisions set out at present funds for NESTA are already accumulating in the shadow funds for the new opportunities fund. With the inclusion of the amendment, we want to probe the Government's intentions over where future finance will come from. We believe that further endowments from the Secretary of State should come from the new opportunities fund rather than from the other good causes, which would give considerable alarm to them. This issue was flagged up by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, at Second Reading. The purpose of the amendment is to get an assurance from the Government that it is their intention

CWH 119
that any further endowment to NESTA should come from the new opportunities fund in the future and not from the other good causes. I beg to move.
Baroness Rawlings: Coupled with Amendment No. 39 is Amendment No. 39A. This is a probing amendment which is intended to seek clarification about the destiny of the old good causes' share in the lottery proceeds. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, raised serious concerns about the provisions of Clause 17(2). The Minister had little reassurance for him at the time. He said:
"The Government have assured [the National Heritage Lottery Fund, the Arts Council, the English Sports Council or any of the other distributors] that they will receive the money that they expected, and will continue to receive that money until the end of the present licence. No further assurance has ever been possible-.— [Official Report, 18/12/97; co1.7881
This provision seems to give the Secretary of State licence to raise a distribution fund at the expense of the old good causes on which so many people depend. We believe that such action is wrong in both principle and practice. In principle, it represents a further departure from the equality between the good causes enshrined in the 1993 Act; in practice, it would cause the problems of planning difficulties, over-commitment and uncertainty for recipients that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, highlighted. We want to protect the old good causes. We want to see only the Millennium Commission's share of funds go to NESTA when it completes its task.
Lord Crickhowell: This group of amendments takes us to Section 22(3) of the 1993 Act and the distribution to the good causes. It therefore enables me to press again the point that I raised earlier, particularly to pursue the point that, having got the money from the distribution fund, in whatever proportion, into the good causes, how much discretion then exists for moving from the previous policy of confining expenditure largely to capital projects to a wider interpretation and to a greater use for revenue funding, and what are the Government's intentions in this respect. I look forward the hearing the Minister's reply.
Lord Rowallan: The initial endowment for NESTA is to come from money set aside for the new good causes. However, after one year the Bill enables one to increase the NESTA endowment directly from the National Lottery Distribution Fund. This could reduce the amount to existing good causes.
The home countries' sports councils, as noble Lords are probably aware, have a very good programme at the moment of supporting up-and-coming elite sports performers through their world-class performance programme. Nearly £300 million will go towards that, which is extremely worthy. Can the noble Lord confirm that sports funding will not be reduced? If NESTA is to receive further endowments from the National Lottery Distribution Fund, can the Minister also confirm that this funding will not reduce the amount of funding for sport?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My noble friend Lady Ramsay said in response to the earlier amendment that
CWH 120
we would address these issues of funding when we came to this group of amendments, and I am happy to confirm that I plan to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has said that the percentages are set out in Section 22(3) of the 1993 Act. and he is quite correct. If he turns to Section 28 of the 1993 Act, he will see that amendments are possible by order to those percentages, with only the condition that none of the existing good causes can come below 5 per cent. of the money available for good causes. The point I tried to make at Second Reading is still valid—it was the intention of the previous government that there should be this degree of flexibility in the funding of the existing good causes—that any of them could go down to not less than 5 per cent. at any stage by order without primary legislation. In this Bill, we are simply extending the same flexibility as was intended by the previous government to, first, our new opportunities fund, and secondly, to NESTA. I am sorry to deal with these issues before I come to the specific amendments, but this is the right way round because we are talking about the continuing financing of NESTA.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, asked me in what sense we would tackle the problem which he rightly identified of risking having lottery funding for buildings rather than for people and having a large number of very fine buildings with nothing to put into them. There are two answers to that. On the face of the Bill, from Clause 8 onwards, there is a whole series of measures to increase the flexibility available to the existing distributors in the way in which they handle funding applications. They are enabled to solicit applications if they think that is appropriate, if they think there are significant gaps in applications for funding in different places or for different purposes. They are enabled to delegate their powers of approving applications to smaller groups of people who might be officials or regional committees or whatever. They are enabled to undertake joint schemes so that good causes which fall at the boundaries between arts, sports, charities and heritage, or indeed the millennium, can be undertaken and approved in a more rational way. This comes back to the case which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, himself raised in Cardiff, and on which I still have to write to him. They are required to produce strategic plans which will enable applicants to understand the thrust of their funding policies and make it easier for applicants to respond appropriately.
The specific point the noble Lord makes, which is in addition to these provisions, concerns the change of emphasis from capital projects to revenue projects. That will be given effect by policy directions made under Section 26 of the 1993 Act. We do not need to have it on the face of this Bill, although the provisions to which I have referred in Clauses 8 to 10 will help in the working of distribution.
I should repeat the warning I gave at Second Reading. You cannot simply fund a building and then indefinitely fund what goes into it. That would mean that every time you funded a building, the cost to the good cause would be cumulative. Gradually, over time, the amount of funding available for new projects will diminish as the continuing revenue funding obligations increase. So we

CWH 121
cannot go that far but we can do what we have done, which is simplify and make more flexible the funding procedures of the good causes, and we can, as we plan to do, change the policy directions to make revenue grants more appropriate. With that necessary digression, I return to the amendments in this group.
If I may respond first of all to the noble Lord, Redesdale, I am afraid we cannot accept his amendment. The 1993 Act provided Ministers with wide order-making powers, subject to the affirmative procedure, to re-allocate lottery funding between the good causes. That is what I referred to in Clause 28. Parliament recognised that there were all sorts of circumstances, not foreseeable at the time of the legislation, which might mean that there was a strong case for increasing or decreasing particular good causes' shares without the inflexibility and delay which would be caused if primary legislation were necessary.
All we are seeking to do by means of Clause 17(2) is to provide an equivalent degree of flexibility for NESTA. NESTA is not, of course, a lottery distributor. It will not receive a percentage stream of lottery funds. nor should it. We see it as a body apart from the lottery, and to tie it to a stream of lottery funds, which would be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment, would undermine this. It might also make other potential contributors more reluctant to contribute. However, we need to give ourselves the opportunity in future to respond to any need to increase its funding with the widest degree of flexibility about how we do so. It might not merely work, but work wonderfully well, and need more money for very good causes indeed.
Therefore, limiting the source of funding to the new good cause share—to the new opportunities fund—as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, suggests, would deprive us of that flexibility. We would not be able to take a view, across the good causes as a whole, of the competing demands. NESTA would only be able to receive a further endowment if the new good cause share happened to be able to fund the whole of it. That would not be right since, as I hope is clear already, NESTA will not be a new good cause initiative, nor does NESTA have any more of a relationship with the new opportunities fund than it will with any other distributor.
5 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: I shall press the Minister. We are looking at the Government's intentions here. Is it the Government's intention to replenish on a regular basis NESTA's endowment, and to what extent, if it was a significant amount of money, would that affect the percentages of the other good causes? I realise that it is not within the stream but it would affect the money they expected to receive.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is quite right, of course, and I have some specific assurances that I wish to give to the Committee about that. However, let me deal with Amendments Nos. 39A and 39B, which concern the millennium, before I come to the assurances, because they apply to both.
CWH 122
The amendment of the noble Baroness, with the accompanying consequential Amendment No. 39B of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, would in effect rule out NESTA ever receiving a further endowment. As I explained when we were discussing Clause 5, the Millennium Commission's entire projected funding of £2 billion is already committed or definitely allocated to programmes. There will be no scope for funding additional resources for NESTA from that money, and when the millennium stream has delivered the projected £2 billion the millennium good cause will cease to receive funding.
As I made clear in discussions on Clause 5, the Government do not believe, any more than the last government did, that it is sensible to limit flexibility to respond to circumstances which cannot be predicted. That is why I hope the Committee will reject these amendments.
However, I can give certain assurances about funding. First, the Government have no current plans to use the power. We consider that an endowment of £200 million provides NESTA with a fair and affordable endowment from the lottery. Circumstances would have to change significantly before we could consider making a further endowment.
Secondly, there would certainly be no question of using the power in a way which went against the expectation of the existing good causes that they will between them receive £9 billion over the lifetime of the current licence. Thirdly, if we were to use it, we would do so only after considering most carefully the outcome of the consultation which we are required to undertake by subsection (3), and in particular the impact any proposal would have on the distributors' ability to meet their commitments or to carry out their strategy.
I hope, with those assurances, noble Lords will feel that their amendments are not appropriate.
Lord Monro of Langholm: I am grateful for the point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made about the capital and current expenditure by the distributors, for instance the Sports Council on capital projects and on running expenses. We have been talking about this for approximately two years, and informally one understood the Sports Council was moving towards this. When will the Government be making the policy directions so that it can get on with this, and will it be in this financial year, so that sports councils can begin to work firmly towards supporting non-capital expenditure, which we both agree is so important?
Lord Crickhowell: I should like to follow up that point, because I was about to make a very similar point, but to carry it beyond the field of the sports councils. I am most grateful to the Minister for his clarification of the position, and for confirming that the constraints placed upon the distributing bodies—confining their grants largely to capital—was a matter of direction rather than legislative limitation.
Of course, I am well aware that it was originally introduced very largely at the wishes of the bodies to be funded, who feared that if money was initially available on a wide scale for revenue funding any government

CWH 123
would see this as a wonderful opportunity to cut revenue funding from the Treasury. It was therefore thought to be a safeguard. I think people no longer see it in quite that light, partly because of the problem, which has manifested itself with increasing strength as the years have passed, that there are magnificent improvements to the facilities but not enough money for what goes on inside them. In any case, people have discovered that revenue funding from the Treasury can, whatever happens, be cut, and indeed funding from the lottery may be cut. It is no longer seen as an effective safeguard, and therefore people—not just the Sports Council—are anxious to have a clarification of government policy.
I know that my noble friend Lord Gowrie, who is chairman of the Arts Council of England, has been discussing these issues with Ministers over a considerable period, but there has not yet been any real clarification of policy. There is considerable anxiety, not only in relation to sports but certainly the arts, that there should be greater flexibility, and that there should be an indication of the way things are going. In any case, the definition of what constitutes capital and revenue is always an interesting semantic exercise, and those of us engaged in business as well as in government affairs sometimes find the distinctions are not easy to make. Certainly in the field of theatrical, operatic or musical productions, for example. it is perfectly easy to argue that one is justified in funding an initial production, because it may last a decade or more, and continue to produce a source of revenue to the company. It is absurd to have a constraint on the ability to provide funding of that kind.
Grateful as I am to the Minister for clarifying that there is the capacity to change the present rules, and for some indication that it is indeed the Government's intention to do so and all the rather vague words uttered by the Secretary of State on television programmes and elsewhere that we are moving in this direction—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn and resume in 10 minutes.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.10 to 5.20 p.m.]
Lord Crickhowell: I was speaking of the importance of having clarification of the Government's intentions in this regard within the discretion available to them. I am grateful to the Minister for going the limited way he has today, which is helpful. The issue is of such great importance for sports bodies, bodies funded by the Arts Council and indeed the heritage bodies that I propose tabling an amendment at a later stage so that we can have further clarification and a clear statement of the Government's intentions in another place. I intend to pursue the matter further.
Lord Rowallan: I am afraid I feel the Minister did not come back to me either, and I would be grateful if he could expand slightly on his programme. The world-class performance programme and the United Kingdom Institute of Sport which was set up precluded
CWH 124
any sports money having anything to do with NESTA. I am extremely concerned that money could disappear from this extremely good cause if we are not very careful. Could the Minister confirm or deny the situation?
Lord Chorley: I do not want to take up more than a moment of time. I am glad the noble Lord. Lord Crickhowell, mentioned the Heritage Lottery Fund because it seems to me that exactly the same points about revenue funding apply there. Perhaps also in addition—although I do not want to go into detail if there is to be some sort of clarification—there is the whole question of endowment funding, which is also wrapped up with this sort of issue.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Noble Lords opposite are entirely right that the question of capital versus revenue funding is one of very long standing, not just in relation to the lottery but in relation to public expenditure generally and indeed in all walks of life. It has been going on for a long time, it covers all of the good causes and more, and it will not go away. I rather thought that if I left noble Lords opposite to it, they would continue to debate the issue among themselves and I would not need to intervene at all, because they have put both sides of the argument among themselves perfectly satisfactorily. I recognise the validity of the different points which they all make.
All that remains is for me to make clear again that the Government recognise that it is not possible to go over to complete revenue funding, because of the wishes of the distributors and the good causes to preserve additionality and because of the fact that it would gradually clog up the flow of funds for new projects: nor is it possible to stick to the original position of funding buildings and not people. I have already given an undertaking that policy directives are in preparation. I can confirm that we are already in discussion with the distributors about those policy directives. We hope soon to be able to enter formal consultation with the distributors, and we hope to issue the new directions in March or April this year.
Lord Chorley: Before the Minister sits down, can he say whether these policy directives will also cover the question of endowment funding?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, I think they should do, because endowment funding is in competition. Although NESTA is not part of lottery funding as such, it is clearly in a sense in competition with streams of funding for new money coming in from the lottery.
Lord Skidelsky: Before the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has the last word on this group of amendments, may I make one interjection? The Minister was quite right to remind us that Section 28 of the 1993 Act allowed the percentage for each good cause to sink to 5 per cent. If I may repeat the point I made before. in the situation facing us today there is an urgent need to protect the old good causes against the politically insatiable demands of the new good causes. That is quite

CWH 125
a new situation because this new good causes did not exist in 1993. That is just an observation which does not call for a reply.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I need to reply because, first, I have given firm and literal assurances about our intentions, and, secondly, the Bill itself contains percentages which reflect our intentions which do not include going down to 5 per cent.
Lord Redesdale: The purpose of the amendment was to achieve assurances, which the Minister has given to an extent, although it has been the basis of an extremely wide-ranging debate. I hope the Minister will accept my scepticism, not because I do not believe he has every intention of honouring the commitments he has made but because I do not believe that many governments will pass up the opportunity in the future of making additional alterations to the National Lottery Bill. I believe that is an argument we will have in further legislation, if that ever happens. I take the Minister's assurance that he does not see it happening at the moment, but I look forward to having those arguments during debates on that legislation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 39A:
Page 19, line II, leave out from ("for") to end of line 14 and insert ("expenditure on projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that it will never get to the stage of going down to 5 per cent. I do not intend to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 39A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 39B and 40 not moved.]
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky moved Amendment No. 40A:
Page 19, line 21, leave out (", without the approval of the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. We do not know what the Government intend here. Subsection (5) states that,
"NESTA may not spend their endowment, or any part of their endowment, without the approval of the Secretary of State".
Is it intended that NESTA should get some approval or might get some approval to spend its endowment? We believe that, on the face of it, it should not spend its endowment. Its endowment should be to provide a stream of income for the causes it supports. Under what circumstances do the Government envisage that NESTA would be spending its endowment? We want to get clarification of these questions. That is why we have tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I would also like an assurance from the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, because I believe that the case is that the chairman and trustees are to be
CWH 126
appointed by the Secretary of State. Can she give some indication of how the independence of that body should be guaranteed or promoted in its inception?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I hope I can reassure both the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on the points they have raised. As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, indicated, the amendment would prevent NESTA under any circumstances from spending any part of the capital of its endowment from the National Lottery. Currently, the Bill provides that NESTA may do so with the Secretary of State's approval.
The principle on which NESTA is established with an endowment from the National Lottery is that it should safeguard the endowment itself and fund its programmes and running costs from the investment income it receives from the endowment as well as from revenues it attracts from other sources. The endowment is an investment for the next century and it needs to be secured. That is the principle.
But the Government recognise that some flexibility is necessary at the edges. When NESTA is first established with the staff and accommodation it needs to start its work and with all the attention it will have upon it, it will need—if I may speak bluntly—ready cash. It will not have started attracting a flow of investment income. Nor can it be guaranteed that donations from third parties will have started flowing in at the beginning when it needs to start its activities.
In those early days, NESTA will need to be able to spend a small portion of the capital sum of the endowment. That is the key reason we have provided a power in Clause 17(5) for the Secretary of State to approve such spending. It is a purely practical response to an inevitable practical issue. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, would remove that power.
There may be other circumstances in which NESTA may wish to spend part of its capital. It may have the opportunity to support a one-off programme which it cannot afford alongside other priorities in a single year. It may therefore wish to adjust its spending profile to spread the investment over more than one year. To do so, it may need to spend a little capital, to be paid back into the endowment in the following year. In those circumstances it would appear to us to be reasonable for NESTA to come to the Secretary of State to seek approval for what might be a perfectly sensible course of action.
Whatever the circumstances, any approval that the Secretary of State were to give under this clause could be subject to financial directions which he issues under Clause 19. The Secretary of State could, for example, specify over what period NESTA should budget to pay back into the endowment any part it has spent with permission.
The Government fully intend to do all they can to preserve NESTA's endowment for future generations. This power and the counterbalance provided by the financial direction powers provide necessary flexibility at the margin.

CWH 127
In answer to a direct point from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, the Secretary of State appoints the trustees but he has no power to direct them on their policies or programmes. It is the trustees themselves alone who will have the responsibility for deciding what NESTA should do in seeking to meet the objects that Parliament sets for it. 1 hope that that answers that specific point.
We feel that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, would prevent the Secretary of State from responding flexibly and practically to the issues that NESTA will face in aiming to meet its objectives. I hope that, on reflection, he will agree that the power we propose is necessary and sensible. I assure the noble Lord that our main aim is to ensure probity and accountability. This is a practical proposal for what we see as very occasional practical problems that might arise.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: What the noble Baroness has said is very clear. Flexibility is written all over the place; it is a departmental obsession, not just in the noble Baroness's department but in every department. The Secretary of State has to have flexibility. The intentions of the present Secretary of State are incredibly honourable, and this provision will he used only very sparingly in the occasional practical difficulty that arises in starting something up. Indeed. Then we come to a new Secretary of State and there are all these powers. We remind the new Secretary of State of what the noble Baroness has just said and he says, "New Government, new circumstances".
Discretionary powers of this kind are always rather worrying because, whatever the intentions of the present incumbent, they offer no indication of what a future Secretary of State will do. That is why we are worried about them. Of course, we cannot do anything about it at this stage, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 41:
Page 19, line 22, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) In subsections (2) and (5) above, "endowment" means the aggregate of any amounts paid to NESTA under subsection (I) or (4) above.")
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. Before I do so, may I comment on the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. He may come back as often as he likes!
May I remind him that we have just had a change of government, and what the present Government are doing is retaining the flexibility that was provided for by the previous government. And it is now being attacked by the supporters of the previous government, who put in the flexibility in the first place. I wonder whether flexibility is more in Opposition than in Government.
Lord Skidelsky: The noble Lord will have noticed that I was not a member of the previous government and therefore do not feel bound by everything they did.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: At the Dispatch Box there is collective responsibility and that applies to the
CWH 128
Opposition Dispatch Box as well. Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43 are, I hope, welcome in the sense that they simplify the language of the Bill. Clause 17(6) currently defines what is meant by NESTA's endowment as the total of any contribution to NESTA from the lottery. The wording used is less than elegant and the amendments put it more succinctly in the same words. Amendment No. 41 saves seven words, Amendment No. 42 saves 14 words and Amendment No. 43 also saves 14 words. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: I would also entirely agree that the wording is an improvement. I just seek clarification or confirmation on one point. When we talk about the aggregate of the amounts paid, can the noble Lord tell me exactly what that means when we come to the growth of the fund and the investment record of the fund? Is it a fixed amount, or is it an amount that the aggregate then becomes when perhaps the capital has grown? May I just have clarification of what the aggregate means in this sense as the years pass? The fund may grow or it may reduce according to the investment result. We want to know what the answer to that question is.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is the aggregate of any amounts available from the lottery. So of course as lottery funds grow, the amounts will grow.
Lord Crickhowell: I am not sure that the noble Lord entirely understood my question. I take the point that, as each grant is made, they are taken together and you will have a total. However, I am simply seeking confirmation that that aggregate total, which may rise and fall according to the way the investments perform, the whole amount of it—whatever the sum is—remains the aggregate and it takes account of the future changes in value. That is all I am seeking by way of confirmation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Lord is asking me whether it includes the interest, no, it does not include the interest; it includes the original sums. However, the original sums are the endowment provided in Clause 17(1) and additional payments made under order by the Secretary of State under Clause 17(4). It is therefore the original sums and not the interest payable on them.
Lord Chorley: It seems to me that what is being proposed in the new amendment is what is known as historic cost accounting: that is to say it takes no cognisance of the effect of inflation. Perhaps that is the rule that might be looked at—it should be a more current cost accounting. It is the historic amounts which went into the fund at the particular dates that the noble Lord mentioned and, if 15 years down the line there has been a lot of inflation, you could pay out the difference between the historic cost and the new value if it has been invested sensibly in equities or other things.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not have the noble Lord's accountancy qualifications to which he referred in an earlier session. This is an endowment and the income from the endowment is being spent to meet the objectives set out in Clause 15 of the

CWH 129
Bill. Therefore, there is no addition to the endowment from the accrual of interest, because all of that is going to expenditure from the endowment. It is in cash and it is invested by the Treasury under normal arrangements.
Lord Chorley: This is really not the time to get into technical arguments on current cost accounting and historic cost accounting. Perhaps we can have a word outside the Committee on this point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Other duties]:
Baroness Rawlingsmoved Amendment No. 41A:
Page 19, line 32, leave out ("shall he under a duty to") and insert ("may").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 41A. As my noble friend Lord Skidelsky has argued, we are concerned about the nature of NESTA. We accept that it cannot be a charity because it would be unable, for instance, to grant loans or enter into joint ventures, as proposed by Clause 16(2). As set up, it is more akin to a non-departmental public body on a long lease from the Treasury, as the endowment sets it free from the PESC treadmill.
If it is not to be a charity, it appears inconsistent to make NESTA similar to one by placing it under the obligation to fund-raise. It is extraordinary for a government to set up a body to raise public donations to deliver government policy. We feel strongly that a body with clear government backing, which will fund-raise in direct competition with other charities, is bound to affect the flows of charitable giving.
I accept it is a point of debate whether the lottery is the sole cause—or indeed a cause—of the decline of charitable giving in recent years, but it seems rash, however, to rule out that the lottery has damaged charities, and the impact of NESTA on the charitable sector should be carefully assessed. I would therefore argue that it would be prudent to limit the fund-raising powers of NESTA.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: As the noble Baroness has made clear. this amendment would remove the duty on NESTA to seek sources of income other than the lottery endowment. It would, however, give NESTA a permissive power to do so.
Clause 18 places a specific duty on the trustees of NESTA to raise money, as well as other forms of assistance, from a variety of sources, to supplement its endowment from the lottery. We do not agree with the noble Baroness's amendment to make such fund-raising optional.
I hope the Government have demonstrated their determination to establish a body with considerable freedom of action, clearly at arm's length from the Government. Our consultation process told us that people wanted NESTA to be set up, and set on its way, without any ongoing involvement from government in its policies and priorities. We share that vision of NESTA.
CWH 130
Clearly, in establishing such an independent public body, and in granting it a large endowment from the National Lottery—£200 million—Parliament and the Government need to be clear what they expect from NESTA. That is why in Clause 15 we have set out NESTA's objects and the means by which it should seek to achieve those objects.
If NESTA is to succeed in its mission, it must secure the support of the general public, of talented individuals, and of the creative and business communities. In many ways, NESTA is akin to a charity. Its aims are intended to benefit the nation as a whole as well as the individuals it supports. Like a charity, one of its primary activities must be to seek support from wherever it can.
Whether NESTA is or is not a charity is, of course, a matter for the Charity Commission. The Charity Commission has indicated informally that it is unlikely that NESTA's objects are exclusively charitable, and I think even to a non-expert eye that would seem to be rather a reasonable conclusion.
To the question of whether NESTA is fund-raising for government policy—which I think the noble Baroness indicated in her introduction of the amendment—the answer is certainly not. NESTA will raise funds for NESTA's policies. The Government will have no influence once Parliament has passed and set up the objectives for NESTA. It will be NESTA which pursues whatever policies it thinks fit for achieving its objectives.
The endowment from the lottery will allow NESTA to make a significant contribution from the very outset. It will place NESTA in the list of the top 10 grant-making trusts in the UK. But, if its mission is to continue, to develop and to expand, it must widen its resource base and use its income to invest in what—as we have said so often before—we intend it to invest in; British creativity, talent and ideas. I do not believe that this activity can be an optional extra. The Government and Parliament will commit themselves to NESTA through the endowment from the lottery. It is only right in return to expect NESTA to do all it can to build on that public investment by seeking further contributions to its resources.
I hope that that has helped to convince the noble Baroness and to understand why the Government see this duty as wholly appropriate as a duty and not a permissive possibility. I hope she will consider withdrawing her amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. I still find phrases like "akin to a charity" rather enigmatic. This duplicates the roles of many charities, which is a great shame. When the noble Baroness also mentions that NESTA will be totally independent, we must not forget that its chairman and the board will be appointed by the Secretary of State, so it is not an elected body like the National Trust. The National Trust chairman is elected from within the body.

CWH 131
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for the moment, with the right perhaps to come hack to it at a later date.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 20, line I, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) In this section "endowment" has the meaning given by section 17(6) above.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 [Directions etc]:
Lord Skidelsky Lord Skidelsky moved Amendment No 42A:
Page 20, line 13, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
("( ) If NESTA fails to comply with any directions given to them under this section, the Secretary of State may after taking into account any representations made by NESTA, act pursuant to paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 4.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to white out one of the Secretary of State's fingerprints. Schedule 4 gives the Secretary of State power to appoint all NESTA's trustees and remove any or all of them if they are unable or unfit to discharge their duties. These are very ample powers, as my noble friend has just pointed out. We feel that they should not be supplemented by the further power to fine NESTA for not carrying out the Secretary of State's directions. The principle we propose is very simple—appoint people to do a job and sack them if they do not do it, but do not whittle down their financial resources while they are trying to do it.
We also see practical difficulties about fining. Suppose the Secretary of State were to remove the whole or part of NESTA's endowment, as he is entitled to do. What would happen to the projects in the pipeline—applications for grant which had already been approved? Would they just be cancelled? Both on grounds of principle and on practical grounds, there is a good case for our amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I hope that in a reasonably simple and straightforward way I can clear up what is perhaps a misunderstanding about the situation. The powers which the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to exercise over NESTA are actually very limited. They are chiefly concerned with safeguarding the public investment in NESTA through the endowment from the National Lottery. Clause 19(1) allows the Secretary of State to issue NESTA with directions concerning its financial arrangements.
It is clearly important that the public's investment in NESTA is secure at all times. The financial directions will provide the proper level of accountability and control to allow the Secretary of State to ensure that this achieved. There clearly also needs to be some backstop provision to allow for the unlikely event of NESTA failing to comply with any such direction. The Bill as drafted provides the sensible and responsible solution that in those very unlikely circumstances the Secretary
CWH 132
of State will be able to require NESTA to pay hack to him all or any part of the endowment. This will enable him to continue to safeguard the lottery endowment.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, as I understand it, suggests an alternative approach. He suggests that the Secretary of State should be given the power in these circumstances to remove the chairman or trustees of NESTA. We can certainly see the point of the amendment. It is both to act as a deterrent to activity outside the terms of the financial directions, and to enable the Secretary of State to change the board so as to address the perceived shortcoming.
However, this amendment does not provide a quick and direct means by which the Secretary of State can assure himself that the lottery endowment is safeguarded. That, I believe, is the main drawback of the amendment. It is high on deterrent value, but low on practical financial protection.
In practice, none of us expects either of these provisions ever to come into play. We do not need a deterrent to reckless behaviour by the trustees. After all, we are placing them in a position of trust, which is why we are calling them "trustees" in the first place. and we are sure they will do their utmost to live up to that trust. All we need is a longstop provision to safeguard the public's money. That is provided by the Bill as drafted, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, will accept the point. The point is to secure the endowment, not to sack the trustees.
We are very serious about trusting the trustees, but we are equally serious about securing the endowment, and that is why we have drafted this provision as we have. I hope that puts the noble Lord's mind at rest as to the motivation behind it, and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Skidelsky: I am full of anxiety. I would just ask the noble Baroness whether she could answer my second point concerning the practical problem of projects in the pipeline, which would presumably have to be cancelled if the Secretary of State withdrew parts of the endowment and, therefore, the stream which went with that endowment.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: It seems to me that in the extreme, almost unimaginable, circumstances of something so untoward happening that the Secretary of State had to ask the trustees to reimburse part of the endowment which had been grossly misspent, there would still be money in place for the projects which were considered perfectly legitimate. It would only be in order to retrieve what had been misspent that the money would be demanded back. We are dealing in very hypothetical situations here of course, but we are, after all, legislating for that.
If a "melt-down" situation applied—which is why we have included the provision—then the trustees would be changed and Clause 17(2) would be used to re-endow whatever new trustees would be in place. The whole point is to try to get back the money that was misspent. Presumably the trustees would also be replaced by new trustees. We are dealing with a situation in which there would be a considerable crisis. I do not believe that a

CWH 133
project which was up and running would present a big problem. Indeed, the whole point of trying to get the money back is so that there would be money for legitimate projects to go forward.
Lord Skidelsky: I am impressed by the ability of the noble Baroness to think out these matters on the hoof. Unimaginable though any of this may seem, the Bill is always ensuring against unimaginable contingencies and this is one against which it has not insured because it is not convenient for the Government to do so. I was raising the case, which does not seem to me at all unimaginable, that a percentage of the endowment is cancelled, and therefore the projects that depend on that stream of money cannot go ahead. The noble Baroness says, "Ah!", but in that case we can re-endow NESTA and Clause 17(2) gives us the machinery to do it. However, it does not mandate that at all, it does not say that it has to be done. It may possibly be done not at that moment, at some other point, and therefore there is still the practical problem I raise. I wish that the noble Baroness would give it some consideration because it is there—unless she can allay my deep anxieties even further.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I shall write to the noble Lord at greater length, but the basic point is this. What must be done in a situation of crisis where money has been clearly misspent is to get the money back and to secure the endowment. I accept there might be a hiatus in which legitimate projects would have a cash-flow problem from NESTA, and that would be put right by restoring the endowment, both by getting the money back and by making good the shortfall. It might make the matter clearer if I write to the noble Lord at greater length.
Lord Chorley: I do not quite see how one can get the money back if it is gone, but perhaps that can be covered in the letter that the noble Baroness is to write to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky.
Lord Skidelsky: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 43:
Page 20. line 29, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) In this section "endowment" has the meaning given by section 17(6) above.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [Annual report and forward plans]:
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Exemption from taxation]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 45:
Page 21. line 27, at end insert—

("(g) the Sports Council, in respect of sums allocated to it from the National Lottery Distribution Fund or solicited under section 25(2A) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993,

(h) the Scottish Sports Council, in respect of sums allocated to it from the National Lottery Distribution Fund or solicited under section 25(2A) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993,

(I) the Sports Council for Wales, in respect of sums allocated to it from the National Lottery Distribution Fund or solicited under section 25(2A) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, and

(j) the Sports Council for Northern Ireland. in respect of sums allocated to it from the National Lottery Distribution Fund or solicited under section 25(2A) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.".").

The noble Lord said: I am rather nervous in moving this amendment because it is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, would have been much better at it. No doubt he is a corporation tax expert. and I do not claim that talent.
However, what the amendment seeks to explore is Clause 22. As currently drafted, it exempts NESTA from corporation tax. The Arts Council of England and the Heritage Lottery Fund are both exempt from paying corporation tax on the interest accrued and they draw down funds from the National Lottery Distribution Fund, as they both have charitable status. The English Sports Council has, however, to pay corporation tax on the interest it receives on lottery funds it holds between the period of drawing down from the National Lottery Distribution Fund and passing to lottery recipients.
The amendment has three objectives: to seek an exemption from corporation tax, perhaps to right an anomaly and also to encourage flexibility. The amendment would give the English Sports Council and those for Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland exemption for distribution purposes. The English Sports Council and the others are not seeking charitable status, merely a relief from the corporation tax on moneys transferred to award recipients. Their view is that this is an anomaly in the operation of the distribution fund.
I wonder whether it could have been Parliament's intention in the 1993 Act in effect to subject parts of money going to good causes to a form of double taxation. The amendment seeks to address what was an unintended anomaly. It has always been my understanding of corporation tax and other taxation that there should not be a situation where double taxation comes into play.
The other point of the amendment is this. It seeks to encourage flexibility in the drawing-down arrangements, and there are many who would argue that encouraging flexibility will make more effective and efficient use of the funds so distributed.
There are six or seven points to be considered here. In distributing the proceeds from the National Lottery to good causes, the money is not really a form of income.

CWH 135
Therefore I would argue, and others might argue, that perhaps it should not be taxed as such. Corporation tax is charged in addition to the 12p paid to the Treasury on the National Lottery ticket sales, so that is a double taxation on the moneys raised by Camelot.
The third point is a matter of illustration. Between March 1995 and March 1997 the English Sports Council advises me that it paid out approximately £80 million, and paid on that £122,240 in corporation tax on the interest accrued. On current estimates, it calculates that over the life of the current lottery franchise it will pay £1.5 million corporation tax up to September 2001. That seems to me not to be a very efficient way to work with money which is primarily intended at this stage to go to beneficiary bodies.
The National Lottery Charities Board has confirmed that in the financial year 1996–97 it paid £42,000 in corporation tax on £130 million drawn down. That is, after all, a board which operates with much more draw-down flexibility. This compares with the £22,000-plus paid out by the English Sports Council. I remind noble Lords again that this is with the National Lottery Charities Board drawing down weekly rather than on a monthly basis.
I have no doubt that the Minister will argue that alternative draw-down arrangements should ameliorate the situation, but they will not resolve it. That is what the amendment seeks to encourage. Corporation tax paid by the English Sports Council, the National Lottery Charities Board and the Millennium Commission reduces the overall funding available to all of the good causes by increasing the amount that these organisations have to draw down from the National Lottery Distribution Fund. I do not believe that that acts within the spirit of the National Lottery, nor could it have been the original intention of those who legislated.
Perhaps the Minister will consider those points and give us some assurance that they will be taken into consideration. We could then make progress on what is clearly a rather thorny issue. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Addington: The amendment draws attention to the fact that the Treasury is having a second bite at the cherry. It already receives money when people buy their lottery tickets, and the funds being accrued are supposed to go towards good causes. The amendment just says that those sporting bodies should get the same treatment as other bodies. That is all.
The sums may be comparatively small in relation to the total figure that has been distributed—it may be £1.5 million—but if it is going to small causes like coaching courses or new kit for clubs and so on, that is a lot of courses; it is a lot of kit. I suggest that this amendment, or something similar to it, should be addressed because it is merely stopping the Treasury taking a second bite.
Lord Rowallan: I rise briefly to support what has been said. This is not a form of revenue; it is purely
CWH 136
money going in and out, and for it to he lost at all through taxation is ridiculous when taxation has already been paid on it.
Lord Monro of Langholm: I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. As an old sparring partner of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I know he would not have introduced this amendment without most careful thought and consultation with the Sports Council and the CCPR. I am quite sure at heart he is right that this was an anomaly which probably crept in with much enthusiasm from the Treasury in the 1993 Act. But now is the moment to redress that and give the sports enthusiasts throughout this country all the money they are entitled to.
Lord Glentoran: I have one last addition to that. I declare an interest: I am a Millennium Commissioner. It would be wrong to say that this would be irresponsible, but it would perhaps not be the ideal way of using funds. People will wish to expend the funds rather sooner than they might, whereas if they were left earning and accruing interest until a more appropriate time, when certain situations in a grant were more appropriate to fund, it would be better.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As my noble friend Lord Bassam said, this is a complex issue. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I try to explain the financial arrangements for the sports councils' share of the good causes money. The share of the National Lottery proceeds allocated to each of the four national sports councils is paid into the National Lottery Distribution Fund, along with the shares of the other distributors. The money earns interest, and each of the sports councils receives a share of that interest in proportion to their balance in the fund. This interest is not subject to tax.
The sports councils then request money to be paid from the National Lottery Distribution Fund into their bank accounts as they need it to meet grant commitments. They normally make a request once a month to meet grants that will be paid in the coming month. During the time between the money being paid from the National Lottery Distribution Fund to the sports councils and its being paid to the grant recipients, it earns interest in the sports councils' own bank accounts. This interest is subject to tax because the sports councils do not enjoy tax exemption as charities do, for example. I note from what my noble friend Lord Bassam says, that it is not the intention of the sports councils to seek charitable status. It is pretty clear that they would not be able to do so.
I should stress that it is only the interest that is subject to tax and not the principle. Indeed, it is my understanding that the tax liability on the interest amounted to only £30,000 in 1995-96 and only £74,000 in 1996-97. My noble friend said he would no doubt be told that there are ways of minimising the tax without obtaining tax exemptions, and of course we do want the sports councils to maximise the amount of lottery money they are able to distribute to sports projects. However. I have to say to him, even though he anticipated it, that the best way of achieving this is not to exempt them from taxation but to ensure that the money is not paid

CWH 137
to them before it is needed. This means that it is exempt from tax and indeed earns interest for them. This could be achieved through improved cash-flow management by the sports councils and by more frequent payments from the National Lottery Distribution Fund. My department is examining both of those options.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 6.9 to 6.20 p.m.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I want to make only two more points. The first concerns why NESTA has tax exemption when the Sports Council does not. Secondly, I want to refer to the claim which noble Lords made of double taxation.
All public bodies, no matter how worthy, are subject to tax unless, like charities, they have been exempted, and sport is not a charitable purpose. The tax concessions for NESTA in Clause 22 do not set a new precedent for lottery-funded bodies. NESTA is unique for a number of reasons. First, it is a public body with activities similar to those of a charity. Secondly, unlike all other lottery-funded bodies, it will rely for its income on interest earned on an endowment, which would normally be taxable. Thirdly, again like other lottery-funded bodies, it will be under a duty to seek contributions to its own funds from other sources. Taken together, these three characteristics make a unique case for exempting NESTA from tax on its investment income and bequests and for allowing NESTA to qualify for Gift Aid and covenanted giving. The sports councils are not in a similar position.
A number of noble Lords have said that this is double taxation and it is an anomaly. Lottery duty on ticket sales is designed to be revenue neutral and compensate the Exchequer for taxes lost elsewhere (for example VAT, from substitution of expenditure by the lottery). Lottery money held in the National Lottery Distribution Fund is not taxable, as I have explained. Lottery funds drawn down by the sports councils and held in interest-bearing accounts are not taxable, only the interest that they earn. This is consistent with the principles of taxation for bodies that are not exempt from tax.
In summary, the amounts of money are very small, taxation is only on the interest, and only on the interest on that part of the money which is between drawing-down from the National Lottery Distribution Fund and being paid out to the organisations who are receiving the grants. It is better to improve cash management rather than to create what would be an additional anomaly, which would be to exempt a non-charitable body from tax. I am therefore bound to resist the amendment.
Lord Redesdale: Before the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, responds to the Minister, I do not remember hearing the argument when the 1993 legislation went through that the tax on the ticket was to compensate for tax not taken elsewhere. Was that put forward in 1993?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know, but I imagine so. If it was not put forward, it was clearly an omission. If it was not put forward, I shall write to the noble Lord. If he does not hear from me, he will assume that I am right.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: In the face of such powerful arguments, it becomes me to withdraw the amendment. While I am encouraged by the Minister's comments that the recipient body should be encouraged to better cash-flow management, it would be nice to think that further discussions could be held on these points. I feel they should be. Perhaps some assistance to better cash-flow management could be engendered by having more flexibility about the way in which the draw-down operates. There is merit in having some further discussions around that point.
On the NESTA issue and the question of the lack of similarity between the sports councils and NESTA, I can accept two, but not all three, of the arguments that the Minister makes. Perhaps this requires some further consideration as there are points of similarity. On the double tax question, I am obviously a great fan of the Treasury and good taxation, and I can see the benefits of having a robust taxation system. Perhaps double taxation is robust taxation; I do not know. I would not wish to comment much further on that point. It is something which merits some consideration in the future. Perhaps it is an anomaly which also requires to be interrogated further. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Enactments repealed]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 32, line 45. column 3, leave out ("and, in paragraph (a). the words "or (as the case may be) from meetings of the committee without the committee's consent"").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 32. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): This concludes the Committee's proceedings on the Bill.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-six minutes past six o'clock.

  International Development Policy: Poverty
  International Development Policy: Poverty
  Coal Mining Museums: Funding Report
  Coal Mining Museums: Funding Report
  Control of Exports Used for Torture
  Control of Exports Used for Torture
  UNITA: UN Sanctions Enforcement
  UNITA: UN Sanctions Enforcement
  Iran
  Iran
  FCO: Central European Department
  FCO: Central European Department
  Sir Dawda Jawara
  Sir Dawda Jawara
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Single Parents: Comparative Costs
  Single Parents: Comparative Costs
  South Yorkshire: ERDF Allocations
  South Yorkshire: ERDF Allocations
  Agriculture Council, 19 and 20 January
  Agriculture Council, 19 and 20 January
  Vitamin B6
  Vitamin B6
  Varroa Mite
  Varroa Mite
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group
  Vitamin B6: Professor Beckett's Letter
  Vitamin B6: Professor Beckett's Letter
  Horses: Categorisation
  Horses: Categorisation
  Prisoner Deaths: Report to Boards of Visitors
  Prisoner Deaths: Report to Boards of Visitors
  Police National Computer: Development Tasks
  Police National Computer: Development Tasks
  Police National Computer: Deaths Notification
  Police National Computer: Deaths Notification
  Life Sentence Prisoners: Release Data
  Life Sentence Prisoners: Release Data
  Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997
  Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997
  Litter Offences
  Litter Offences
  Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]: Drug Treatment and Testing Provisions
  Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]: Drug Treatment and Testing Provisions
  Pay Review Bodies: Recommendations
  Pay Review Bodies: Recommendations