Sitting of 20 July 1998

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

    Armed Forces and Civil Society
    Mr. John Bercow: What plans his Department has to maintain and strengthen links between the armed forces and civil society. [49574]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): The armed forces already maintain strong links with the civilian community in a number and variety of ways, including the Territorial Army and the other reserve forces. We wish, of course, to encourage and build on these links.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the widespread concern, in all parts of the House and outside it, that the activities of the three cadet forces, and of the scouts, the guides and other community groups that use Territorial Army facilities, may be affected by plans to close and sell up to 170 TA centres? I trust that the hon. Gentleman is aware of and has anticipated that concern. Will he please tell the House today exactly what help will be available to ensure that those groups can continue their work as effectively as they have undertaken it in the past?
    Dr. Reid: Yes. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the concern and support—which he expressed—on both sides of the House for the cadets is shared by the Government. That is one reason why we shall give detailed scrutiny to any changes in the Territorial Army and its premises. We wish to ensure that the subject of cadets and their access to appropriate facilities is included with the other considerations that have been agreed between the Territorial Army volunteer reserve associations and the Regular Army. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not only one of our wide considerations but one of our primary considerations. That is precisely why we have made it plain that, although there is to be a reduction in Territorial Army numbers, we do not desire a reduction in cadet numbers. Indeed, we are increasing the resources to cadets.
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: As a former Army cadet, I congratulate the Government on strengthening the role of cadets in the strategic defence review. May I have a commitment from my hon. Friend that, when the Government examine the future pattern of TA centres throughout the country, they will ensure that the need for the TA to back up the cadets is fully taken into account?
    Dr. Reid: Yes. I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are well aware of the valuable contribution that the cadet movement makes, not only to individuals but to society. Many young men and women are given opportunities that they could find in no other field of youth activity. I have personally witnessed young men and women in the cadets develop their character, ethos, discipline and initiative, and increasing opportunities are extended to them. It was for that reason that, during the strategic defence review, the Government decided that we would put more money into the cadets than previously.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman just said. However, to put this matter into perspective and to show its relationship with the decisions concerning the TA and the armed forces, can the hon. Gentleman say that the intention to provide new equipment and better standards and to give the TA more relevance will bring forth new money, which will bring about a real increase in resources for the TA? Or is the money to be found out of the savings resulting from the abolition of those units that will be scrapped?
    Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to say that while we are reducing the numbers of the infantry, yeomanry and other regiments in the Territorial Army, we are increasing the global sum. I can assure him, first, that our intention at this stage, subject to detailed scrutiny—the final decision on units will not come out until the autumn—is that at least a proportionate amount will be spent on the TA. Secondly, the TA will have access to a number of specialisms in the Regular Army for which training was not previously available to the TA—for example, Challenger, the AS 90 and several other areas. The Territorial Army will not only remain a valuable element of our defence forces, but will be more relevant and usable in future than it has been over the past 50 years.

    Persian Gulf
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: If he will make a statement on the current security situation in the Persian gulf. [49575]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): The recent revelation that Iraq had, contrary to earlier claims, weaponised the VX nerve agent shows that it has continued to lie about its weapons of mass destruction. We will keep the pressure on Iraq to comply fully with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.
    Mr. Savidge: Following the revelation about the deadly VX nerve agent, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we will maintain all pressure on Saddam Hussein to comply with relevant UN resolutions?
    Mr. Robertson: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Words cannot adequately describe the deadliness of the VX nerve agent. One single droplet of VX is capable of killing an individual. The aerosol version of VX can kill countless thousands of people. The fact that it is now proven that Saddam Hussein had weaponised the VX agent is a salutary warning not just of his deceit, but of the threat that he represents to his neighbours and to stability in one of the most volatile parts of the world.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Government have been steadfast in their relations with Iraq, and I congratulate them on that. Has the strategic defence review announced last week made more difficult any response that we might wish to make—God forbid—against any further action by Iraq? In particular, has the reduction in fighters and ships made our response less likely, if one were needed?
    Mr. Robertson: No; on the contrary. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his praise of the Government's robust stance in relation to Iraq's challenge to the authority of the United Nations. He speaks well on that account, and the House is united in its determination to make sure that Saddam complies with the UN Security Council resolutions.
    The purpose of the strategic defence review and one of the key reasons why it has had the support of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the single service chiefs is that, as a consequence of the review, we will be much better able to deploy our troops quickly and safely to the trouble spots of the world and to sustain them when they are there. Therefore, tyrants such as Saddam Hussein should pay careful attention to the new capability that will be represented by our forces after the strategic defence review.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Do we yet know who sold the VX agent to Iraq, or who sold Iraq the facilities to make it? Will the Secretary of State have a word with the German chemical companies Hoechst and Bayer, who might have known a great deal better?
    Mr. Robertson: A lot of people bear responsibility for providing at an earlier stage some of the facilities that Saddam Hussein has used to create his capabilities. However, many of the nerve agents and chemical weapons were produced by him. I am concerned, not about raking over the past, but about making sure that in future Saddam Hussein is not able to produce such weapons of mass destruction, and that he keeps to the assurances that he has given that he has destroyed all those capabilities. He has not yet persuaded ambassador Richard Butler, the chairman of UNSCOM, that he has disposed of all those capabilities. Until he has given evidence of that, the sanctions regime stays in place.

    Weapons Project
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: If he will list each major new weapons project begun since May 1997. [49577]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Since May 1997, we have taken a range of important procurement decisions to ensure that the armed forces will have the equipment that they need. These decisions include the approval of major new projects for the replacement rocket for the guided multiple launch rocket system, the Hawk life extension programme, the successor identification friend or foe system and a new tanker aircraft for air-to-air refuelling.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Arising out of the overall defence spending reductions in the strategic defence review, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly what is the nature of the cuts that are planned in defence equipment spending over the lifetime of this Parliament?
    Mr. Spellar: The actual nature of spending on equipment is identified in the review. It covers a range of equipment areas, some of which have been maintained, some of which have been increased and some of which, as the hon. Lady knows, have been reduced. That is the pattern of the equipment programme as we look to reshaping the armed forces and their equipment for the new roles that have been identified for Britain in the world.
    Mr. David Heath: In looking at new important projects, especially that for the two new aircraft carriers, does the Minister agree that security from attack, in this case from the Treasury, would be greatly enhanced if we had a firm starting date?
    Mr. Spellar: The strategic defence review gives a very clear, firm base for the future equipment programme. That fact is recognised, not only widely in the House but by the armed forces and, equally importantly, by industry, which has confirmed that point very strongly. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have also announced an in-service date for the new carriers, which has been welcomed by the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Robert Key: Ministers have told us that they want more armed personnel in the services and more equipment—some small and some big. How will they pay for that? The strategic defence review gives the figure of £685 million in the first year, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us last week, in table A3 of his comprehensive spending review, that the real cumulative cut in the defence budget over the lifetime of this Parliament is £4.6 billion. Can the Minister confirm whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given an unequivocal commitment to the construction of the two aircraft carriers?
    Mr. Spellar: We are looking at 3 per cent. in three years. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the report, he will see that we are actually talking about an accelerated programme of estates disposal arising out of the freeing-up of resources. In the longer-term equipment programme, we are talking about the impact of smart procurement, which we have negotiated in consultation and in partnership with industry—something which the previous Government singularly failed to do. As a result, we shall use best practice in industry to ensure that we achieve better value for money for the taxpayer.

    Fleet Submarines
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Pursuant to the strategic defence review, if he will make a statement on the strategic and tactical roles of fleet submarines. [49579]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Royal Navy submarines will continue to play a vital role both strategically, in support of the deterrent, and tactically as part of any deployed maritime force. The introduction of the Tomahawk land attack missile later this year will provide a powerful additional capability.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Following the decision in the strategic defence review to cut the number of attack submarines from 12 to 10, can the Secretary of State give the House a guarantee that there will be no further cuts in the number of submarines? Will he also take this opportunity to confirm that the Government will commission all five new Astute class submarines?
    Mr. Robertson: The purpose of the strategic defence review was to create a period of stability and to give some degree of direction to our armed forces. If the hon. Gentleman reads the review carefully, he will see that we intend to do precisely that.
    The decommissioning of attack nuclear submarines will inevitably occur over a fairly lengthy period. Therefore, the step-by-step reduction in the fleet from 12 to 10 is deliberate in order to establish a level of 10 that will remain for a considerable time. The order for three Astute class submarines will be maintained, with plans to order a further two early next century. I believe that that amply demonstrates the Government's commitment to this valuable capability.
    Mr. John Hutton: May I warmly welcome the Government's decision to order an additional two Astute class strategic submarines nuclear? I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware that this will be welcome news in my constituency, where the first three of those new submarines will be built. Those are very modern, capable and effective ships, which I am sure will add considerably to the operational capability of our SSN fleet. However, can my right hon. Friend be more specific about when he expects the contracts for these further two additional Astute submarines to be placed?
    Mr. Robertson: The shipyard in my hon. Friend's constituency has a proud record in this regard. I am glad that the orders for the three Astute class submarines that have been underlined by the strategic defence review will be carried forward in the spirit of the smart procurement initiative, which we have designed for our future equipment.
    The previous Government's plans for a further two Astute class submarines will still remain. They are, of course, for the beginning of the next century. We are reducing the number of SSNs—attack nuclear submarines—but with the introduction of the three Astute class submarines we shall be increasing the capability of the fleet quite dramatically.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree the reduction in the number of
    770
    submarines in the fleet places a premium on the effective utilisation of the existing fleet, and in particular requires careful programming of refit schedules? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to confirm the strategic importance of both Rosyth and Devonport as centres of excellence, both now and in the future, for the refitting of submarines? Will he also take the opportunity, given the fact that the Scottish National party's views on submarines have been splashed all over the Scottish newspapers both today and yesterday, to give his estimate of how many submarines will be available to Rosyth in the event that the SNP achieves its will and creates an independent Scottish navy?
    Mr. Robertson: I confirm what the hon. and learned Gentleman said at the beginning of his supplementary question about the importance of the two dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth in dealing with the refitting of our nuclear submarine fleet at the present moment. The decommissioning of HMS Spartan in 2006 will dovetail with the entry into service of the first of the Astute class submarines. HMS Spartan's refit formed a major element of the dockyard refit programme announced by my predecessor, Mr. Michael Portillo. Its cancellation would have incurred substantial compensation payments, for which the Ministry of Defence would have received no benefit. We carefully programme our refits to make sure that we maintain military capability at the maximum possible level.
    As for the synthetic indignation of the Scottish National party, SNP Members did not bother to turn up for the NATO enlargement debate on Friday, confirming their image as the neutralist nationalists. To argue for more nuclear submarine refits at Rosyth is to characterise the SNP's internal self-divisions, its internal hypocrisy and its policy of separation. Ripping Scotland out of the United Kingdom would lead to the loss of thousands upon thousands of defence jobs.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Putting the Scottish National party to one side, perhaps to where it belongs, may I say to my right hon. Friend that nuclear submarines are a familiar sight in the Firth of Clyde? May I also say to him that the code of practice on the passage of these submarines in and out of the Firth of Clyde is reasonably satisfactory? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department has no plans to berth these vessels in Holy Loch? Will he tell me how far the cleaning programme has proceeded in that loch and whether the Pentagon will pick up some of the bill?
    Mr. Robertson: I am glad to join my hon. Friend in setting aside the SNP, which I am sure the Scottish people will do as well. I was on Holy Loch on Saturday and, should anyone get the wrong impression, I was on a car ferry at the time. I am well aware of the issue of the cleaning of the loch and I can confirm that there is no intention by the Government of basing any of our submarines there, rather than at Faslane. The clean-up of Holy Loch is essential, and the majority of local opinion was in favour of it, but that is a responsibility of the Government, not of any foreign Government.
    Mr. John Maples: Can the Secretary of State say why he has decided to cancel the planned refit of HMS Splendid and go ahead with the

    771
    planned refit of HMS Spartan? Could it have anything to do with the fact that HMS Spartan is to be refitted at Rosyth in Scotland and HMS Splendid was to have been refitted at Devonport in England?
    Mr. Robertson: No, it had nothing to do with that. The trend away from large-scale open-ocean warfare means that we believe that we can reduce the SSN fleet over the next few years from 12 to 10. It therefore made sense to decommission HMS Spartan in 2006, following a refit, to allow that to dovetail with the entry into service of the first Astute class submarine. In doing that, I shall have maintained the capability of the fleet, with the Astute class submarines coming into service; avoided the waste that would have been represented by the compensation that would have been due to fall to Rosyth dockyard had we cancelled that refit; and been allowed to keep to a commitment made by Mr. Michael Portillo at the Scottish Grand Committee in Cupar, Fife, to put the refit of HMS Spartan into Rosyth as its last nuclear refit.
    Mr. Maples: But Mr. Michael Portillo was not going to decommission HMS Spartan in 2006. The Secretary of State says that the decision makes sense, but the purpose of these refits is to give the submarines an additional 10 years of life. We are surely spending £150 million to give that submarine an additional four years of life at the most, because he has already announced its decommissioning in 2005–06. Is not the real reason for the decision the Government's problems in Scotland? The taxpayer is being asked to foot the bill for £150 million of election expenditure by the Labour party in Scotland and to protect jobs in the Chancellor's constituency.
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman's great mistake is judging all other political parties by the low standards of the Conservative party and, especially, of the previous Government. There were perfectly good financial, economic and military grounds, as well as social and industrial grounds, for going ahead with the refit of HMS Spartan. We have kept to the commitments made by the previous Government and will maintain in service until 2006, when the first Astute class submarine comes into service, the capability that is offered by the SSN class submarine.

    Falkland War Veterans
    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: What steps his Department is taking to help Falkland war veterans. [49580]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 8 July, as part of the strategic defence review, our plans to set up a veterans' advice unit within the Ministry of Defence which will help to address the needs of all veterans, including those who served in the Falklands campaign. When the veterans' unit becomes operational later this year, it will help to make it much easier for all veterans to receive the best help available.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which will be of assistance to all veterans. Falklands
    772
    veterans in particular are aggrieved on two issues, which were dismantled by the previous Government—stress management and the opportunity to revisit the Falkland islands. He will be aware of my constituent, David Brown, who still suffers from the traumas of the Falkland islands. Will my hon. Friend ask the unit to consider those two issues?
    Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that we are to establish a veterans' unit, which is not only part of showing the commitment that we feel to men and woman who have served their country, but a long-standing demand of the British Legion and other interested parties. I commend them for the role that they have played.
    On Falklands veterans, my hon. Friend would like to know that, as far as possible and within our power, we assist those who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. He has previously raised the case of one constituent and knows that we take this matter seriously, but he will understand that it is not possible to promise that we will give all service men free flights back to the areas in which they served. There would be financial difficulties with that, and difficulties with Treasury guidelines, and the system might be open to abuse. I regret that, in the case that he raises—I believe that he raised it in March 1997—we could not provide a free flight back to the Falklands for his constituent, but we shall certainly look at the request for general assistance for Falklands veterans.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Although a veterans' unit within the Department is to be welcomed, would not Falklands veterans who are still serving, and those who did not serve in the Falklands war but have learnt its lessons, say that sufficient helicopters are crucial for amphibious operations? Would not they be concerned by her Majesty's Government's decision not to implement the proposed purchase of a second tranche of Merlin anti-submarine warfare helicopters? Will the Merlin still be a contender for the replacement of the HC4 Commando Sea King helicopters of the Royal Marines—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. That question does not relate at all to the original question. Perhaps the Minister will reply to a little of it, but certainly not to the parts that are not relevant.
    Dr. Reid: How could I defy your instructions, Madam Speaker, when they were so charmingly put?
    All those who supported our forces during the Falklands campaign, would be heartened by the emphasis that this Government have placed, arising out of our strategic defence review, on coastal operations and amphibious capability, which were so important during the Falklands campaign. They would be particularly heartened by our confirmation of the importance of a full brigade-sized unit of the Royal Marines proceeding with the helicopter landing platform, as well as an increase in the number of armed forces personnel. They will be heartened by the fact that the Government support strong defence in practice, just as they did in 1982.

    Trident
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What is his current estimate of the cost of the Trident nuclear fleet. [49582]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): The total acquisition cost for Trident is currently estimated to be £12.52 billion, 90 per cent. of which was already committed before this Government took office.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State regret that the strategic defence review did not include a discussion about the future relevance of a nuclear force? Does he recognise that the massive cost of running and decommissioning Trident could be better spent on other things, and that we would stand in better stead in opposing the development of nuclear weapons around the world if we got rid of our own nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Robertson: I cannot regret not doing something in the strategic defence review when my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and I were elected on a platform of keeping the Trident system. My hon. Friend and I were both returned to the House on exactly those grounds. I direct my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to the section of the strategic defence review on the deterrent and to the supporting papers in which we have published unprecedentedly open and new information about the nature of our deterrent. I also direct his attention to the substantial reductions that will now take place in our nuclear capability as a result of the defence review. We shall have half as many available weapons, with 30 per cent. of the explosive power that we had at the end of the cold war. That maintains the deterrent at a credible minimum level, but makes a sizeable contribution towards disarmament, of which we are all in favour.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the reduction in the number of nuclear warheads on the Trident submarine fleet. As a mere woman, I still cannot see what earthly use we have for 200 nuclear warheads, let alone 300, but the reduction is welcomed anyway.
    What exactly is the current position of the talks on nuclear disarmament? Is there any hope of the Government pushing them on and getting them restarted?
    Mr. Robertson: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady speaks on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party, but we welcome diverse views on all these issues. We want to move towards the reductions for which there is general welcome throughout the House. I hope that people will make more of that than of the opposite point of view. I remind the hon. Lady that when the Government came to power, they immediately ratified the comprehensive test ban treaty, and that this country was among the first of the nuclear powers to do so. As part of the strategic defence review, we are making a contribution to the fissile material cut-off treaty, which is a substantial move forward. The changes that we have made in the configuration of our nuclear deterrent in the new strategic circumstances will, I hope, act as an example to other countries in the world—especially to the Russian
    774
    Parliament, which has so far failed to ratify the START 2 treaty. If we had ratification of that treaty, we could make sizeable steps in the overall reduction of strategic warheads that we all want.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: We intrude at our peril in the private internal disagreements among Labour and Liberal Democrat Members over our nuclear deterrent. The Conservative party has always believed in a robust nuclear deterrent, and has been prepared, over many years, to put money into that. The costs of Trident are bound up in the comprehensive spending review. I should like the Secretary of State to return to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). The cut in the overall defence budget of £685 million will, according to the Government's paper on the comprehensive spending review, in fact be £1.3 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. Can the Secretary of State explain that, or is there once again a Scottish connection?
    Mr. Robertson: It is difficult to comprehend why the Opposition cannot understand that there will be a real-terms reduction in our defence budget of 3 per cent. in the next three years, which is an average of 1 per cent. a year. The Conservative party was responsible for cuts in the defence budget of 23 per cent. in real terms over the past seven years. In cash terms, the defence budget will go up by £1.4 billion in the period covered by the comprehensive spending review. I understand why the Opposition are sensitive about this issue, especially as the Conservative party spokesman seems to be suggesting that we should spend more money on defence, whereas the shadow Chancellor regularly pops up at the Dispatch Box and argues that public expenditure should be reduced. Is the Conservative party in favour of massive increases in the defence budget?

    UK Reserve Forces
    Mr. James Gray: If he will make a statement on the role of the UK reserve forces. [49583]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): Members of the reserve forces contribute a great deal to this country in many ways, but their principal role is to reinforce the armed forces on operations. They do that as individuals and as formed units, and they will continue to play a key role in the future.
    Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Will he pay tribute to soldiers of the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment in my constituency, who are currently on duty in South Armagh, together with the 1st Battalion of the RGBW? Will he confirm that, under the strategic defence review and the 17,000 reduction in the Territorial Army, there will be no abolition of cap badges? If that is to be his pledge, will he confirm that he will not achieve it by reducing battalions such as the 2nd RGBW to a company strength?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's local TA regiment and to all members of the Territorial Army for the valuable service which they have given us in the past and which individuals are giving us at present

    775
    in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and elsewhere. Part of the principles agreed between the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association and the Regular Army is that the footprint throughout the country will have recourse, so far as is possible within the overall numbers, to a geographical spread of the TA and to the ethos and traditions of the individual units of the TA, which includes cap badges.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the Minister agree that modernisation of the reserves is long overdue, and that one of the main reasons why it has not been undertaken before now is that the last Government—now the Opposition—made decisions on political rather than military grounds? Does the Minister also agree that an Opposition whose main contribution to today's exchanges has concerned cap badges display an appalling lack of knowledge and thoughtfulness?
    Dr. Reid: I certainly agree that the armed forces were let down by, among other things, the fact that financial—and often political—considerations were the starting point from which earlier Governments embarked on their so-called defence reviews. As most people know, those reviews were written on the back of an envelope, including a figure upfront that Ministers wanted to achieve.
    Yes, we believe in the Territorial Army, to such an extent that we want to make it more relevant and usable in the future. Although I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about cap badges—I think that the ethos and tradition of the Territorial Army matter—the truth is that the world has changed, and that, if it is to prove as valuable to us in future as it has in the past, the Territorial Army must change with it.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: The largest regiment in the Army, which comprises mainly part-time volunteers, was not mentioned in a recent strategic defence review. When can we hear a statement on the future role and strength of the Royal Irish Regiment?
    Dr. Reid: Consideration of the Royal Irish Regiment was not omitted. Indeed, it is one of the few regiments that I visited personally, in order to have discussions with both full-timers and part-timers in Northern Ireland. During my visit, I had fruitful discussions with both officers and men.
    Detailed announcements about all the reserve forces and the Territorial Army will be made in the autumn. However virtuous the case of any particular unit may be, I do not think that it would be fair or reasonable to start picking off individual units, or making decisions about them, before the review reaches its conclusions.

    Diversification
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: If he will make a statement on his Department's plans for defence diversification. [49584]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): We received some 80 responses to our consultative Green Paper on defence
    776
    diversification. We plan to publish our response, and announce our decisions on the way ahead, in a White Paper in the autumn.
    Mr. Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that we have a history of failing to capitalise fully on the fruits and benefits of defence research? If we are to realise such opportunities in the market across the world, should we not get defence diversification up and running as soon as possible? Jobs rely on it. I am particularly concerned about my constituents who work at GEC in Rochester. Can my hon. Friend give us some idea of when the agency will be set up?
    Mr. Spellar: We expect the agency to be set up not too long after the publication of the White Paper in the autumn. We are working very hard on the mechanics of it.
    My hon. Friend is right. Too much defence diversification has resulted in the creation of jobs abroad, rather than in this country. We need to speed up the dissemination of techniques and technologies into civil industry, and also to encourage feedback from civil industry into the defence community. We believe that the defence diversification agency will play a significant part in achieving that.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister agree that premises are a major issue in defence diversification? Earlier answers given by his colleagues today have referred to an accelerated programme of defence disposals, and to the importance that he and other Ministers ascribe to social factors. Does he recognise that there is enormous concern in my constituency about his ministerial colleagues' continuing and repeated failure to answer questions about the future of staff college Camberley?
    Over the past year, the Minister's colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, has repeatedly said, "Decisions will come shortly; decisions will come shortly." In a written answer that I received as recently as last Thursday, I was told that no decisions had been made, and that no proposals had even been put to Ministers. Proposals have been put to Ministers, not least by me. Jobs are at stake, and that prestige site must not be wasted or sold off for housing.
    Mr. Spellar: As someone who raised that issue a number of times with the previous Government when we were in opposition, I can only say that the phrase "brass neck" comes to mind. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the allocation of the staff colleges is a complicated issue. We inherited a major problem and, as the hon. Gentleman also knows, under the previous Administration, some decisions were changed within six weeks or so. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is working hard to try to get a satisfactory solution. Representations from the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members with people from the staff colleges in their constituencies will be welcome.

    Army Manpower
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What proposals the Government have for reducing overstretch in the Army. [49587]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): We are firmly committed to reducing overstretch in the Army. The strategic defence review contains both organisational changes and establishment increases of 3,300 Regular Army personnel to address overstretch. It is a difficult task, but we have made it a priority and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, as of today, there are 1,500 more soldiers in the British Army than there were when we took office on 1 May last year.
    Mrs. Gilroy: Can my hon. Friend assure us that some of the extra manpower will be put towards the support services, which were so badly hollowed out by the previous Government?
    Dr. Reid: I can assure my hon. Friend that that will be done, both in the Regular Army and in the context of the role that we envisage for the Territorial Army. We want to do that in all three services, and that includes attending to the gapping in the Royal Navy, in which I know my hon. Friend also has a particular interest. I do not underestimate the problems that we inherited from the previous Government, but it is Government's first duty when young men and women join our armed forces to make sure that the manpower is suitable for the task. The Government are committed to doing that, and that is why I am pleased to announce that there are 1,500 more places in the Army than when we came into government.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: The Minister's answer related to peace-time overstretch, which is extremely important. My question is about overstretch in terms of our involvement in a war that turns out to need more forces than are currently available. How quickly could we regenerate reserve combat units complete with company commanders, squadron sergeant-majors and so on?
    Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman is the darling—sometimes the Captain Darling—of the Territorial Army. I know that he is discomfited by the reduction in numbers, but we envisage a better, more valuable, more relevant, usable role for the TA as part of our force for the future. We do not envisage putting a heavy division in the field without the TA being called up. We are prepared to show the political willingness to involve it in our planning assumptions, and will call up the Territorial Army at a lower threshold than any Government have done for 50 years. We will pass to the TA training and skills on some of the equipment that has previously been monopolisedo by the Regular Army. Of course, we have a range of readiness to meet modern threats rather than the threats of the cold war. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that readiness consideration was a central part of our strategic defence review and that we are satisfied that it can be met in the regular and in the reserve forces.

    Training
    Ms Christine Russell: What plans his Department has to improve the extent of accredited training in the armed forces. [49588]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): We announced as part of the strategic defence review our new learning forces initiative, which
    778
    will further improve education and training provisions in the armed services and help service people to gain recognised qualifications.
    Ms Russell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that improving education and training will not only make the armed forces a more attractive career proposition but help to ease people's transition back into civilian life? In the next few weeks, thousands of young people will receive their GCSE and NVQ results and will be thinking about their options, so will he say exactly what vocational qualifications the Ministry is considering?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The services offer a rewarding and excellent career to many school leavers, and we want to ensure that as many as possible of those young people and their advisers have the relevant information. The fact that people can gain transferable, portable qualifications is not only an important recruiting commodity: it adds to the quality of our trained manpower and womanpower. The learning forces initiative will add a new ingredient to the package that is already on offer; people will be able to build up learning credits while they are in the forces, which will allow and encourage them to go into higher and further education when they leave. We believe that the package will be attractive not only to those who are in the services, but, perhaps more important, to the high-quality young people whom we want to come into the forces in the future.

    Defence Establishments (Shoeburyness)
    Sir Teddy Taylor: How many letters he has received from the public about the future of defence establishments in Shoeburyness. [49589]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Since May 1997, the Ministry of Defence has received seven letters from members of the public about the future of defence establishments in Shoeburyness.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As there is real concern in Shoeburyness, which is an area of high unemployment, that a change of policy by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency will cause even more unemployment, is the Minister or one of his colleagues willing to come to Shoeburyness to discuss with the trade unions and management the future of the ranges, particularly as decisions seem to have been delayed time and again?
    Mr. Spellar: I understand that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement has discussed this subject with the hon. Gentleman and that he has received representations from Members of Parliament and from the trade unions at all three of the ranges—Eskmeals, Pendine and Shoeburyness. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the final considerations are being made. Demand has lessened and there must be a balance between the various ranges, but I assure him that the representations that have been made by Members of Parliament, the community, local councils and the trade unions have been given serious and weighty consideration.

  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Privy Council
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What plans she has to review the modus operandi of the Privy Council. [49610]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Prentice: That surprises me, as the role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will obviously change, as it will have to determine the vires of Acts of the new Scottish Parliament. What is the point of the secrecy of the oath that is sworn by Privy Councillors, and how does such secrecy square with the Government's commitment to freedom of information? Is it not about time that we shone a light into this secret corner of the constitution?
    Mrs. Taylor: If my hon. Friend tabled a question asking for the text of the oath, I should be happy to answer it.

    European Parliament
    Miss Anne McIntosh: If she will take steps to improve liaison between officers of the House and officers of the European Parliament. [49611]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons recently reported on the scrutiny of European business. One of its recommendations was for a national Parliament office in Brussels, the practicalities of which are being examined.
    Miss McIntosh: What knowledge of languages do our officers have to operate such an office? What will their duties be? Will they monitor and scrutinise legislation as it goes through both Houses of Parliament?
    Mrs. Taylor: Such issues were considered in the discussions held by the Modernisation Committee and the Select Committee on European Legislation. It was thought that it would be helpful if hon. Members had a representative in Brussels to be the eyes and ears of this House to give early warning of matters that might arise. It is early days in terms of considering the practicalities of such an approach, but the idea seems promising and therefore worthy of further examination.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Should we not be our own eyes and ears? Sending functionaries from here and accepting functionaries from Strasbourg is one way forward, but it sounds like a new set of jollies for the boys. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extraordinary number of delegations of Members from other national Parliaments who come to the House, so interested and enthusiastic are they to learn about new Labour, the third
    780
    way and what we are up to? Is not the real answer to empower more of our own Members of Parliament to go to Bonn, Paris or Rome to build contacts between the national Parliaments and, when Switzerland joins the European Union, to Berne as well? Should not hon. Members be making contacts with other national parliamentarians to increase oversight of what happens in Europe?
    Mrs. Taylor: I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in such matters, that he endeavours to enlighten conferences in other countries about the workings of this Parliament, and that he is very keen to improve the relationship between hon. Members here and Members of other domestic Parliaments in Europe. It assists the House if we use all our ideas as to how we can keep in touch with Brussels. I agree that we need to examine the way in which hon. Members can keep in touch. My hon. Friend has made interesting suggestions to the Modernisation Committee and others.
    I think I am right in saying that the majority of hon. Members do not use the single entitlement that they have to visit European institutions. Perhaps if more did so, there would be a greater understanding in this House of European institutions and a greater understanding there of the concerns of British Members of Parliament.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Lady reject the negative and insular views of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and encourage the greatest possible communication between this Parliament, which is very efficient, and the European Parliament, as that might be a way to persuade the European Parliament to stop the scandalous abuses of public money involved in its organisation? Does the right hon. Lady accept that the organisational expenditure of the European Parliament is an insult to democracy?
    Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's question goes rather wide, but, on principle, it is important that we all have as much information as possible.

    Parliamentary Calendar
    Mr. David Hanson: What representations she has received on her proposals for modernising the parliamentary calendar. [49612]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I know that the Modernisation Committee will be grateful to all hon. Members who have responded to the invitation to comment on the proposals for modernising the parliamentary calendar. I know that the Committee will welcome any further representations from hon. Members who have not replied up to now. So far, I have received more than 40 letters from hon. Members and several letters from members of the public. They are generally supportive of the proposals contained in the Government's memorandum, although some are opposed and others argue for far more radical steps to be taken.
    Mr. Hanson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposals that she has put to the Modernisation Committee are greatly welcomed by many hon. Members? Will she further confirm that not one moment

    781
    of parliamentary time will be lost by the proposals, but that the time will simply be reorganised so that many hon. Members who, like me, represent constituencies 225 miles from the House can get home at midnight on Thursdays rather than at 3 am on Fridays?
    Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that no parliamentary time would be lost by the proposed changes. The idea behind the proposals is to allow Members of Parliament to adopt a more balanced approach to the very many competing demands on their time, and being in their constituencies on Friday is a priority for many hon. Members.
    Sir George Young: Many hon. Members will have seen the Mail on Sunday yesterday in which the right hon. Lady set out her philosophy on modernising the House of Commons. Will she confirm that it is her intention to make progress on the same basis as the Jopling Committee, namely by co-operation and consent?
    Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Committee, knows that it has attempted to reach consensus on the way forward. He will also know that, like most Committee members and Ministers, I think that it would be best for us to adopt such proposals on an
    782
    experimental basis, so that all hon. Members can judge whether they are an improvement on current arrangements.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend intending to consult all the Departments of the House before she goes ahead with the changes? It would be unhelpful if the House were seen to be the type of employer that does not consult before changes are made with all the Departments that would be directly affected.
    Mrs. Taylor: I have already written to the Chairmen of all the relevant Committees, who supervise the Departments of the House. We are waiting for their responses.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Is the President of the Council aware that the letter from you, Madam Speaker, in response to the Modernisation Committee's ill-thought-out proposals has been an inspiration to many hon. Members, and that it has the whole-hearted support of many who rather think that the House's traditions far outweigh any scramble to implement poorly thought-out reforms?
    Mrs. Taylor: All hon. Members are entitled to ensure that their views are known by the Modernisation Committee. I hope that many hon. Members will follow the right hon. Gentleman's example and ensure that the Modernisation Committee is aware of their views.

Speaker's Chaplain
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make before the Deputy Prime Minister's statement.
Hon. Members will be aware that Canon Donald Gray is to retire as Speaker's Chaplain on 31 October. I can now inform the House that I have appointed as his successor the Rev. Canon Robert Wright, vicar of Portsea and honorary canon of Portsmouth cathedral, who is shortly to become a canon of Westminster. Canon Wright will take up his duties as Speaker's Chaplain at the beginning of November.
I should like to take this opportunity to express my thanks—and, I am sure, those of all hon. Members—to Donald Gray for his exceptional contribution to the life of the House of Commons during his 11 years as Chaplain. He has been a true friend to very many of us—certainly to me—and his warmth and compassion, as well as his learning, have been a feature of Parliament for the past decade. He and Joyce will take with them the gratitude and good wishes of the House in their well-deserved retirement.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Integrated Transport Policy
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on transport policy. A White Paper, "New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" is published today and has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It delivers on our manifesto commitment to develop an integrated transport policy, to assist mobility and economic growth, to fight congestion and pollution, and to help create a fairer society. It will widen choice, providing people with the real alternative of a decent, modern and reliable public transport system.
The public mood has changed. The previous Government's Green Paper, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Select Committee and our own consultation exercise have all demonstrated that there is now a consensus for radical change. Everyone now agrees that no change is not an option.
Privatisation and deregulation in the 1980s and 1990s produced a public transport system that was fragmented, lacked investment and attracted fewer passengers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] I am merely repeating the record. Privatisation and deregulation led to more congestion and did more damage to the environment and public health. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Last year, two records were broken: a record 1 million rail passengers complained, and a record number of rail millionaires were created. What an indictment of privatisation. Since deregulation, the number of bus passengers has fallen by 25 per cent. Car drivers sit in traffic for hours. The Confederation of British Industry complains of the £15 billion cost of congestion. Walking and cycling are often unpleasant and dangerous. Many women fear for their own safety on public transport, and for the safety of their children going to school.
If we do nothing, traffic will grow by 30 per cent. in the next 20 years, with more traffic jams, longer rush hours, and a 10 per cent. increase in CO2 emissions, at a time when the Kyoto accords require us to cut emissions.
The core of our approach is integration—to allow people to switch from bus to train and from their cars to park and ride. It is also about integrating transport with environment policy and land-use planning, with our economic, health, and education policies and with the creation of a fairer society.
People need better information to achieve a seamless journey. Today, I can announce a revolution in information to the passenger. We will introduce a comprehensive integrated national public transport information system by 2000. [Laughter.] Obviously hon. Members have not tried ringing transport inquiries to find out how to use the public transport system. It is generally agreed in the country at large that new public information systems are absolutely necessary. A passenger will be able to access information on all forms of transport to a single point by phone, teletext or internet.
Through better planning policies, we can reduce the need to travel, as we are showing with our millennium village in Greenwich. [Laughter.] Planning is an essential part of transport, as the previous Administration failed to understand, which is why our transport system is in such

785
a mess. Homes should be close to shops, schools, health and other services, so that people can walk rather than drive. We will revise planning guidance to take account of our new integrated transport policy. We have given more emphasis than any previous Government to making it easier to walk and cycle. I endorse the target to double cycling within six years.
Rural areas have their own specific needs. Seventy-five per cent. of rural parishes now have no daily bus service, thanks to a deregulated bus system introduced by the previous Administration. We have already committed £150 million to improving rural public transport, doubling the support in many rural areas, and proposals are in the final stages of preparation.
Better public transport—particularly rail and bus—is the cornerstone of our approach, and a better, modern, reliable bus represents the best opportunity for leading a renaissance of public transport. Quality partnerships which already existed under the previous Administration in a handful of local authorities have proved popular with the public. Passenger numbers have increased by up to 40 per cent., and fewer people are using their cars. I want to see more such partnerships.
The bus must have priority on the road. That will lead to faster, more reliable services, which attract more passengers. Stiffer penalties and tougher enforcement will deter bus lane road hogs.
We can transform the economics of the bus industry by adding just two extra passengers per bus journey, and thereby improving revenues by more than £400 million. More revenue will lead to more investment, better buses, more frequent services, and proper training and conditions for bus drivers. The one I met yesterday could benefit from a visit to charm school—[Interruption.]—as could a number of Opposition Members—probably the same one that I attended.
Bus operators must help to spruce up bus stations, provide better information at bus stops, and co-operate on ticketing with other bus and rail operators. In addition, the Government are prepared to give statutory force to exclusive quality contracts on particular routes. The days of the cowboy bus operators are over.
For too long, the bus has been seen as a workhorse. I would like it to be a racehorse—[Interruption.]—and a first-class one, too. [Interruption.] You will have to control the zoo, Madam Speaker.
Today, I am issuing a challenge to bus companies and manufacturers to create a new bus fit for the 21st century in design, operation and comfort. We need buses that are more accessible to elderly and disabled people, and to mothers with children and heavy shopping.
Transport policy needs to pay special attention to the 13 million people in homes without a car. Pensioners in particular rely on good-quality services at affordable prices. I am therefore pleased to announce for the first time a national minimum concessionary fares scheme, guaranteeing at least a half fare for every pensioner in Britain. That will benefit 3 million pensioners who are currently denied the benefits of such a scheme.
Our proposals for railways are in line with the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, the response to which I am issuing today as Cmnd 4024. There is going to be tougher regulation of train
786
companies. Spearheaded by our new strategic rail authority, enforcement will be speeded up and strengthened by tougher penalties. If companies continue to fail to honour their contractual obligations to the passenger, they will lose their right to operate. In the short term, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising will remain the operator of last resort, and British Rail will retain the ability to be a train operator. The functions of both will become part of the strategic rail authority.
The rail industry needs a stable framework to deliver long-term investment and better services for passengers. In the next six years, 17 of the franchises come up for renewal. Some train operators want early renegotiation of their franchises. I stand ready to consider their requests, but I should make one thing clear. If any application is to succeed, it will have to guarantee better performance, more investment, improvements for rail passengers and value for the taxpayer. An independent rail regulator will remain, but there will be clear demarcation between the regulator's responsibilities and the new responsibilities of the strategic rail authority.
Railtrack will be tightly scrutinised to ensure that it invests sufficiently in the rail infrastructure. The rail regulator has been critical of Railtrack's investment record as recently as last week. I intend to see that those criticisms are addressed, and that matters are corrected. I have asked the rail regulator to carry out a review of the level and structure of charges, including mechanisms for payment. We will set up new rail funds with £100 million to lever in additional leading-edge investment in the rail network.
The House is aware that the National Audit Office condemned the scandalous sale by the previous Government of the rolling stock leasing companies, known as roscos. I asked the rail regulator to investigate the failure of roscos—he has completed that—and to negotiate a new concordat with them on the leasing and re-leasing terms of rolling stock. If that is not effective, I will consider bringing roscos under formal regulation.
Rail freight is a better environmental option, and we endorse the rail freight industry's target to double traffic carried by rail in five years and to treble it in 10. We have already doubled rail freight grants. We will increase them by a further one third this year, and extend them to coastal shipping. It is my intention to reinvest the proceeds from the part sale of National Air Traffic Services in transport improvements, such as a Euro-gauge freight rail system from the channel tunnel right through to Scotland, if terms can be agreed.
This Government will invest in rail freight, although we recognise that more than 90 per cent. of goods will continue to be moved by road. From 1 January next year, European law requires us to raise the maximum gross weight of lorries from 38 tonnes to 40 tonnes. I am concerned about the cost of road and bridge maintenance with an increase in five-axle heavy lorries, and therefore want to give the strongest possible encouragement to the use of six-axle lorries. I have therefore decided to allow 41-tonne lorries on six axles from January 1999. I am not convinced of the case for 44-tonne lorries, but I will ask the new commission for integrated transport, which I will describe later, to review the evidence and make recommendations.
Everyone now acknowledges that we cannot build our way out of congestion; the days of predict and provide are over. We will give top priority to maintaining and

787
managing roads. I propose to transform the Highways Agency into a network operator rather than simply a road builder. I am pleased to announce the signing today of an historic agreement between the Highways Agency and Railtrack to work together on developing integrated solutions.
We will allow the Highways Agency to operate a number of pilot charging schemes, and use the income stream to reinvest in the road network. For example, I am looking at how to redirect toll revenue from the Dartford crossing to improve traffic management on the M25.
Like millions of my fellow drivers, I know that sitting in traffic jams at all times of the day robs driving of its convenience. It is not pro-car to allow congestion to escalate. It is not pro-car to allow smog and pollution to increase. The car driver is breathing air around three times more polluted than the air outside. The most anti-car policy is to do nothing. Being pro-public transport does not mean being anti-car.
I am pleased to announce today a new deal for the motorist. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh about improving conditions for motorists, but many complain bitterly, through the motoring organisations, that there are actions that the Government could take, although the previous Administration failed to do so. The Highways Agency will have specific responsibility to reduce delays. We will establish regional traffic control centres to help traffic flows and improve information to motorists about roadworks and delays. We will also act against cowboy wheel dampers, and we will use the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's databank to provide better information and protection for drivers when buying used cars.
As school holidays begin, everyone notices the difference in traffic. Parents driving their children often short distances to school increases congestion significantly at peak times. Some schools have already shown that safe and secure routes, with adult supervision, can reduce unnecessary car use. Parents welcome that, as an extension of choice and a safer alternative.
No transport issue is more important than safety. We intend to issue a new road safety strategy and targets later this year. In response to the Select Committee, we propose to carry out a thorough review of the institutional arrangements for transport safety. [Interruption.] The reviews are being carried out by the health and safety bodies, and they need time to conclude them.
The key to the success of our new approach to transport is partnership. Let no one say that we are not putting our money where our mouth is. We have made a £1.7 billion increase in public investment for transport over the next three years, and we are setting up £7 billion-worth of public-private partnerships for the underground and a £6 billion partnership for the channel tunnel rail link, which collapsed under the previous Administration's negotiations.
Together with new revenue streams for local authorities, commercial freedom for local authority airports, and private investment in buses and trains, this represents the biggest ever investment in public transport. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, we are doubling total transport investment over the next seven years.
788
Partnership will also be important at local level. Local councils will consult all the main interested parties to draw up local transport plans. The plans will set targets and identify actions to develop public transport, improve air quality, enhance road safety and reduce road traffic. This major new initiative will be backed by £700 million, which will enable the development of 150 local transport strategies over the next three years. There will be new powers for local authorities to levy charges on the use of congested roads and on workplace parking. Revenue from this will be used to improve local public transport and traffic management.
These will be local schemes decided by local people, defined by local needs. Proceeds will be reinvested in local transport through a ring-fenced fund. All such plans will be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. The White Paper establishes the principle. I intend to issue a consultation paper in due course on its implementation.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for having the courage to establish—[Laughter.] No other Government have been prepared to do it. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for having the courage to establish such a radical reform of public finances, allowing hypothecation of the income—something which was not even in the 1996 Green Paper, when the previous Administration discovered integration after 17 years of failure in transport policy. The Government are ending decades of under-investment, modernising our transport system, and investing for the future.
Transport must be publicly accountable. I intend to give real power to the passenger. There will be public hearings on rail and bus franchises; stronger bus and rail consumer bodies, joining forces with real powers; and a strategic rail authority with real teeth to improve standards for the passenger.
The White Paper is the start, not the end, of the debate. It is almost 20 years since the last comprehensive transport White Paper. In 18 years, the previous Government produced only a Green Paper on transport at the end of their Administration. The speed of change means that we cannot wait another 20 years. Hon. Members will appreciate that I have only touched on the main points of the White Paper, which covers all forms of transport. There will be a number of "daughter documents"—similar to today's rail document—on roads, freight, aviation, shipping and others.
Transport policy is not just a matter for Government. The debate needs the involvement of all sections of society. The Government therefore propose to establish an independent commission for integrated transport, which will monitor targets, provide a forum for debate, and make regular reports to Ministers, Committees and this House.
The White Paper is based on a real consensus for change. No change, frankly, is not an option. The country wants a better transport system which does not continue to damage our health, industry and environment. The country wants a transport system which improves the quality of life for everyone without passing on a poorer legacy to future Administrations—as the previous Administration did.
Radical change is necessary. The White Paper is about that radical change and how to achieve it. I commend it the House.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The White Paper was promised for the spring—it is true that

789
spring was late this year. It is also the case that the White Paper has been seen, apparently, by lobbyists, journalists, interest groups, local authorities, the world and his wife, but not by Parliament—but, then, the Government like Parliament to be in its place. However, I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for his courtesy in letting me have a copy of his statement—at 2.45 this afternoon.
Before the election, the Labour party said a great deal about transport. It promised immediate benefits, an immediate end to planning blight, and radical transport policies. Now the great day has come, and what do we have? We have extra taxes for road users, more regulation, more bureaucracy, and no improvements for the travelling public even promised until after the next election. What a wasted opportunity.
If that is the best that the right hon. Gentleman can do after 14 months of dithering in government, 18 years fulminating in opposition, the £26 billion investment in roads that we left in place, the billions that our policies of privatisation and deregulation have brought into the system, the framework for transport integration laid out in 1996 and our changes in planning guidance, we might as well have been waiting until next spring—unless, of course, teeny-boppers and financial whiz kids overruled the right hon. Gentleman; perhaps we shall hear.
Given the importance of the White Paper in the right hon. Gentleman's own mind, I have a number of questions. Will he confirm that the increase for transport announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week was creative accounting within his existing departmental budget, and that the real increase was not the £600 million announced by the Chancellor—that is per annum—but £7 million, as calculated by the British Roads Federation?
Is it not the case that the so-called extra funding of £1.8 billion is made up largely from the proceeds of reducing subsidies to the privatised railways? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore confirm his conversion to the cause of that privatisation, given the benefits that our policy is affording him?
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what he means by British Rail "retaining the ability" to be a train operator? Is he saying that British Rail has the right to compete for franchises, for example?
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he plans to remove all the subsidy to London Underground by the year 2000? Will he tell the House what assumptions he has made about the likely private investment in London Underground by the year 2000? What contingency plans has he made in the event of those plans failing, and what would be the consequent effect on fares and overcrowding?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he intends to fund his plans for improvements in transport infrastructure by imposing more taxes on road users? By how much does he intend that taxation to increase, and how soon will the consequent improvements be in place? How will he guarantee 100 per cent. hypothecation of those taxes, and what system will he put in place to ensure transparency? Can he guarantee that the Treasury will not take its slice of the taxes and charges by imposing VAT on top?
The right hon. Gentleman made rather little of this in his statement, but I refer him and the House to the very useful graph in paragraph 236 of last week's comprehensive spending review, where the new income
790
assumptions are clearly shown. Does he accept that higher taxation for motorists will disproportionately affect women, the elderly, people with disabilities and people in rural areas, all of whom regard the car as a necessity, and for all of whom safe and secure travelling by car is a major consideration?
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there will be an exemption from workplace parking charges for health and education establishments? What other exemptions does he plan? How will the new income streams generated by the new taxes and charges on motorists affect his Department's assumptions for the distribution of local authority finance?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, during the past 15 years, there have been massive improvements in the manufacture of cleaner cars? What plans has he to encourage further improvements on the previous Government's record of a 25 per cent. reduction in vehicle emissions during the past five years?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the Road Haulage Association, the increasing differential between United Kingdom and continental diesel prices will lead to the loss of 26,000 UK jobs in this Parliament, and what does he intend to do about it?
I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman's announcement on rail freight and his tribute to the performance of the privatised companies involved. I hope that his appreciation will further encourage his conversion to the cause of privatisation.
How is the right hon. Gentleman's proposal on land use planning compatible with his wish that 2.2 million new homes be built in the countryside? Should new homes be built so far from the jobs and services on which they depend?
Will the right hon. Gentleman now be specific with the House and with the nation? How does he propose to measure the success of his policies? Will he set targets for the overall reductions of traffic growth, the increase in train and bus travel and the number of journeys made by cycle and on foot, and how would he monitor and enforce those targets?
The White Paper has been leaked, hyped and, my word, oversold. It promised action. It is delivering more taxes, a phone-in opportunity, more regulation, a new commission, a new authority, 152 new transport committees, some regional transport centres, a shower of documents, several pilots and—of course—two reviews. It owes nothing to Labour's pre-election promises or, perhaps, even to the right hon. Gentleman's views. It owes everything to focus groups, dithering, interference from No. 10 Downing street and confiscation by the Treasury, and it confirms that, in last week's spending announcement, the right hon. Gentleman was the loser, and so were the travelling public.
Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) will be aware that it was correct for me to give her a copy of the statement three quarters of an hour before the statement was to be made in the House, and that I acted appropriately.
The right hon. Lady complained about the long wait for the White Paper. I explained to the House that it was right and proper for it to be published after the comprehensive spending review and the conclusions on transport. It is a

791
bit much for her to criticise me, given that her party was in power for 18 years and produced only a Green Paper on transport. After a little more than 12 months in office, I have produced a Green Paper and a White Paper. That is an acceptable speed for dealing with a matter as important as transport, especially when compared with the Conservatives' record.
The right hon. Lady complained about the changes that we intend to make in order to achieve an integrated transport policy and find new revenues for it. That was the obvious conclusion not only in her Government's Green Paper, but from our own observations and discussions during consultation. The policies that she now rejects were summed up in her Government's Green Paper in 1996, which stated:
"The Government will therefore discuss with the Local Authority Associations and other interested parties how best to take matters forward on these topics, with a presumption in favour of introducing legislation, in due course, to enable congestion charging and area licensing to be implemented, and is prepared to consider Local Authority Associations'"
with all their transport committees
"arguments on the taxation of private non-residential parking."
That was after 17 years of a Tory Government. If there was ever an indictment of a policy pursued by the Administration, it was their own conclusion—the same as we have arrived at—that it is time for change, and that no change is not a way forward.
On the proposals for charging and for swinging to public transport, the same consultation paper said that the objective of any future transport policy—which the previous Government did not have an opportunity to implement, having lost the election—was to persuade people to use public transport more and to use their cars less. Charging, about which the right hon. Lady complains so bitterly, was to be an element of that policy.
Nevertheless, the right hon. Lady's point is correct. We will have to find new income streams. For her to complain that the resources of £1.7 billion are now reduced to £7 million, on the advice of a PR agency, is a bit much. I bitterly regret the comments about my White Paper. No PR agency has had access to this White Paper. That was a story in the press. There is no evidence. I feel very strongly that the first body to whom I speak about the contents of the White Paper should be the House of Commons.
I regret the leaks that may have occurred in other cases, but, as the right hon. Lady pointed out, the main discussion has been about the table in the comprehensive spending review, which clearly showed extra new forms of income. That was stated, the press speculated on it, and there has been much argument and intelligent discussion about the implications of those charges.
I can assure the right hon. Lady that there will be a consultation document to examine how they might apply, who will be exempt, and whether charges will apply to hospitals and such places. There are major questions to be answered. The House will properly expect the Government to produce a consultation document. Of course I will do that, as I said in my statement.
With regard to British Rail and the arguments about privatisation and the use of resources, about £1 billion was spent in preparing for rail privatisation. The loss of
792
those public assets, sold to the private sector, turned people into millionaires. Under the previous Administration, the subsidies given by the state in public service obligation payments rose from £1 billion to £2 billion. The private sector received twice the subsidy that the previous Government were prepared to give British Rail, and, having been given twice as much subsidy, of course it would appear to do better.
The freight industry is another example. I inherited a deal—which, unfortunately, I could not stop—whereby the previous Administration sold off the railway companies, gave a £250 million dowry along with that sale, and guaranteed that there would be no charges to travel through the channel tunnel until 2005. If those concessions had been given to the state sector, it would have been able to offer increased freight services.
A prejudiced Administration's loaded game against the public sector led to a transport policy that saw fewer goods carried by rail, more people travelling on congested roads, a worsening environment, and all the other problems that we have highlighted in our criticisms of that Administration.
The shadow Secretary of State referred to transport services in rural areas and for the disabled. She should bear in mind the fact that a third of people in this country have no access to cars; their only option is public transport. Under her Administration, public transport services were reduced and made less available, and prices increased far more than those associated with car use. Those people paid the penalty for the previous Government's failed transport system. In those circumstances, there is no reason for us to offer any apologies about these matters.
I think that the commission for integrated transport could examine the targets that the shadow Secretary of State highlighted. Those targets include measuring the reduction in car use, and calculating how many more people use public transport and how many would take up cycling opportunities. Those are the sorts of targets that should be established, assessed every year and reported to the House in order to gauge the Government's effectiveness in implementing the White Paper and the integrated transport policy. We will be measured on the success of our policies, and we are prepared to be so.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: You have no targets.
Mr. Prescott: Targets have been set for greenhouse gas emissions and CO2 gases. We are setting targets for cycling and for a reduction in car use. The consultation documents will establish those targets in the transport plans.
As for the transparency of those plans, the shadow Secretary of State will be aware that local authorities already issue transport policies and programmes, in which targets between local and central Government have been agreed for a long time. We shall ensure that there is decent transport for everyone. The reactions so far, particularly from the press and the public at large, show that the time for change has arrived—and we intend to lead it.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the first time in 18 years that a Government have set down an integrated, sensible and responsible transport policy? Is he aware also

793
that the fact that he inherited such chaos and fragmentation, yet has come to the House with an imaginative, sensible plan for the future, is a great credit to him and to his commitment?
We shall expect the strategic rail authority to be much more responsive to the needs of the customer, and we welcome the extra funds for rail freight. Will it be possible to formulate soon a policy for aviation, which is fundamental to the economic benefits of this country? Many people in rural areas who are currently extremely badly served by all forms of public transport will have listened with astonishment to today's performance by the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks, and her support. I am particularly grateful for the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee's work on the strategic rail authority and other transport matters. My hon. Friend knows that we have published today a Command Paper in response to her Committee's work. Our White Paper reflects the unanimous opinion arrived at in the Committee, across party lines, about the way to improve the railway system. Those ideas involve the strategic rail authority, and I am grateful for that support.
Aviation and airports are an important issue, involving the development of open skies in Europe, the recent negotiations between ourselves and America culminating in the British Airways-American Airlines deal, and ongoing discussions regarding terminal 5. Some fundamental issues must be decided, many of which are influenced by European regulations and negotiated bilaterally between countries. We intend to deal with those matters and follow them up in the forthcoming document on aviation and airport policy.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The hypocrisy from the Conservative Benches is breathtaking, given that the previous Conservative Government were the Administration that delivered petrol price increases and a cut in the road programme, but no practical action to help motorists and others get from A to B.
As for the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement, perhaps, unlike the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), I shall reserve my judgment on its overall impact until I have the chance to read the full document, which is lengthy. However, there seem to be some missing issues.
There is no real action to tackle the self-interests of the out-of-town super-stores. There are no parking charges for them, despite recommendations from the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. It seems that there is no action to change the company car tax system, which currently rewards the gas guzzler for ever more miles and penalises those using public transport. Above all, there is no target for traffic reduction, either year by year or as an ultimate objective, although the right hon. Gentleman said that there would be one. If there will be one, will he tell the House what it will be, so that we can judge him against it as he invited us to do?
Is the Deputy Prime Minister able to announce a review of the Government's own use of cars by Departments, not least by Ministers themselves? Indeed, are we to anticipate, as I hope we are, charges both for Ministers and other Members for the free parking that takes place right here in the heart of central London?
794
May we anticipate that the right hon. Gentleman has secured a legislative slot for action on these matters, especially on congestion charging and business parking, which were promised to local authorities, and without which they will not be able to take forward local transport plans that the right hon. Gentleman rightly talks about? After all, it was the previous Conservative Government who last proposed them, back in 1996. If we do not get these measures in the next legislative timetable, it will not be until the new millennium that any action begins to start. In that case, what is the difference from the Tories?
Mr. Prescott: Liberals are always holier than holy, aren't they?
A number of the questions that have been asked by the hon. Gentleman are under review. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that he wants to look at company car tax. He thinks that it is a crazy way of encouraging people to drive cars to get the allowance, and to drive greater mileages than necessary. That is under review.
As for the target reduction to which the hon. Gentleman referred, we have already given draft guidance to local authorities about that. Nationally, we wanted to be sure about our negotiations in Kyoto. Thankfully, under the presidency of the British Administration, we were able to secure not only the Kyoto agreement but the Brussels or Luxembourg agreement. Our target now is a 12.5 per cent. reduction.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Traffic.
Mr. Prescott: I know. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not made the connection. Exhaust gas comes out of a car, and if there are fewer cars moving, there is a reduction in gas emission. Targets for cars and reductions are an essential part of the process. By the end of the year, we will be producing a sustainable document setting out what contributions can be made towards those ends. There will be variations from town to town. There should be discussions with local authorities rather than a blanket target.
I encourage everyone to read the White Paper and to come to a judgment later. I hope that people will do precisely that. As for legislation, it is for the legislative committees to determine the priorities of legislation. I cannot say any more on that. The House can be sure that the White Paper has a demand on the legislative programme, and we intend to make that the position.
Madam Speaker: Mr. Peter Snape.
Mr. Prescott rose—
Madam Speaker: Does the Secretary of State wish to come back?
Mr. Prescott indicated dissent.
Madam Speaker: No—take another opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman has answered a lot of questions already.
Mr. Peter Snape: I shall be as helpful as ever, Madam Speaker.

795
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on what, I know, is for him the culmination of many years of enthusiastic work in this area of policy. May I press him on enforcement of bus priorities? My right hon. Friend mentioned the need to enforce the law on bus lanes, but there are other matters, such as parking and loading and unloading at bus stops. Does he intend to press the Home Office to allow local authorities to be responsible for this area of enforcement? As he says, they are to keep the money, anyway.
Finally, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on resisting the temptation to allow 44-tonne lorries on to Britain's roads, something which the Conservative party would have done had the nation been unwise enough to re-elect it last May. Does he agree that those lorries, which are the heaviest, are the most subsidised by the community, do the most damage to our roads, and directly oppose and compete with long-distance rail freight? For those reasons, they should be resisted.
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his compliments and can confirm that we are discussing with the Home Office precisely how to deal with people who disobey the regulations and enter bus priority lanes, causing great difficulties and delaying buses. Such people are much resented by other motorists who stay in the correct lane and observe the law. We are considering many penalties in respect of these matters, and, with the Home Office, we hope to make a statement shortly.
On 44 or 41-tonne lorries, I resisted the arguments, and I do not think that the case has been made that the number of lorry movements would be reduced by moving to 44 tonnes, but I wanted to signal that 41 tonnes was more than I was expected to do in respect of the European regulations. I hope to encourage a move to six-axle vehicles, which are less damaging to the roads; maintenance bills are massive, so it would be more helpful if we did that.
I am quite prepared to leave my mind open and to see what the report from the commission for integrated transport says on whether the balance between rail and road can be achieved by moving to 44-tonne lorries, but let me be frank—I want more to go on rail. That would give the rail industry a number of years to reach the targets that it has set out and which I have endorsed, without being undermined by the challenge of the 44-tonne lorries.
Mr. Eric Pickles: On dedicated revenue streams, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that all the money will be ring-fenced and that it may be applied to transport schemes, and not be siphoned off by the Treasury? Will he also make it clear that his Department will not make assumptions about revenue support grant and take sums equivalent to that revenue away from local councils?
Will the right hon. Gentleman correct the impression he gave that the previous Government were in favour of taxing workplace parking? Their Green Paper clearly stated:
"The Government would not favour allowing the taxation of private non-residential parking."
Will he make that absolutely clear?
Mr. Prescott: No. I made it clear that private non-residential parking will be subjected to review in the consultation document—these are charges to be taken into account. On whether that income would go directly to one source—local authority transport plans—all charges are subjected to value added tax and other taxation arrangements. [Interruption.] Conservative Members have not yet learnt that they imposed that, and that the charges that the Conservative party brought in subject them to tax.
In these arrangements, hypothecation means directing that money to transport improvements. I do not envisage that to affect other local authority transport expenditure; this is additional money, but I shall want to know what are their plans for transport policies and programmes, which they have to agree with me before they can even get to the stage of raising money and agreeing the priorities of expenditure.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I congratulate the whole ministerial team on the vision in the White Paper? There is a problem, however: in the dark years of Conservatism in the 1980s, when Mrs. Thatcher was Prime Minister, almost the whole of Britain's bus manufacturing capacity was destroyed, including the Leyland Bus plant in my constituency, which was able to produce almost 3,000 buses a year. With Volvo's recent decision to place bus orders with a manufacturer in Poland, there is almost nothing left of the United Kingdom's bus manufacturing capacity. Can we have a strategy to rebuild Britain's bus manufacturing industry? Perhaps it might return to Workington one day.
Mr. Prescott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. One of the casualties of the privatisation and deregulation of the bus industry was continuity of investment. Buses got older because company owners found it more profitable not to invest in new ones, but to pay off the debts of purchasing the company. That led to such an uneven demand that the bus industry collapsed. Indeed, we have effectively seen the destruction of the bus manufacturing industry in this country.
However, there is still some manufacturing left, and I should like to see that built on. I look forward to a future in which the transport industry is geared towards assisting our manufacturing industry by providing new investment. Those are the resources that I have talked about, which are embodied in the White Paper.
Mr. Peter Luff: Although I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's conversion to the merits of rail privatisation, I wish that he had said a little more about the record growth in passenger numbers on the railways since privatisation. May I ask him about roads? As a result of the transport supplementary grant settlement, will there be any money for local bypasses, such as the urgently needed Wyre-Piddle bypass in my constituency? Will he tell local authorities that environmentally unsustainable new settlements for commuters in the countryside will no longer be tolerated?
Mr. Prescott: Did the hon. Gentleman say "Why a piddle?" bypass? [Laughter.]
We shall change the priorities to ensure that many bypasses are built so that villages are safer and healthier places in which to live. Improving the roads programme

797
will be a priority. Next week, a statement will be made about the roads programme, which will be relevant to the hon. Gentleman's question.
I am not a convert to privatisation; I still believe in a publicly owned, publicly accountable system. Once we have secured the investment for the channel tunnel rail link and the underground, those will return to public ownership.
Mr. Geraint Davies: In welcoming the ring fencing of money raised from roads and parking charges to fund local transport improvements, may I ask my right hon. Friend carefully to consider the taxation of air traffic pollution—both air and noise pollution—and ring-fencing the proceeds to local public transport schemes? For instance, as air traffic from Gatwick and Heathrow grows, my constituents in Croydon are paying the price of worsening air and noise pollution. They would welcome new investment in public transport.
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes a fair point about air traffic pollution. It is a matter we want to look at in our review of aviation policy. However, any changes to the fuel used or to air traffic pollution internationally requires international agreement. We shall deal with that point in our paper on aviation.
Mr. John Gummer: So that we may know how much new money there really is, will the Deputy Prime Minister say by how much the rail transport subsidy will be cut—how much he will save by reducing it—how much of that will be spent on his public transport programme, and what proportion of the extra money to which he refers that represents?
Mr. Prescott: For the reduction in subsidies, we shall have to wait until the franchises are renegotiated, which some franchisees are now asking for. In some cases—as in the case of Connex—it is clear that they want more subsidies. Renegotiation of some of the franchise agreements may be completed before their seven years are up. At the present stage, we envisage a considerable reduction—some £1 billion—in the privatisation fund. The fund started at £2 billion, and I think that it went down to about £1.6 billion, so we envisage a further reduction in those payments.
However, even if those targets are achieved, any money will go straight back to the Treasury rather than simply into transport, which is why the changes we have made are extremely important. The new streams of income that we have introduced will come directly to transport. It is like saying that savings are being made. The Conservatives doubled the subsidy to underpin privatisation, and the state sector received only £1 billion. That was hardly an example of good management of resources by the previous Administration.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, particularly on his announcement about concessionary fares. May I be a bit parochial for a moment? He referred to the Dartford-Thurrock crossing and the use of toll charges to maintain traffic management of the M25. Does he agree that it would be unfair if only the Dartford-Thurrock crossing users paid the bill for M25 traffic management, given that many low-paid people on the north banks of Kent and the south banks of
798
Essex use the crossing to get to work? Should not traffic management costs be met by everyone who uses the M25, including those who live in the rich, leafy lanes of Surrey and elsewhere?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend may have a point. We shall discuss that matter with the various bodies. There is a massive flow of traffic on the M25, and it could do much better if better management techniques were used. That costs money, and it is one way of using some of the resources. As we have made clear in our discussions with the Highways Agency, the possibility of other forms of income remains open.
Mr. John D. Taylor: The Deputy Prime Minister is to be congratulated as, he has concentrated on the chaos created by motor cars. We particularly welcome his statement about concessionary fares for pensioners, which he referred to as a "national" minimum concessionary fare. Will it apply to the nation, or just to England and Wales?
Mr. Prescott: This is when I call a taxi! The national concessionary fare will apply to England and Wales. I do not think that it will apply to Northern Ireland, but I am not sure. The right hon. Gentleman has caught me out, so I shall write to him.
Dr. Howard Stoate: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the regeneration of recycled land in north-west Kent, which includes my constituency, will result in up to 50,000 new jobs and 20,000 new houses. That will increase transport needs. Will he be able to assist transport projects, such as the Thames Gateway metro and the Kent Thameside transit system, in alleviating some of the traffic problems that will be generated?
Mr. Prescott: We are considering a number of improvements in the transport corridors. We have already announced investment in the underground and in the channel tunnel link, and the Minister of Transport will be making a statement about road priorities in the south-east. It is an important area, and there has been a tremendous growth in transport. We must get more people in the south-east to change from their cars to public transport. Public transport must be reliable, and the only way to achieve that is to give it the priority that I have talked about in the White Paper.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman talked about using the White Paper to create a fairer society. He also said that people must come to a judgment about his White Paper, and that he wanted to ensure that he put his money where his mouth was. Does he agree that his proposals on workplace charging ensure that taxpayers' money—motorists' money—is being bitten off by the mouth of the Humber?
Mr. Prescott: I shall deal with the facts of the matter. The previous Administration agreed that such charges should be considered. The difference is that I have got them hypothecated: I do not know whether the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) has got the shadow Cabinet to agree to establishing a new principle of hypothecation. We have announced extra

799
money for the channel tunnel link, investments, and changes in the Treasury rules. Those measures will provide a considerable amount of money for the transport system.
Mr. Clive Efford: In an attempt to prevent the occupiers of the 20,000 new homes in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) from driving through my constituency, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on dedicated bus routes and the improvement of bus links. May I draw his attention to the extension of the Jubilee line to north Greenwich, where there is a major arterial road? That will provide a rapid transport link. We need to link bus routes with the London underground network to reduce car use in south-east London. Other than the bus and the car, there is no alternative to the Connex network, which is already overcrowded at peak times.
Mr. Prescott: We must give considerable attention to the ways in which we can make existing capacity work more effectively. I have agreed to the £35-million extension of the docklands light railway to the airport. The number of people travelling on it will increase from 1 million to 3 million, and the time taken to get from the airport to the centre of London will be reduced by almost half. It will reduce congestion on the extraordinarily expensive Limehouse link, which cost £250 million for one mile. We should give priority to linking existing systems and to obtaining new investment.
On my hon. Friend's point about the Jubilee line, my first priority is to modernise what we have rather than to consider further extensions, although we are prepared to examine the priorities involved.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The Deputy Prime Minister referred to an increased use of park-and-ride schemes. Can he give us a categorical assurance that such schemes will not be set up on green-belt areas—I am thinking of, for instance, the proposed scheme in Rawcliffe—when other appropriate areas are available?
Have the Government had a chance to cost the impact on shops and small businesses of charging local residents for access to cities at peak time?
Mr. Prescott: Access and congestion charges will have to be the subject of a proper consultation document, and I have promised to produce such a document. As for park-and-ride schemes in green-belt areas, I am in a quasi-judicial position in that regard, and cannot comment. The hon. Lady's constituency, however, is near the city of York, where a scheme that I opened a few years ago when I was the Opposition transport spokesman has been highly successful. People can still do their shopping at supermarkets on the outskirts of York, leave their cars there, and catch buses into town. More and more people are using that scheme, which is an intelligent way of employing the park-and-ride system.
Planning inspectors have to make decisions about these matters, but, if there is a dispute, they are eventually referred to me.
Mr. Graham Stringer: In Greater Manchester, a combination of deregulation and
800
privatisation of bus services had, by 1993, led to an extraordinary situation: buses were creating more pollution per passenger mile than cars. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in conurbations such as Greater Manchester, the best way to get people out of their cars is to re-regulate the buses and invest in metrolink?
Mr. Prescott: The deregulated system—particularly in Manchester, where there was a massive conversion from the normal regulated service to a deregulated minibus system—created far more buses in the city, more congestion and more pollution. Frankly, it was a disaster. I believe that there is a role for a regulated form of transport, and what I call the quality contract. As I said in my statement, that is a possible way forward, and we are prepared to consider such proposals on a statutory basis.
Sir David Madel: The Government have just helped General Motors to retain its car plant in Luton, thereby saving thousands of jobs there and in the surrounding supply industries. Can I take it from that that the Government will build new roads in the south Bedfordshire industrial area in order to continue to promote economic growth and reduce congestion?
Mr. Prescott: A statement about roads will be made next week. It is obvious, however—"predict and provide" is part of this—that, while it is possible to build more and more motorways, they fill up as fast as they are built, creating even more congestion. The policy must be changed—a conclusion that the previous Administration reached in their Green Paper.
We are not suggesting that cars should be banished, or being hostile to the motorist; we are asking motorists to use their cars less, and public transport more. Elsewhere in Europe, where there are more cars per head, people use them less, because there is a better transport system. In Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Leeds and Brighton, all of which have given priority to public transport, ridership has increased considerably, and people are using their cars less. That is what we are seeking to achieve.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the bold and imaginative way in which he has tackled difficult problems. I approve of charges for congestion and for parking in city centres, but what will be the mechanism for overseeing the way in which local authorities invest in public expenditure schemes? Will there be rigorous oversight, so that we receive value for money, and local authorities learn from one another's best practice?
Mr. Prescott: At present, our local transport plans must be agreed with central Government. Local authorities will have to talk to operators and, indeed, passengers: that will be the method of oversight and control. I do not want consultation to be limited to local government and operators; it should equally involve passengers, who sometimes have a different view even from elected councillors. I expect the plans that are agreed, and expenditure priorities, to be agreed with the community before coming to me. I shall measure them against the targets and guidance that I will provide, and local authorities will then oversee and implement the policy.
Mr. David Chidgey: Following the Deputy Prime Minister's self-confessed successful visit to a

801
charm school, will he have the good grace to acknowledge that I and my colleagues argued long and hard during the previous Administration for many of the proposals that he has presented? I welcome local transport packages. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, when he came to office and faced the shambles of the previous Administration's policies, only about a quarter of the qualifying local transport packages that met the Department's specifications were funded. Can he assure the House that under his plans, all those packages which meet his Department's specifications will be funded?
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the charming way in which he asked his question. I shall respond in my charming way.
I have advocated for many years the ideas to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I am pleased to be in a job where I can begin to implement them. However, Governments can implement only that for which resources allow. I have tried to find new ways of financing, even to the extent of getting changes for local authorities in the Treasury rules to allow greater flexibility to invest. The issue is not only the amount that I can find—almost £2 billion—but about finding new, agreed income streams. As I said in my statement, those new streams will be geared very much to public transport requirements.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that acid particle emissions from motor vehicles have done more damage to York Minster and the other historic limestone buildings in York in the past 20 years than has been caused in the previous two centuries? Is he further aware that measures such as the park-and-ride schemes introduced by York city council, and its traffic-calming measures and pedestrian and cycle
802
priority schemes, provide necessary alternatives to car use in York? Does he commend those schemes to other authorities?
My right hon. Friend will remember that, when the Conservatives were in power, they closed the York carriage works. Since the election, his transport policies have created a market for rail freight wagons, and a freight works has reopened in York. On Monday, the first freight vehicle will roll off the production line at the Thrall works in York. That shows that the markets, as well as transport specialists, approve of my right hon. Friend's policies.
Mr. Prescott: I was delighted by the opening of that plant, which was scandalously closed under the previous Administration, not because railway stock was not wanted but because they were not prepared to ensure that investment was available. If they had invested in rolling stock instead of using the money to meet the cost of rail privatisation, that plant could have been kept in being, but their ideological requirement was to privatise.
I welcome the advance in freight wagons by the English, Welsh and Scottish Freight Rail Company. My hon. Friend spoke about environmental problems and acid particles. York's excellent policy has not only improved buildings in the area but encouraged more people to cycle. Much more can be done to facilitate cycling, and I think that about 20 per cent. of journeys in York are undertaken in that way. I congratulate the Labour administration in York on its comprehensive policy on these matters.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must now move on. There will be another important transport statement next week.

International Criminal Court
4.37 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
It has been the Government's policy to back the creation of an effective International Criminal Court. I am pleased to report to the House that in Rome on Friday, Britain was part of the overwhelming majority that agreed to set up such a court. It has been a paradox of our century that those who murder one person are more likely to be brought to justice than those who plot genocide against millions. The International Criminal Court will put on notice the Pol Pots and Saddam Husseins of the future that they may be held to account personally for their crimes against humanity. It will also offer justice to the victims who have no means at present of bringing their suffering before any court.
I ask the House to record its appreciation of the hard work by the British team through five weeks of difficult and intensive negotiations. Britain's firm support for the principle of an International Criminal Court and the leading role that was played by our delegation in brokering consensus contributed to the successful outcome of the Rome conference.
The result is a strong court with wide powers. It will have the power to try cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, including crimes of sexual violence, such as the use of mass rape as an instrument of ethnic cleansing, as was practised in Bosnia. The conscription of children under 15 into military service will also be an offence liable to prosecution before the court.
The British delegation played a key part in securing a definition of war crimes that embraced internal conflicts, not only wars between states. That is of great importance, as most of the violence of the past two decades has arisen from internal, not external, conflicts.
The British team also took the initiative in proposing that the court should have power to order those who are guilty to pay reparations to their victims. That is a new power, which is not available to the tribunals on the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. It reflects the fact that those who abuse their power to commit crimes against others often also abuse their power to make themselves wealthy.
We consistently rejected attempts by other countries to give the court the power of the death penalty, and we were successful in maintaining a majority against any international body having the power to order the death penalty.
Much of the debate in the period running up to the Rome conference revolved around the independence of the prosecutor. I am pleased to report that the prosecutor will have the power to initiate investigations leading to prosecution on his or her own authority. States that are party to the treaty may also refer alleged crimes for investigation, but the prosecutor can take the initiative without waiting for such a referral.
From the start, our objective has been to secure maximum support for the International Criminal Court. To be credible, such a court must command substantial support in the international community. The final vote in
804
support of the court—120 votes to seven—exceeded our expectations. The large number voting in favour was, in part, a reflection of the comprehensive international presence at the Rome conference, which was brought about by the financial support that Britain and others provided towards meeting the attendance costs of 50 of the smaller and poorer states.
To build that overwhelming support, it was necessary to meet the concerns of a number of countries that supported an International Criminal Court in principle, but had reservations about the proposed procedures. In particular, it was necessary to agree that countries signing up to the court should have the right to claim immunity from prosecution for war crimes for up to seven years.
That immunity is time limited; it does not extend to the other crimes in the court's remit, such as crimes against humanity, and it can, in any event, be overridden by a Security Council resolution. It is much more restricted than the initial bid by a number of countries that wanted an indefinite right to opt out from any of the crimes in the court's remit. I understand the regrets of those who would have preferred that no such concession were granted, but I firmly believe that it was right to make a limited compromise to secure wider support for the court and thereby achieve greater credibility for its authority.
I am sorry that, at the end of the Rome conference, the United States felt unable to support the compromise proposals. I understand its concerns about the security of its service men who are posted abroad, but we believe that those concerns are misplaced. Britain, too, has a large number of service men in posts abroad, and we and other major NATO allies are satisfied that the safeguards that are built in to the International Criminal Court will protect our service men against malicious or politically motivated prosecution.
In particular, it is a clearly established principle that the court will be able to prosecute only when there is no remedy in national law. We are confident that we can demonstrate that there is a remedy in British justice—and, for that matter, in United States justice—for accusations that are made against our service men in good faith. The screening of cases by the pre-trial chamber of the International Criminal Court will provide a safeguard against accusations that are brought in bad faith.
We shall continue, through close dialogue, to seek to bring our United States partners on board in support of this improvement to international justice, which has gained such overwhelming support from the rest of the international community.
Later this year, the world will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the universal declaration of human rights. There can be no more fitting way in which to mark that anniversary than for us to sign up to this agreement, which, for the first time, creates an international court to enforce the most fundamental of those rights. I hope that the support that the court will secure in the House will be as overwhelming as the support that it has already received in the international community.
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I start by apologising for the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who is currently travelling back to this country.

805
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his statement. I particularly congratulate those diplomats and others who have successfully participated in the enormously complex process of establishing the permanent international court, not only in the past five weeks and in Rome, but during the ad hoc meetings and preparatory committee processes that took place under the previous Government. I also congratulate those NGOs that participated in the process, including the Red Cross, Amnesty International and the NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court, which all made valuable contributions.
Those who commit the most serious crimes, which bring international revulsion, should have no place to hide, and the court represents a considerable step in the right direction. Despite the historic nature of the Foreign Secretary's announcement, many details remain matters of grave concern, on which I hope he will elaborate.
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the fact that two of the five permanent members of the Security Council—the US and China—have not signed up to the court is a problem? Does he agree with the diplomats who have said that the court will not work effectively without US participation? Does he believe that that could weaken the court before it is even out of the starting blocks? What steps will he take to encourage countries such as India, Israel, the US and China to join us, and how will he bring those countries on board?
Although the court represents the right way forward, it will not come into being until the statute has been ratified by all the signatories. As that process could take many years, will the Foreign Secretary say when he proposes that the United Kingdom should ratify the statute and what steps he will take to encourage swift ratification by other signatories? What problems are created for the ratification process by the fact that the voting in the UN was by a non-recorded vote, in which countries did not have to identify themselves?
Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the position of Israel, which, for many years, has understandably campaigned for the establishment of such a court, but which felt unable to sign up to the final proposals? Does he agree with the Israeli Government that the clause introduced by Egypt and Syria would make the Israeli settlements the subject of prosecutions? Is that assessment of the clause accurate?
The Foreign Secretary will acknowledge that the establishment of such a court is only half the battle. He has dealt with the position on the death penalty and the welcome inclusion of reparations, but will he outline what sanctions and punishments he envisages will be available to the court following a successful prosecution? More particularly, how will any sentence be enforced and who will pay for any subsequent imprisonment of a convicted person or persons?
We welcome the Foreign Secretary's assurances that British troops will not face malicious prosecutions of the kind feared by the US—indeed, that was one reason why the US refused to sign up to the court—but what guarantees can he give us that that will be the case? What makes him right and the US wrong?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the court will be able to prosecute only in cases when crimes have been committed by a state that has signed the statute or when they have taken place in the territory of a signatory? Is it
806
not the case that that leaves the door wide open to those who commit crimes in countries that have refused to accept the jurisdiction of the court?
Will the Foreign Secretary also comment on the provision that was dropped, whereby suspects who had taken refuge in a country could be extradited to face prosecution? Does that not mean that tyrants and butchers will still have access to safe havens?
We welcome the Foreign Secretary's assurances on the independence of the prosecutor, but does he agree that only judges with the highest qualifications, preferably in both criminal and international law, should be used by the court?
The court will inevitably be costly. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he pressed for the least expensive arrangements, consistent with the court's effective functioning, and say what provisions have been made for the associated costs?
Finally, I am sure that I speak for all parts of the House when I endorse the international decision that will ensure that no man is above the law. By creating an International Criminal Court, we hope that we can move towards a more humane and peaceful world in which there is no sanctuary for the despot, the dictator or the depraved.
Mr. Cook: I thank the hon. Lady for her congratulations. I shall of course pass on to the officials who worked so hard to secure this agreement the congratulations from the Opposition Front Bench, which are always very gratifying.
Of course, we will continue to work with the United States in particular to get it to accede to the new institution. It is early days yet in the signing process—indeed, it has been open for signature for only one day so far. I hope that the United States will, first, come to drop its opposition and, over time, recognise that it is in its interests to be part of such an overwhelming consensus in the international community.
The hon. Lady asked whether the court could work without the United States. The answer is yes, it can work. If 120 countries want to make it work, and if those 120 include three of the permanent members of the Security Council, it can work. However, everyone recognises—I am not going to deny it—that it would work much better if the United States were a supporter of the institution.
The simplest way to resolve the question of the clause proposed by Egypt, which caused Israel to withdraw its support for the court, would be for Israel to recognise that the continuing expansion of settlements in occupied territory is without legal basis and jeopardises the peace process. I very much hope that, over the years that it will take for an International Criminal Court to be brought into being, it will be possible for us to make progress with the peace process which will resolve that difficult and outstanding issue between Israel and its neighbours.
The hon. Lady also asked about costs. I can tell her that we sought a formula that provided the best possible way to distribute the burden of the costs of the court. That is why we achieved an outcome whereby the court will be part-financed by the states that accede to it and part-financed by the United Nations, especially in respect of the cases referred through the Security Council.
Of course, the court will not be cheap. The two tribunals on Rwanda and Yugoslavia have already cost $113 million in the current year, and they are relatively

807
limited in their application. This will not be an exercise that can be achieved for a small price, but I believe that a price is worth paying to secure this important development in international justice.
Yes, we are confident that our service men will be protected against malicious prosecution. If anyone is in any doubt about whether that confidence is well placed, I should say that none of our other NATO allies took the interpretation of the United States; and, like us, many of those other NATO allies have service men in foreign posts. We are all confident that we have achieved safeguards against malicious prosecution—some of them sought by the United States itself.
The hon. Lady also raised the territorial application and jurisdiction of the court. It is indeed the case that one of the tests of whether the jurisdiction of the court would apply is whether the country that contains the territory in which the alleged crime took place consents. In practice, it is very difficult to imagine the court operating on any other basis. It is hard to see how a case could succeed without access to the scene of the crime, and the court has no powers to try people in absentia, a legal principle which most hon. Members would support. Therefore, it is difficult to see how the court could proceed against existing tyrants still in power, but there is, of course, power for the Security Council, by resolution, to refer any country or individual to the court without any consent by that country or its Government.
On the qualifications of the judges, I am pleased to report that one of the important contributions made by the British delegation was to chair the working party on those qualifications. Our team did an excellent job in achieving an outcome that requires two thirds of the bench appointed to be drawn from judges who have experience of criminal trial work. We are confident that we have made the best possible provision to make sure that the judges are experienced and of a high calibre.
I deal finally with the question of ratification. This will not be a swift or fast-track process. We are now arranging to draw up the appropriate legislation, but that legislation will be complex. It is not legislation that I would dream of asking the House to pass in a one-day sitting, as happened with the landmines treaty, because I suspect that it will contain many clauses that will give lawyers many hours of fruitful debate as it passes through the House. Therefore, it is not something which the House should imagine will be rushed through; nor will it be rushed through in many of the other countries. That is why I hope—it is our intention—that we shall be among the first 60 to ratify. If we continue to have the Opposition's support, we might be able to ratify even sooner.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if we adopt too querulous a tone, we run the risk of underestimating the real achievement in the creation of the court? I share his satisfaction, especially in relation to the independence of the prosecutor, an issue on which I know that the British negotiating team, to which he has rightly referred in complimentary terms, pressed very hard in the final three or four days of negotiation. The team certainly deserves to be congratulated on that issue above all others.
808
I share the Foreign Secretary's disappointment with regard to the United States. I hope that there will not only be dialogue, but that he will impress on the United States the importance of a change of mind or, indeed, a change of heart.
On the question of immunity from prosecution for war crimes, which, as I understand it, runs for a period of up to seven years, am I right in saying that there will be no bar on investigation during that period, so that, on the expiry of such a period, any country that has taken advantage of the immunity may, in respect of war crimes, find that its citizens are liable to prosecution?
Mr. Cook: The hon. and learned Gentleman uses his privilege as a lawyer to ask me a legal question that I cannot answer. I shall take advice on whether the court would have a retrospective character in line with the seven-year time bar, and I shall happily write to him on that point.
It is fair to record that the United States has for many years been at the forefront of the international community in expressing concern about rogue states and crimes against humanity practised by evil tyrants such as Saddam Hussein. I hope that once the issue is fully considered and the text is studied in Washington, the United States will recognise that the agreement fits with its world view and is something which it should support, not oppose.
I agree absolutely that one of the main gains in Rome was the securing of the independence of the prosecutor, which was by no means a certainty before negotiations began. Our overall judgment is that, with the exception of the seven-year time limit, we secured all our negotiating objectives. As a result, we have a strong and effective court, with much greater support from the international community than we had anticipated. I therefore share the hon. and learned Gentleman's view that, although it is proper for the House to ask questions, we should not lose sight of the fact that the agreement is a great achievement which offers a major breakthrough in international justice.
Mr. Clive Soley: Many of my constituents will want to join in congratulating the Foreign Secretary on his achievement—not least because some of them have fled from the very regimes that we are seeking to put in the dock. Over the years, so many of us have felt that a court of that nature is vital. Perhaps he will tell the United States that those of us who are used to seeing it acting as one of the leaders on human rights and the rule of law are saddened when we see it acting as a drag anchor on the very process that we all want to encourage.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes his point with great force and great eloquence. Those of us who have met those who have fled from such evil tyrants understand two things: first, the hardship that they often have had to experience; and, secondly, the real frustration at knowing that they have no ready legal remedy. We hope that legislation for an International Criminal Court will put paid to that vacuum. I also agree with my hon. Friend that the court would be much more effective if the United States were to recognise that such a court is entirely consistent with its own policy.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May I welcome the Foreign Secretary's announcement, and pay tribute

809
to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd)? Although she is not in the Chamber today, she has consistently campaigned—as long as I have been an hon. Member, and undoubtedly much longer than that—for war criminals to be brought before appropriate international tribunals.
May I also ask the Foreign Secretary whether he is aware that I have tabled two written questions to him about the Nazi war criminal Aloïs Brunner—who was Eichmann's right-hand man; was responsible for many horrendous crimes against humanity, including the deportation and death of over 150,000 French jews; and is believed to be being harboured by Syria? Would he be a candidate for the attentions of the new International Criminal Court? If so, will the Government use their best endeavours to ensure that that monster is brought before the court?
Mr. Cook: There is already legal provision for those guilty of war crimes of a Nazi character during the second world war to be brought to justice. As the House well knows, Britain is at the forefront of insisting that those legal provisions should be honoured. I must be clear with the House—I do not want there to be any misunderstanding on this point—that, as a general principle, the International Criminal Court will not have a retrospective character. However, in future, it will be able to try those who commit crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide. We hope that—by the very fact of its existence—the court will provide deterrence against such crimes, as tyrants will know not only that those whom they send out to commit such evil work may succumb to justice, but that they themselves may personally be held responsible.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May I add my congratulations on the achievement of getting so many parties' agreement to the treaty? Did I understand the Foreign Secretary to say that the international court or prosecutor would not be able to trigger an examination of genocide, for example, in jurisdictions which have their own capacity to try war criminals? If in the 21st century there were to be another—if I may use this example—My Lai, would the state whose army committed such a massacre be able to say, "It's not a matter for you, international court or prosecutor. Our country has our own competence to deal with the matter"? Such a system would be a cop-out and ensure that there would not be adequate prosecutions, as happened in the case of My Lai.
Mr. Cook: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall tiptoe very delicately round the very undiplomatic example that he offers, but take up the issue that he raises. The principle on which the court has been created is that of complementarity—where there is effective legal remedy at a national level for the offence that is under investigation, the nation state will be expected to act on it. I think that that is an important requirement of the nations that sign up to the International Criminal Court. We should not allow signature to the court to allow nations to abdicate their own responsibility in holding their nationals to international and domestic law.
The purpose of the International Criminal Court is to provide a remedy for those states that cannot or—in the case of a collapse of law and order, such as
810
occurred initially in Rwanda—are unable to bring their nationals to trial. Therefore, in cases in which nations cannot or—in the case of some other evil dictators—will not, the International Criminal Court provides a remedy. However, it is not a remedy which overrides the obligation of most states to execute their own legal procedures against those whom they have held to have committed a crime.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: May I echo the welcome for the agreement that has already been expressed by hon. Members and the gratitude to those who were involved in reaching an historical and very principled decision? I specifically welcome recognition of sexual violence and rape as a crime. Often, innocent children are born as a product of rape. Will the legislation contain specific provisions ensuring that there is representation for those children and for the orphans of war in any criminal proceedings that are brought? Those children are, above all, the innocent victims, and such representation would seem to be a vital part of looking to the future.
Mr. Cook: I welcome very much the support that the hon. Lady has offered both to the principle of the court and to that particular provision, which was strongly supported by Britain. I should not wish to prejudge a precise decision that may be made by the court, but I personally see no reason why—in those cases—orphans or children who are the products of sexual violence should not be legitimate candidates for reparation if that is ordered against those who are found guilty.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated—particularly because of the doom and gloom of a month or two ago about whether the conference would have any successful outcome. The conference has had a considerable outcome, for which the whole world should be grateful—despite the United States's distressing decision, which will alarm and puzzle its friends, not to sign up now.
Will my right hon. Friend inform the House precisely how he foresees the timetable? He has given some indication that the process will be somewhat long and drawn-out. However, how many states will have to ratify the agreement before it comes into operation? When does he expect legislation to be before the House? On the basis of his earlier comments, it seems likely that that will happen not in the next Session but probably in the Session after that. Is that correct? What does he think is the optimum date for establishment of the court?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is quite right to contrast the very successful outcome of the Rome conference with what he described as the "doom and gloom" of expectations for the conference. There was doom and gloom about the outcome not only a few weeks ago but up until about last Thursday. The achievement is quite remarkable tribute to the way in which the conference was handled in its closing hours and to the determination of many national delegations, including the British one, that it would be a success.

811
The answer to my hon. Friend's question about how many countries need to ratify for the court to come into force is 60. It will take some time to get there—I do not wish to mislead the House on that point—but Britain will seek to ratify as quickly as we reasonably can. That will require, first, drawing up complex legislation, and, secondly, providing adequate time in the House for the legislation to be considered. Whether we can do that in the immediate future is something to which all hon. Members can apply their mind and come to their own conclusion. However, I can give the House an assurance that we will do it as quickly as we can. I personally would expect Britain to be among the first 60 to bring the court into being.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: The principle of the court is welcomed by both sides of the House—the right hon. Gentleman has already pointed out that the court's purpose is not only to punish but to deter. However, he said that the court may have to apply to the Security Council in dealing with countries that are not signatories to the agreement. Will such decisions have to be unanimous or majority ones? If they have to be unanimous, does he think that that requirement will impede the court's practical work in deterring the Pol Pots and Saddam Husseins of this world?
Mr. Cook: I think that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that it will be by a majority, subject, of course, to the fact that there are five countries—of which we are one—that have a veto over any resolution. In practice, there has not been a problem in the Security Council in getting international agreement to establish special tribunals to consider war crimes in Rwanda and in former Yugoslavia.
Until now, we have lacked the mechanism by which to act on those resolutions, which is why, on each occasion, we have had to invent an entirely new tribunal with its own procedures and institutions. Now, we will have the advantage that the International Criminal Court will be ready to act on any war crimes referred to it by the Security Council.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his imagination in organising payment of travel expenses for some 50 of the poorest countries of the world? As a matter of curiosity, how much did we pay for that significant gesture? May I ask him about two further matters? First, will he reflect on whether the International Criminal Court would help in a case that has been raised with me by the Davidson family of Linlithgow—that of their cousin George Atkinson whose problems in Dubai have been outlined in four pages of this week's colour supplement of The Sunday Times? I use the case as an example of one in which an International Criminal Court could help.
Secondly, tomorrow night I have the good fortune to have the 15th Adjournment debate on Lockerbie. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could ask the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd),
812
who is sitting next to him, to explain whether the International Criminal Court could help us out of the impasse on Pan Am flight 103 tomorrow night.
Mr. Cook: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is that Britain contributed $100,000 to the UN trust fund set up for that purpose. I can tell the House that Britain was one of the biggest donors to that trust fund.
As my hon. Friend knows, I am familiar with the Atkinson case. I have been visited by his constituent who discussed it with me. We continue to be in close contact and to provide consular assistance and guidance. However, I am not clear whether anything in the Atkinson case would lend itself to an action before the International Criminal Court.
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I am aware that he has an Adjournment debate on Lockerbie tomorrow night. I hope that he will accept that it is a matter that is also of high priority within the Foreign Office. Apart from the retrospective element, the case of Lockerbie is unlikely to come within the scope of the court because we have firmly taken the view that the International Criminal Court should not cut across crimes for which there is already adequate international treaty provision, and there is very satisfactory provision in treaty for action against terrorism. Unfortunately, in the particular case of Lockerbie, it is not possible to enforce those mechanisms because Libya flatly refuses to extradite the two people who ought to be brought to trial.
Mr. David Heath: May I whole-heartedly congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his statement? May I press him a little further on the seven-year immunity? What triggers that time period? Is it the date of the crime or the date of the intention to prosecute? Which state claims the immunity? Is it the state in which the crime was committed, or the state whose nationals are accused of committing the crime?
Mr. Cook: My understanding is that the seven-year limit starts running from the point of accession to the International Criminal Court—in other words, when 60 countries have ratified it, any one of them could claim a seven-year period of exemption from any war crime, not a specific war crime. Of course, the exemption would lapse at the end of seven years, and the country concerned would fall fully within the scope of the court. It will be an exemption from prosecution in respect of its own nationals, wherever they might be; hence the concern of one other NATO ally—not the United States—to protect its service men by that provision. It is tightly drawn and limited. I shall not pretend to the House that we put forward that concession or that we would have wished to see it as part of a negotiating position, but it does not strike at the heart of the court and was well worth agreeing to in order to get aboard a number of countries that would not otherwise have supported it.
Ms Jenny Jones: I know that the Council of Europe made representations to the negotiating body that war crimes against women and children should be given particular recognition. That was done because of the evidence that came to light

813
after the break-up of Yugoslavia. My right hon. Friend has already said that rape will now come under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Can he also confirm that women and children forced into prostitution and trafficked for that purpose will also come under the jurisdiction of the ICC?
Mr. Cook: I am very happy to say to my hon. Friend that enslavement is one of the crimes against humanity that come explicitly under the remit of the International Criminal Court, so enforced prostitution of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers will be prosecutable before the International Criminal Court as a war crime or a crime against humanity.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Before I call the Secretary of State, I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has decided to impose a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  5.14 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill has one simple overriding purpose—to implement the Belfast agreement. The agreement was negotiated by the Northern Ireland parties and agreed on Good Friday. It was supported by more than 71 per cent. of voters in Northern Ireland in the referendum on 22 May. The Bill represents the triple lock—people, parties and now Parliament.
  Despite all the achievements of recent months, years of division in Northern Ireland cannot be overcome at a stroke. We have been reminded of the human cost of such divisions in recent weeks. The dispute over the parade at Drumcree and the violence that surrounded it has left a dark, sad cloud hanging over Northern Ireland. The funerals of the three boys—Mark, Richard and Jason—and the anguish of their family are terrible reminders of the hatred and division that lurk not far away from all the hope and expectation that we have for the future. We have recently been reminded of that by yet another appalling murder—that of Andrew Kearney—but the Good Friday agreement showed that, despite divisions, the parties and people of Northern Ireland can agree and can find an accommodation between their different views and beliefs and begin to chart a non-violent route into the future.
  The Bill is all about implementing the agreement in full. We have had to fill in a number of practical gaps that were left by the agreement. In doing that, we have had the benefit of consultations with all the Northern Ireland parties. It is crucial that the momentum of the talks, the agreement, the referendum, the elections is maintained.
  The agreement sets a tough timetable. The Bill has been prepared in record time, and I should like to express my appreciation to the civil servants who have worked so hard and to both Houses for facilitating the programme for the Bill when there are so many other important matters to be addressed.
  There will, no doubt, need to be Government amendments to the Bill, mainly as a result of the urgency with which it has been prepared. As with previous legislation under the agreement, we will be flexible and sympathetic to other amendments intended to improve the way in which the Bill reflects what is in the agreement. However, I repeat what I have said in the House before; we cannot rewrite the agreement.
  The agreement and the Bill look forward to a new future for Northern Ireland where all relationships are based on consent and mutual respect; where the people of Northern Ireland and their leaders take responsibility for their own government and their future; where government

  815
  is an exercise not in domination, but in partnership; where all parts of the community work together to solve problems that affect everyone and where all the people—north and south on the island of Ireland and, indeed, among all these islands—can work together for the mutual benefit of all.
  The Bill implements the agreement. It is a substantial piece of legislation, and I should like to highlight some of its main features. The first two clauses rightly put the principle of consent at the forefront of the Bill. Whether Northern Ireland is to remain part of the United Kingdom or become part of a united Ireland is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide. The key principle of consent is enshrined in the Bill and has been endorsed overwhelmingly by the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic.
  Clause 3 provides for devolution once
  "sufficient progress has been made in implementing the Belfast Agreement".
  That is a judgment for the Secretary of State. In making it, I shall consider whether the Assembly, in its shadow phase, has made the necessary preparations; that all the necessary Ministers have been selected; that the north-south ministerial council and the British-Irish Council have met in shadow form; and that the initial six cross-border implementation bodies have been identified so that they can function from the day the powers are transferred.
  The Assembly has already made a start. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister have been elected and have been tasked by the Assembly to come forward over the summer with proposals on much of the preparatory work. Our aim is to achieve the transfer of powers early in 1999. Clause 4 deals with subject matters that may be devolved to the Assembly. Excepted matters, in schedule 2, cannot be devolved. They concern, for example, the Crown, foreign affairs, defence and national security. Reserved matters in schedule 3 will initially remain the responsibility of the UK Government, but can be devolved in future by Order in Council if the Assembly so wishes.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: My right hon. Friend has come to the question of reserved powers. Could any of the Bill's provisions affect the right of this House to impose the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967 on Northern Ireland, to ask questions about abortion in Northern Ireland or to debate abortion in relation to Northern Ireland?
  Marjorie Mowlam: The question of abortion will be a reserved power and therefore remains part of provisions with which the House will continue to deal. We are considering talking to groups about the issue, about which many in the House feel strongly. As my hon. Friend knows, no party in Northern Ireland would support the 1967 Act. At this time of transition, however, there may be a case for clarifying inconsistencies in the legal and medical positions. Due to the universal view that the Act should not apply in Northern Ireland, with which I disagree, we would need careful consultation with the parties.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: As I understand it, the legislation does not apply or belong to Northern
  816
  Ireland; it is not on the Northern Ireland statute book. As such powers will partly be transferred to the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland, they will become the responsibility of Northern Ireland. It would be very wrong if, in the transfer of powers, anyone in this House removed the right of Northern Ireland people to make their own decision on the matter.
  Marjorie Mowlam: I hear what my hon. Friend says. From my preparation for the debate, I understand that the power is potentially a reserved one, even though—he is absolutely right—the 1967 Act does not apply. Given that it is a reserved power, the House will still have an opportunity to debate the matter. I was making clear the position of political parties in Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I was under the impression that the matter would be transferred; it comes under the powers to be transferred to Northern Ireland Departments. Is the right hon. Lady saying that there will be exceptions to the transfer of powers that were transferred under previous legislation to a previous assembly? Is she saying that the House will retain this once transferred power?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I see many hon. Members nodding. Normally, the subject would be considered a health issue. From my preparation, I understand that the matter concerns a right; it is a reserved matter. I shall correct myself later if I am wrong and the power is to be transferred. A note from my experts says that the matter is reserved because it is part of criminal law and therefore must remain reserved. I see the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) nodding; I was correct, thank goodness.
  Other reserved matters include those concerning criminal justice, policing and prisons. The outcome of the two reviews into policing and criminal justice will obviously be an important part of any future transfer of reserved powers. Everything else is a transferred matter. That means that the responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Department will be transferred to the new Northern Ireland Ministers.
  Clause 4(5) defines "cross-community support" as it is defined in the agreement. Where key interests of either community are at stake, a requirement for cross-community support ensures that the Assembly will operate by partnership between the two main parts of the community.
  Part II provides for the Assembly to make laws for Northern Ireland. Clause 6 borrows from the Scotland Bill, placing limits on the Assembly's legislative competence. The courts—ultimately the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—are to rule on whether the Assembly has stepped outside its legislative competence.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Many of us have received a letter from Joan Smyth, the chair and chief executive of the Equal Opportunities Commission, in which she claims
  "The proposal for the statutory obligations does not meet the commitments made in Paragraph 3 of the Agreement"

  817
  and that that will not lead to effective sexual equality. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her earlier offer to look sympathetically at amendments that seek to strengthen the Bill, and draw to her attention the EOC's claim.
  Marjorie Mowlam: Schedules 8 and 9 refer specifically to the matter. I am well aware of the concern that the EOC has expressed about the Equality Commission. The EOC outlined two or three specific problems. I hope that, when we consider schedules 8 and 9, my hon. Friend will see that we have taken those problems into account. The EOC was concerned about the hierarchy of rights and that, of the seven or eight inequalities listed, gender, race and disability would be too far down the agenda. We have answered concerns about functions and finance in the schedules. We have said that the Equality Commission would be structured by the chief executives of the four existing relevant commissions and by four representatives from the fields of inequality, sexual orientation, age and dependency. As I said, we are very flexible on amendments. We are listening to what people are saying and I believe that the specific criticism in the letter is addressed in the schedules.
  Part III provides for the new executive authorities in Northern Ireland to be drawn from the Assembly. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on their election as First Minister and Deputy First Minister designate. It is expected that, in September, on the back of their proposals on the number and allocation of portfolios, the other Northern Ireland Ministers will be selected using the d'Hondt procedure that is set out in clause 15.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Clause 14 says that if either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister resigns or vacates office, the other office is also deemed void. I do not wish such a situation on anybody, but there must be provision for an interregnum in the case of a bereavement or a resignation outside the political arena. Hours can be critical in Northern Ireland. We must make provision for continuity of office.
  Marjorie Mowlam: The Standing Orders being drawn up will address that. The Bill provides for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to work in unison when possible, because that is the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, but we do not expect them both to fall under a bus. We are well aware of how clause 14 could be interpreted, so we are considering that in the Standing Orders.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State used the phrase "in unison". Why do we need constant use of the word jointly in the Bill? Does that not tie issues too tightly? What would happen in Scotland if the Labour party and the Scottish National party were tied together and had to work jointly? It is a recipe for disaster.
  Marjorie Mowlam: I use the word in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, which is for parties of both communities to work together by consent when possible. If there are inconsistencies with the Good Friday agreement, we shall look at them. The comparison with
  818
  Scotland does not hold completely, because there are differences in structures between Scottish devolution and what is being proposed for Northern Ireland. For example, there is to be a Cabinet Government in Scotland.
  Clause 16 permits the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to make up the Executive Committee for the Assembly. Before each Minister takes up office, he or she must take the pledge of office, which is reproduced in full in schedule 5 and in the agreement. It includes a
  "commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means",
  a pledge
  "to discharge in good faith all the duties of office"
  and an undertaking
  "to support, and act in accordance with, all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly".
  Clause 22 provides for each Northern Ireland Minister to be advised and assisted by a Committee of the Assembly, as the agreement says. It is fundamental to the Belfast agreement that the opportunities for a new future rest on people using only non-violent and democratic means to achieve their political objectives.
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Secretary of State made a passing reference at the start of her speech to the murder yesterday, in tragic circumstances, of Mr. Andrew Kearney. She may also be aware of the IRA beating of Mr. Vincent McKenna on the Ormeau road, who identified three of his attackers as senior members of the IRA. She will be aware that the family of Mr. Andrew Kearney have said that they believe that the IRA murdered him. In view of that evidence of breaches of the IRA ceasefire, is the Secretary of State convinced that the provisions of the Bill are adequate to ensure that organisations with political representatives in the Assembly can be held to account for their on-going violence on the streets and that such people can and will be excluded from holding ministerial office?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I am convinced that the Bill is adequate. The Assembly will make the final decision. The hon. Gentleman refers to evidence in relation to the appalling murder of Mr. Kearney. I have yet to see evidence. As I have made clear on many occasions, when we get evidence, we shall make a judgment, as is our duty, and make recommendations to the Assembly on the basis of that.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State confirm that she still believes that provisional Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are inextricably linked?
  Marjorie Mowlam: Every time I have been asked that, I have said that I believe that to be the case. I shall make a judgment in the round based on the four factors that the Prime Minister outlined: a commitment to non-violence; the use of peaceful means only; no use of proxy groups; and no use of violent methods of any kind. I shall make a recommendation to the Assembly on that basis. The decision to act will rest with the Assembly.
  Mr. Robert McCartney rose—
  Marjorie Mowlam: I shall have to stop soon, otherwise no one else will get a chance to speak.
  Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Unless the whole gamut of a detailed

  819
  court procedure is followed, it seems probable that all the Secretary of State's assessments of evidence will be political decisions rather than decisions based on hard evidence. I note the speed with which the Government ascribe to the Orange Order, of which I am not a member, complicity in the murders in Ballymoney, but their reluctance to make similar condemnation of IRA murders.
  Marjorie Mowlam: As I have said many times before, I shall look at the evidence and make a judgment, as the Good Friday agreement provides. I have never said that the Orangemen were to blame for the violence in Drumcree. I said in the House just a week ago that I was deeply concerned that they were being used by people who did not support the agreement, but who were intent on destroying it. The television pictures showed a line of Orangemen, behind whom were other people, among whom there was shooting and blast bombs. Those other people made a big difference to what was going on. I did not directly blame many of the Orangemen who, as I have said many times, were badly served by others who came out to support them.
  Rev. Martin Smyth rose—
  Marjorie Mowlam: This must be the last time I give way.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Secretary of State's giving way, because I realise that she wants to move on. There has been an admission in The Irish Times by the Continuity Army Council that it was responsible for incendiary devices that destroyed a property in north Belfast, leaving 40 people unemployed. The Chief Constable's certificate has not been issued on the grounds that there is not enough evidence. What constitutes evidence, given that The Irish Times has the code word from the Continuity Army Council?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I shall look at all the evidence that comes to me from security sources and the RUC. I shall make a judgment based on the four criteria. I cannot make a judgment based on reports in The Irish Times or any other newspaper. I shall deal with the facts because, as we all know, newspapers sometimes write a story that we do not think is a fair representation. I shall stick to the facts as they come to me.
  Mr. Peter Robinson rose—
  Marjorie Mowlam: I am sorry. I have been reasonable in giving way.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that the use of the twin tactics of the ballot box and the Armalite is unacceptable. He said:
  "There can be no fudge between democracy and terror."
  The agreement states that clearly. Paragraph 25 of strand 1 says:
  "An individual may be removed from office following a decision of the Assembly taken on a cross-community basis, if (s)he loses the confidence of the Assembly, voting on a cross-community basis, for failure to meet his or her responsibilities including, inter alia,
  820
  those set out in the Pledge of Office. Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means, and those who do not should be excluded or removed from office under these provisions."
  Clause 23 gives effect to those arrangements.
  Mr. Robinson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Marjorie Mowlam: No, I want to make progress. I do apologise.
  Decisions on exclusion from ministerial office lie with the Assembly. That is what the agreement says. Ministers are chosen to serve the Assembly. The agreement says that a Minister can be removed from office for any failure to meet his or her responsibilities, including failure to co-operate properly with the institutions being set up by the agreement.
  Clause 23(6) allows me to inform the Assembly if I think it should consider whether an individual or party is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means and so should be excluded. We will use the four Balmoral criteria to make the assessment—the criteria appear in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, which we debated in the House a couple of weeks ago.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that if the arrangements prove ineffective during the first six months of the life of the shadow Assembly or the full Assembly, we will support changes to make them more effective.
  Part IV of the Bill is concerned with the elections and procedures of the Assembly.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I shall, but I must then give way to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). That will be the last time I give way.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), gave an undertaking to the Standing Committee on the Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill that this Bill would deal with arrangements for filling casual vacancies for the Assembly. Some of us had tabled amendments to avert the need for by-elections. However, clause 27 of this Bill contains exactly the same procedure as was in the Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill; the matter is left up in the air. It is not unreasonable to think that Ministers should have come here with specific proposals on filling casual vacancies. That has not been done.
  Marjorie Mowlam: We have included in the Bill a number of amendments suggested by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and we are considering others. I said that we would table other amendments later. I hope that my hon. Friend will have a little patience on that matter.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for eventually giving way to me. Can she show us where in the Bill it states that anybody can be excluded from taking up office because they have not given their

  821
  commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means? The Bill shows how they can be removed from office. Can they be stopped from taking up office?
  Marjorie Mowlam: Yes. Clause 23 contains the exclusion from office provisions, which include a person who has not signed up to peaceful and democratic ways forward. If a person is part of the Assembly, he or she will be part of a party that has signed up to peaceful, non-violent ways forward. If he or she moves into office, but does not fulfil the pledge of office, he or she will—if the Assembly so chooses—be excluded. If that commitment is not given, they cannot take up office, as in clause 23(1).
  Part IV is concerned with the elections and procedure of the Assembly. The Assembly is to have a four-year term, with the next election coming in May 2003.
  Clause 34 provides for "petitions of concern", as in the agreement. If 30 Members of the Assembly request it, any vote in the Assembly can be required to have cross-community support, so either community can ensure that, in the future, its fundamental interests are protected. The key decisions of the Assembly will be taken on a partnership basis.
  Part V makes financial provision. The intention is that the transferred matters in Northern Ireland should continue to be funded on the basis of the Barnett formula. Within that, in future, the Northern Ireland Administration will have the freedom to determine its own expenditure priorities.
  Part VI provides further protection for human rights and equality of opportunity—again, reflecting the provisions in the agreement. The new Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission will be a more powerful and wide-ranging body than the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, which it replaces. The new commission will be independent of government. It has a wide remit
  "to keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness in Northern Ireland of law and practice relating to the protection of human rights".
  The commission will automatically receive every Bill introduced into the Assembly, so that it can, if it wishes, scrutinise it for compatibility with human rights. The commission will provide advice both to me and to Ministers in the Assembly, both at our request and at its own initiative. In particular, one of its first tasks will be to look at the scope for defining rights over and above those in the European convention on human rights to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. Such rights could constitute a future Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. Under clause 56, the commission has the power to assist individuals in proceedings in the courts where issues of human rights arise.
  Clause 59 establishes the Equality Commission. On 10 July, I announced the outcome of the Government's consultation on the proposals. Following that consultation, we have—as I stated earlier—sought to protect the importance of gender, race and disability within a single commission.
  Clause 61 places a statutory duty on the public sector to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity in all areas of its operations.
  Clause 65 provides for the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to make preparations for the establishment of the civic forum. Those will then need to be approved by the Assembly.
  822
  Finally, clauses 66 and 67 deal with the roles of Northern Ireland Ministers at meetings of the various bodies under strands 2 and 3 of the Belfast agreement. That wider framework of relationships is fundamental to the success of the Assembly and of the agreement as a whole. All are mutually interdependent. None can successfully function without the others.
  Clause 68 reflects paragraph 9 of strand 2 of the agreement. By 31 October, the shadow north-south ministerial council is to agree six areas where future north-south co-operation will take place through agreed implementation bodies on a cross-border or all-Ireland basis. Once agreed, I can confer powers and functions on such bodies under clause 68. That will enable me to meet the commitment in paragraph 10 of strand 2 to make the necessary preparations to ensure that these bodies function at the time of the transfer of powers.
  The Bill makes a further important step in implementing the Belfast agreement. Since the agreement was reached on Good Friday, it has been endorsed by a referendum on 22 May; elections were held on 25 June for the Assembly; the Assembly had its first meeting on 1 July and elected the First Minister and Deputy First Minister; the Policing Commission has begun its work; the review of criminal justice is under way; the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill is under consideration in Parliament; and decommissioning schemes have been introduced.
  The Bill paves the way for the transfer of powers to locally elected politicians from early next year. It is essential that all aspects of the agreement move forward together in parallel and that all parties honour the commitments they have made. Unless they do that, the agreement will not work.
  On 10 April, thanks to the courage and determination of the Northern Ireland talks parties, the people of Northern Ireland began an historic journey towards a new future. The Bill is another crucial milestone along the way. It is Parliament's opportunity to show solidarity and support for the people of Northern Ireland and to take forward their democratic wish.
  As such, I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: First, I thank the Secretary of State for allowing us to see an early draft of the Bill and allowing us to comment on it—an opportunity which, I gather, was given to every party in the House. Secondly, I thank her and her parliamentary colleagues for allowing the House to table amendments to the Bill at an earlier stage than would usually be the case. That will give the House a greater opportunity to consider amendments carefully before the Committee stage, which starts on Wednesday. I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for setting out the main provisions of the Bill—a Bill which, I believe, is warmly welcomed throughout Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
  On behalf of the Opposition, I offer sincere congratulations to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on their election as First Minister and Deputy First Minister designate in the Assembly. They both played a crucial role in negotiating the Belfast agreement. Both showed steely determination to make progress when it might have been an easier and safer

  823
  option to take refuge in some of the slogans and entrenched positions of the past. The relationship between them will, in many respects, be the axis that binds together the Executive, and with it many of the hopes and aspirations for the future.
  No one underestimates the difficulties and challenges that lie ahead, not least the formation of a Northern Ireland Executive. I believe, however, that we can all take encouragement from the statesmanlike way in which the First Minister and his deputy have worked together to defuse the situation at Drumcree in recent days, and to ensure that it has not escalated out of control. That augurs well for the future. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing the two of them well in the trying times ahead.
  The Bill gives legislative effect to those parts of the Belfast agreement that establish the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee. It is worth pausing for a moment to consider that, ever since the demise of Stormont in 1972 and the power-sharing Executive in 1974, it has been the objective of all Governments to end direct rule and to re-establish devolved institutions of government on a basis that can command widespread support throughout the community. To say that it has proved extremely difficult to achieve is something of an understatement.
  Following one of the golden rules of politics, legislation that was originally intended to be temporary—the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974—has assumed an air of permanence. Every year since 1974, successive Secretaries of State have come to the House to renew the Act, and to express the hope that it will be the last time that they must do so.
  High-profile initiatives have come and gone—the constitutional convention in 1975, the Atkins round table talks in 1980 and Lord Prior's "rolling devolution" assembly from 1982 to 1986. Finally, the painstaking efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), continued by Lord Mayhew, paved the way for the successes that have so far been achieved and the Bill that we are discussing today.
  However, we should not underestimate the achievements of direct rule. It is, as I know the Secretary of State will acknowledge, a fair, efficient and effective method of government. Under successive Secretaries of State, progress has been made on several fronts. However, few people have ever regarded it as anything but second best as a form of government: however wisely the current Secretary of State and her predecessors have administered the Province, direct rule has suffered from a number of crucial defects.
  Under direct rule, the Secretary of State and her colleagues administer the six separate Northern Ireland Departments. Legislation on "transferred" matters is often made by Order in Council rather than by Bill; I believe that the previous Government made some progress in that area. No Minister who has served in the Northern Ireland Office since 1972 has ever sat for a Northern Ireland constituency. The Secretary of State and her colleagues exercise a range of powers which, anywhere else in the United Kingdom, would be exercised at local level. That has created in Northern Ireland a democratic
  824
  deficit, in which Northern Ireland's elected representatives have been unable to decide the priorities for Northern Ireland and to be answerable to the electorate there.
  That, in turn, has fostered in Northern Ireland an engrained culture of political opposition. Despite the establishment of a Select Committee of the House—I pay tribute to the work that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has done—that cannot be a substitute for the proper scrutiny of legislation that will be provided by the Assembly; nor can the work of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
  The biggest challenges that lie ahead—I say this constructively—will be for Northern Ireland's politicians to break free from the culture of opposition and to be responsible for shaping policies on such matters as health, education, industrial development and, of course, the environment.
  The Bill will finally bring to an end the anomaly of direct rule. That will be good for the administration of Northern Ireland, for the political life of Northern Ireland and for democracy. The Assembly will also serve a wider political purpose. It will bring politicians from the two traditions together, uniting—we hope—to work for the good of Northern Ireland and its people. Nothing will better demonstrate the determination of Ulster's political representatives to make a reality of the new beginning than the relationship that the Belfast agreement represents.
  Let us be clear in our minds that the new Assembly is not a return to the Stormont period. It is not a return to the era of political institutions being operated by, and having the allegiance of, only one section of the community; and it is not an instrument for the dominance of one community over another. One of the great virtues of the Assembly—and a source of real hope—is that, unlike its predecessors, it should be able to command the allegiance and support of all the major traditions in Northern Ireland—Unionists, nationalists and those who do not wish to be classified by such labels.
  The Assembly will give to those parties that have clearly and unequivocally renounced violence—and by their words and deeds proved that to be the case—the share in the government and administration of the Province that their political mandate warrants. There will be important safeguards for the passage of legislation; minimum thresholds of support by the Unionist and nationalist blocs will be required. The Bill also contains significant protection for minorities and human rights. All that should be welcomed throughout Northern Ireland.
  However, the Assembly will work firmly—and I believe securely—within the United Kingdom. It is not an Assembly which undermines the Union.
  The retention of the office of Secretary of State is especially important, providing a vital link between Northern Ireland and Westminster, and exercising significant powers in relation to the Assembly and control over excepted matters. We are also adamant that the House should continue to take a close interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. We should not repeat the mistakes of the Stormont period, when the House effectively turned its back on Stormont and the Province. There must be in Northern Ireland, as much as in Scotland and Wales, the strongest possible relationship between Westminster and the devolved institutions.

  825
  Northern Ireland will continue to be represented in this Parliament. Clause 5(6) of the Bill—reflecting paragraph 34 of the agreement—makes it clear that the establishment of the Assembly
  "does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Northern Ireland."
  The Bill repeals the Government of Ireland Act 1920. We have no problem with that. Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom is guaranteed by the Act of Union of 1800, which is unaffected by anything in the agreement or in the Bill. It is now more firmly established than ever before that there will be no change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the people who live there.
  For the first time since the tripartite agreement signed by Baldwin, Craig and Cosgrave in 1925, the Irish Government will recognise Northern Ireland as a legitimate political entity and a legitimate part of the United Kingdom. In recognition of that unassailable fact, the Irish territorial claim to sovereignty over Northern Ireland has been amended.
  Against that background, we can be comfortable with the arrangements for the north-south ministerial council, service on which will be a statutory requirement for any Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive. The agreement identifies a number of sensible areas of competence for the north-south body where co-operation could bring benefits to both parts of the island.
  None of that undermines the sovereignty of the United Kingdom or implies some kind of slippery slope towards a united Ireland. There are clear lines of accountability back to the Assembly. On this subject, I can do no better than to quote the words of the first Prime Minister of Northern Ireland—a figure revered to this day by many Unionists—James Craig, when he said:
  "the North and South have got to live together as neighbours and the prosperity of Northern Ireland does undoubtedly affect the prosperity of the South of Ireland.
  So it is for the Government of the South and the Government of the North, to turn their hands rather from the matters which may have divided them in the past, to concentrate on the matters which really affect the welfare of the people in their own area with a view that the whole of Ireland, and not one part of it, may be prosperous."
  Those words were spoken in 1926—significantly, just after the tripartite agreement had recognised the border between north and south. Later events, as we know, ensured that the co-operation envisaged by Craig sadly did not occur. However, I believe that the new political dispensation, the Belfast agreement and the changes that have been made in the Republic, allow us to fulfil Craig's vision and to embark on a new period of constructive co-operation between north and south.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that the tripartite agreement of 1925 was effectively rejected by the 1937 constitution of the Republic of Ireland, and all the wise things that Craigavon said were abandoned? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that what he said was inaccurate?
  Mr. MacKay: The hon. and learned Gentleman was not listening to what I said.
  Mr. McCartney: I was—very carefully.
  Mr. MacKay: I said clearly that, regrettably, events led to that not happening. I also said clearly that the
  826
  constitution of the Republic of Ireland has been changed to take into account the fact that the Republic no longer has a constitutional claim on the north. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) cannot ignore that, much as he may wish to do so, politically.
  I shall return to my speech, as I know that many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House want to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We welcome the establishment of the British-Irish council, an idea that owes its origins in no small part to the work of my late colleague, Sir John Biggs-Davison.
  For all those reasons, the Opposition support the Bill, and if necessary will support it in the Division Lobby this evening. We do not believe, however, that it is perfect in every respect. There are genuine concerns on two particular issues—the release of prisoners, and the entry into the government of Northern Ireland of the political representatives of those organisations that have yet to establish a commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful methods.
  We agree with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State that there can be no compromise between democracy and terrorism. Furthermore, there can be no question of any organisation wielding—if I may paraphrase Danny Morrison's famous remark—Executive power in one hand and an Armalite in the other. In that context, we strongly support the fact that all Ministers will have to make a pledge of office setting out their opposition to violence, and to comply with the ministerial code of conduct.
  We also support the provisions of the legislation that require Members of the Assembly serving as shadow Ministers during the transitional period to affirm their commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means, and their opposition to any use or threat of force by others for any political purpose. We trust that any party breaching those requirements during the transitional period will not serve in the Executive once powers have been devolved to it. However, we continue to find it disturbing that there is no guarantee that Assembly Members will be barred from office unless the organisations with which they are associated are co-operating fully with the decommissioning commission.
  The Opposition are not seeking to rewrite the agreement. It was the Prime Minister who saw fit to clarify the Belfast agreement and in so doing to offer a particular interpretation of it, and it was on his interpretation that many of the people of Northern Ireland voted yes in the referendum in May. We ask the Government to make it clear in the legislation that full-co-operation with the decommissioning commission will be a condition of entry into any ministerial position in the Assembly. That is what the people believed was the Government's position at the time of the referendum. They should have the reassurance that it remains the Government's position today.
  I conclude by speaking as a Unionist to fellow Unionists in Northern Ireland. The Belfast agreement has been described in some circles as "Sunningdale for slow learners." I do not necessarily agree with that interpretation, but it serves to remind us of the high hopes that many people entertained in 1974. What was then described as a new beginning was brought crashing down in only five months. There are some Unionists today who want to wreck the agreement. In my view, few acts would

  827
  do more to weaken the Unionist case and undermine the achievements of recent years, especially the almost universal acceptance now of the principle of consent. Few acts would more readily play into the hands of the Unionists' enemies.
  To the nationalists I say this: do not reinforce the suspicions of those who would portray the agreement as a Trojan horse to Irish unity by setting impossible demands and setting ambitions for the north-south ministerial council too high.
  Finally, on a cautionary note and wishing the Assembly well, let us for once in Northern Ireland learn some of the lessons of history, in order that we are not condemned to repeat its mistakes.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I welcome the Bill, primarily because it provides for the transfer of power to the New Northern Ireland Assembly and ends 26 years of direct rule—26 wasted years, 26 years of bad government and a constant rundown in the quality of the Northern Ireland civil service. It gives to the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to turn that back and to put in place better government—government closer to the people and more responsive to their needs. Naturally, we hope that it will succeed.
  We hope that the provisions of the Bill will be accompanied by an end to violence, but the present situation gives much cause for concern. We see the attempts at continued violence, mainly from dissident republicans. That is shown in the attempted wave of bombing in London, which was intercepted by the police only a few days ago, for which we are thankful, and shown also in the attempted bombing in Northern Ireland.
  A little-remarked feature of the past couple of weeks has been the interception by the police of a 1,400 lb car bomb in Armagh and the defusing of a 500 lb car bomb in Newry. We congratulate the security forces in Northern Ireland and in London and hope that they will continue to succeed, but the frequency with which bombs are coming in from real IRA, continuity IRA, dissident IRA—it does not matter which—is a matter for concern. More effective action is needed on that front.
  There is also concern about the actions of some loyalist rejectionists. I shall make a few observations with regard to recent events in Northern Ireland, especially those at Drumcree. If the Garvaghy road residents really supported the agreement with its emphasis on the rights of people to celebrate their identity, they would have withdrawn their objections to Orangemen walking home from church along that road.
  If the Parades Commission really supported the new beginning offered by the agreement, it would not have interfered with the right of assembly or freedom of movement. Most Portadown Orangemen were peacefully protesting within the law against what they saw as an injustice, and they have my sympathy, but too many people were exploiting that protest in the attempt to destroy the hopes contained in the agreement and to see violence resumed. They were wrong and they have failed. It is clear that by far the greater number of people in Northern Ireland reject their methods and their objectives. We must recognise that a legitimate sense of grievance remains and must be addressed.
  828
  The Assembly is based on the principle of proportionality carried into effect by the d'Hondt formula. While the d'Hondt formula is automatic, there is a condition on its application that is contained in paragraph 25 of the strand 1 section of the agreement and is carried into effect in the Bill by clause 23, which has been referred to already in the debate. That condition involves the commitment to peaceful means and the democratic process. I refer particularly to clause 23(2), which states:
  "If the Assembly resolves that a political party does not enjoy the confidence of the Assembly…because it is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means…members of that party shall be excluded".
  It is worth drawing attention to the fact that the clause contains the phrase "does not enjoy", so the provision can be exercised ab initio to exclude people from office and not merely remove them once they have entered office.
  As things stand, I have no confidence in Sinn Fein's commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful means. Consequently, I would have to act in accordance with clause 23(2) if such a situation were to arise today. Will things change in the future? Essentially, that is in the hands of Sinn Fein. It knows what it must do in order for things to change—we spelled that out in detail in our manifesto for the Assembly elections. It is up to Sinn Fein. So far, it has done nothing positive: it has not even fulfilled the expectations that it created in the media a few weeks ago regarding the disappeared. On the other hand, we have Sinn Fein's negative acts, evidenced by its attempts to exploit tensions over the marches and by beatings. The McKenna attack and the Kearney killing have been mentioned. I believe that the evidence of Mr. McKenna that he recognised and identified some of his assailants is evidence on which the Secretary of State can rely.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's giving way on that point. As the representative of that constituency, I must put on record the fact that Vincent McKenna is an honourable man with republican views. He began to be disgusted by what was occurring in the community and discovered that the bulk of the community would be happy with an Orange procession along the Ormeau road. He was immediately threatened by the IRA, which has now acted.
  Mr. Trimble: My hon. Friend makes his point very effectively.
  If the Assembly is to work, it must be based on an effective coalition between us and the SDLP. I have no problem with that concept—indeed, I supported it in the constitutional convention of 1975. At that time, the coalition was to be entered into freely; this time, the coalition is formalised in the agreement and in legislation—particularly with regard to the special voting procedures contained therein.
  In principle, those procedures—weighted majorities and special votes with some people identified as nationalist and others as Unionist—are uncomfortable, some would say objectionable, because they enshrine sectarianism in the operations of the Assembly. I hope that, in the not-too-distant future, sufficient confidence will be generated in the Assembly to enable us to move away from those procedures. In any event, there may be a growth in parties that decline to be classified as either nationalist or Unionist. For those reasons, it would have

  829
  been better if those procedures had been presented in a form that could be amended easily rather than being set in stone. We are uncomfortable with their being set in stone indefinitely.
  I shall touch briefly on some important matters in the Bill. The question of the devolution of Executive functions is not handled properly in this draft. In the talks, we proposed a committee system similar to that originally envisaged for Wales. In order to reach agreement with the SDLP, we moved towards a form of Executive. However, that cannot be a Cabinet, because of the absence of collective responsibility, which is a consequence of the d'Hondt formula. Committees have not disappeared; nor have they become merely consultative. The agreement is clear: in addition to a consultative and scrutiny function, the committees will have a role in policy, departmental budgets, the initiation and consideration of primary legislation and the approval of secondary legislation.
  Ministers have responsibility for the day-to-day conduct of administration within their areas of responsibility as defined by the Bill and the programme approved by the Assembly as a whole. However, they are clearly not Ministers in the sense understood in this place and in Whitehall. An earlier draft of the Bill about which we were consulted—I appreciate that fact—made the mistake of assuming that Assembly Ministers would be similar to Ministers in Westminster. It vested Executive functions directly in Ministers, as if the delicate balance in the agreement did not exist. That was clearly wrong, and we expressed that view a week ago on 10 July during consultation with the Northern Ireland Office and the SDLP. It was agreed that the draft should be changed.
  The current draft in clause 18(3) vests all Executive powers in the First and Deputy First Ministers as if it were a joint presidency. It gives powers to departments and Ministers only to the extent that they approve. That overturns completely the concept of proportionality under d'Hondt, and it seems to run counter to the scheme in the agreement. Looking at the notes on clauses, I was amused to see the claim that the Government were relying on an equivalent clause in the Scotland Bill. That was true of the draft that we considered on 10 July, but it is not true of this clause, which is different.
  The solution is simple and can be identified by examining the clauses in the Government of Wales Bill. I suggest that Executive power should be vested in the Assembly as a whole to be devolved by it in accordance with its Standing Orders. That avoids the draftsmen's obvious difficulty and gives flexibility to the Assembly. The scheme envisaged in the agreement may be difficult to work and we will not want to return to this place in order to make minor adjustments. This solution maintains the safeguard for all parties because the approval of Standing Orders is a key decision requiring cross-community agreement.
  Clause 18(3) also runs somewhat counter to the agreement in giving power to the First and Deputy First Ministers to determine how functions will be exercised by Departments. That is contrary to the agreement. Incidentally, my role and that of my deputy, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), has been inflated greatly in the drafting of the Bill. The agreement gives comparatively limited functions to the First and Deputy First Ministers and I think that, when faced with difficulties, the draftsmen decided to dump them on us. I am not sure that I appreciate that.
  830
  The provisions regarding the north-south ministerial council and the British-Irish Council also appear to be inadequate. The detailed safeguards in the agreement have been omitted entirely. The rather bland references to agreements in clause 66 fail to take into account the fact that those agreements will be treaties in some cases, and the power to make treaties is an accepted matter. Clause 68 is particularly bizarre. It refers to bodies being established and the Secretary of State's opinion with regard to them. Reference is made to paragraph 9(ii) of the multi-party agreement, which points to what happens during the shadow period when, by definition, the Assembly is incapable of establishing any body.
  We must redraft those clauses and remember that, anything that the north-south ministerial council can do, the British-Irish Council can do as well. There may be agreements between Belfast, Cardiff or Edinburgh of which Dublin can also be a part. There is no provision for that in the Bill; nor is there any appropriate provision in the Scottish and Welsh legislation. I hope that the Government will comment on that.
  I said at the outset that the Bill provided an end to direct rule. That is what it should do, but clause 72 tries to preserve one of the most offensive aspects of direct rule: the power to enact primary legislation for Northern Ireland by Order in Council. Clearly, that practice should end.
  I should also like the Government to reconsider including the Equality Commission in the Bill. That arises not from the agreement—which makes only passing reference to it—but from the quite independent review of fair employment legislation. There was some public consultation on the matter, but it was truncated arbitrarily to enable the Administration to grab what undoubtedly appears to be a convenient legislative vehicle into which the provisions may be stuffed.
  I notice that the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and other equivalent bodies are uncomfortable with this. Their opposition may reflect a desire to maintain their own particular empires. We support in principle the concept of a one-stop shop, but we think that we do not have an appropriate legislative vehicle before us. Moreover, the Bill's provisions are drafted as if the Assembly did not exist. Provisions refer in large part to transferred matters. These need to be rethought. The sensible approach is to consider these matters again. The failure to recognise the incipient arrival of the Assembly seems to me, if I may say so, to be the last kick of the ancien regime. I hope that the Bourbons of the Northern Ireland Office are now prepared to learn.
  I have to criticise the financial provisions in the Bill. It seems absurd that clause 45 was put into it. The clause tries to preserve the financial scheme of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and does so in circumstances that are wholly inappropriate. The financial scheme of the 1920 Act was a failure within years of that measure's enactment and it was never applied in practice. Why has the clause been inserted in the Bill?
  I appreciate the Government's desire to preserve the substance of the provisions of the 1920 Act while repealing the Act, but in this instance that approach is misconceived. We should have provisions for financial matters that are similar to those for Scotland and Wales. Introducing different financial provisions for Northern Ireland might lead some people to conclude that financial

  831
  arrangements for Northern Ireland should be different from those for Scotland and Wales. We would be strongly opposed to that. We want the Barnett formula to continue.
  Modifying somewhat the terms that I used in the final session of the multi-party talks, we see the agreement as addressing the wounds that have damaged our society, ensuring that our diverse traditions attract respect and, above all, laying the foundations for a healthy, vibrant democracy to replace the stagnation, frustration and powerlessness of the past three years. Of course, we welcome it.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: I very much welcome the Bill and the Belfast agreement. I am pleased that, before we break for the summer recess, this necessary legislation will be passed. I am sure that I was not alone in having doubts about whether the talks would succeed. Inevitably with Northern Ireland, there is always some pessimism, which I am sad to say is sometimes well justified. However, I am pleased, as I am sure is the large majority in the House, that agreement was finally reached.
  I pay tribute to all those involved—including, of course, the two main parties in Northern Ireland, one representing the main stream of Unionism and the other Irish nationalism. I pay tribute as well to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her team of Ministers.
  There was, of course, also the determination of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that there had to be a successful outcome, and by a certain date. As someone who is not always uncritical of the Government, when I praise my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his efforts and determination, that should not be seen as a sort of ritual slap on the back from a Labour Back Bencher. I cannot imagine that there are many people who are in favour of the agreement who would not equally pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend undertook.
  As for the previous Government, I believe that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) tried his very best to reach agreement. I also believe that he was well motivated. He had the full support of the Labour party over Northern Ireland when it was in opposition.
  I understand all the reasons why, it was not possible at the time to arrive at the successful outcome on decommissioning, that the right hon. Gentleman wanted. That was unfortunate. However, I am sure, although the right hon. Gentleman is not present in the Chamber today—there is no reason why he should be—the previous Prime Minister fully supports everything said by the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). Whatever may happen with subsequent amendments, there was little, if anything, in the hon. Gentleman's speech with which I could disagree. I hope that such unanimity over the Good Friday agreement will continue.
  Sometimes, rather like the pessimism that I had over whether there would be an agreement, I am pessimistic about whether Conservative Back Benchers may force the right hon. Member for Bracknell to a different position. I hope not. As I have said, I hope that the unanimity which we have heard today from the two Front Benches will continue. I do not work on the basis that, when they both agree, that necessarily proves that we are embarking
  832
  on the wrong course. That is a cynical view. The two Front Benches agreed on the Falklands and Iraq, and few have has suggested that on either issue the large majority in this place was wrong. I certainly do not believe that the Front Benches are wrong in supporting the agreement.
  The important issue of decommissioning is, of course, part of the agreement, and it is in the Bill. It will feature in the work of the independent commission. I want decommissioning to take place. There is a responsibility on all paramilitary organisations that support the agreement to undertake the necessary decommissioning. Decommissioning is certainly important, but I have always taken the view that paramilitary organisations that support the agreement should not use arms. I have always seen that as the more important point arising from the political situation.
  From the first, I was strenuously opposed to the IRA campaign. Like my Labour colleagues, I condemned on every occasion the crimes and atrocities of the IRA, as well as those of the loyalist gangs on the other side, whatever names they happened to take at any given time.
  My constituency is very near Birmingham. We have not forgotten—we are not likely to forget—the terrible crime committed in November 1974, when so many people, half of them under the age of 25, were put to death. As we do not forget what happened in Birmingham and other places on the mainland, such as Warrington, nor can we forget—we have no reason to do so—the crimes committed in Northern Ireland itself, including Enniskillen and other places. Those were crimes against humanity, and they were to be condemned. I am pleased, like my colleagues, that at every opportunity I made my views perfectly clear, in the House and outside.
  Even if we leave aside the crimes and atrocities that were committed—I never took the view that they should be—I never accepted politically that it was possible to bring about a united Ireland through terror. It seemed to me from the beginning that the very idea that it was possible to force through by terror tactics a united Ireland against the clear wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland was not on.
  In September 1983, 15 years ago, when I was a member of a parliamentary Labour party delegation of the Northern Ireland group, I and other members went to Northern Ireland. We saw whichever political party was willing to see us. When I met the Sinn Fein leadership, like my colleagues, I said that terrorism would not succeed. I said that no British Government would agree to giving in to terror, and that no British Government, in any circumstances, would say, "Regardless of the wishes of the people in Northern Ireland, we are going to abdicate our responsibility."
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, as a result of the Bill, the political representatives who are inextricably linked with the terrorist groups that committed those crimes will be rewarded with places in government under an arrangement which they consider to be transitional on the way to their ultimate objective of a united Ireland?
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. and learned Gentleman, deliberately or otherwise, allows himself to be swayed by IRA propaganda. For a quarter of a century and more,

  833
  the Provisional IRA and, linked to it, Sinn Fein, argued that such terror would achieve a unitary state in Ireland. That has not happened; indeed, groups have broken away from the IRA—the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to them—because they believe that the IRA and Sinn Fein have betrayed the cause, as they would put it. It would be advisable not to accept the propaganda of the IRA or Sinn Fein, which would have us believe that they have achieved a great victory. That is not the case, and the hon. and learned Member knows it.
  The Irish Republic's attitude was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bracknell when he spoke about the changes to articles 2 and 3 of the constitution. I welcome those changes, which arise from the Belfast agreement. The Irish Republic, as he will agree, has always been opposed to the IRA campaign of terror and violence, has never questioned in practice the constitutional links between Northern Ireland and this country, and has recognised that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.
  The constitution of the Irish Republic has been so changed, and rightly so, and that has been approved in a referendum, as it had to be. That has clearly set out the fact that there can be no change in Northern Ireland's status without the consent of the majority of the people, expressed in the usual constitutional and democratic way. To some extent, that answers the hon. and learned Member for North Down.
  Good working relationships between Britain and Ireland are absolutely essential. Time and again, difficulties between the two countries have meant difficulties in Northern Ireland. As the agreement shows in respect of strands 1 and 2, good working relationships are absolutely necessary. To put it mildly, there have been centuries of disquiet and difficulties between Ireland and Britain, but, to a large extent, good working relationships have been established over the past 10 or 15 years. That is highly desirable, and certainly in the interests of Northern Ireland.
  I have been involved from the Back Benches in the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body, which was set up eight years ago. It brought together parliamentarians from both countries, and we have established good working relationships. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), my predecessor as chair, who was one of the pioneers in setting up the group. He deserves great praise, and I was pleased to work with him as vice-chair over a number of years.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Where are the members of the body?
  Mr. McNamara: There are seven present, and four substitutes.
  Mr. Winnick: I do not intend to find out how many members of the body are present. I know that members of it, if my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is listening, are active in Committee meetings, and do a very useful job.
  I want to issue a warning. It was inevitable that elements on the republican side who are opposed to the agreement would be determined to continue to wage a campaign of terror. What the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said about those groups did not surprise me in the least. Those small republican elements are not
  834
  concerned about democratic elections and could not care less about the referendum result in Northern Ireland or in the Republic.
  Such groups believe that they have a dedicated mission to achieve a united Ireland regardless of any mandate from the electorate and they will continue to do what they can to inflict terror—I include the mainland in that—to achieve maximum publicity. The main thing is to ensure that these small republican groups that have broken away from the IRA are as isolated as possible. We should praise the work of the British and Irish security authorities, which made sure that what was likely to have been a devastating attack in London last week did not take place.
  Opposition Members who oppose the agreement will, I am sure, accept the will and authority of Parliament, however great their opposition, but there are nevertheless elements on the Unionist side who believe that they can destroy the Belfast agreement by violence of one kind or another. Although I do not blame the Orange Order as such for what happened at Drumcree over the burning to death of three young children—I agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about that—it must take some responsibility for what occurred.
  The Orange Order knew that the Parades Commission had been set up by Parliament, but totally ignored its recommendation and took no notice of the Chief Constable. Unlike the republican extremists, members of the Orange Order always say that they accept the rule of law and parliamentary democracy, but when an issue goes against them, as at Drumcree, they are not willing to accept the rule of law. What happened there showed that thugs who have no concern for human life were willing to use the protest to take the lives of three innocent children who would not have known the distinction between the Orange Order and the red order.
  The protest at Drumcree has come to little; I am pleased about that, but how unfortunate it is that it took the loss of the lives of three young children to bring that about. Surely the lesson for the Orange Order—as for all organisations in Northern Ireland, whether on the Unionist or the nationalist side—is to accept the rule of law and to accept that recommendations should be accepted. I much welcome the agreement and believe that it is a significant way forward for Northern Ireland. I wish it the very best.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: This is a magnificent day for Northern Irish affairs in this Parliament, not only because it marks my formal return to the Floor of the House of Commons following my serious accident about 12 weeks ago, but because it is an opportunity to bring together everything that many of us have strived to achieve. I pay tribute to those who have been Members of Parliament for much longer than I who have worked through the dark times, as well as through these more positive times, to try to achieve a renaissance in Northern Irish politics, which I did not expect this side of the millennium.
  This is also an opportunity for us to note that we have too often discussed Northern Ireland in the context of the previous atrocity or outrage or the latest appalling act. Today, we have begun to consider a practical way to end all that, and move Northern Ireland into a fresh century. Of course the deaths of Mark, Richard and Jason were a

  835
  step back; they showed that many people in Northern Ireland are still confused by the way forward, and that a few people are still willing to resort to violence.
  Andrew Kearney's death is further evidence that we still have a long way to go. In some ways, however, the outcome of Drumcree showed that those tensions can be worked through. Despite the difficulties that we witnessed on television and in the fraught efforts of those who sought to achieve a reconciliation in Drumcree, we have moved to the next step in the tortuous and slow process towards a lasting peace.
  I pay tribute to the work done by the Secretary of State and her team of Ministers. Watching events from my hospital bed, I was inclined to believe that, given the opportunity of trading places with them, I would choose the continuing hospitality of the national health service.
  I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who have been elected to important positions. They have the opportunity—or perhaps the burden—to carry forward some of the most controversial aspects of the important precedent that will mark the effectiveness, or perhaps the ineffectiveness, of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Had I had the opportunity, I would have voted for their election myself.
  As this is the Bill's Third Reading—[HON. MEMBERS: "Second Reading."] I stand corrected. I landed on my head in the course of my accident, so I hope that hon. Members will be patient if I make the occasional small error. As this is the Bill's Second Reading, I shall not go into great detail about the amendments that the Liberal Democrats propose, but I am greatly heartened that Ministers intend to listen seriously to any proposals that would enhance the Bill.
  We all know why direct rule has been necessary, but we should not let that blinker us to the idiocies to which that has sometime led. I have never pinpointed a farmyard track in the Falkland islands and suggested how it could be re-routed; perhaps the penguins would have a better idea than I in that area. In the same context, I do not see why I should be entitled to legislate or participate in debates in this Chamber on farmyard tracks in a part of Northern Ireland with which I am not familiar, yet that has been the case over the past two decades.
  The Bill represents a golden opportunity to end that, by establishing an Assembly to make those decisions in the name of Northern Ireland, not on our behalf but on behalf of local people. The Assembly will work democratically and from an informed standpoint. After all, local people have to live with those decisions, and they are best able to judge whether the decisions have been a success. It has already been said that the Bill contains various insurance policies. Perhaps we should be a little bolder and more willing to delegate responsibilities to an Assembly that ultimately we must trust to carry devolution forward.
  Still, it can also be said that the devolution opportunity within the Bill is flexible. The reserved powers provide the House with the chance to delegate more responsibilities to the Assembly as time goes on. I would expect us to default to the assumption that we will hand over more responsibilities as quickly as we can. Incumbent on an Assembly receiving those extra responsibilities is the duty to handle them sensibly.
  836
  Although the Bill deals predominantly with strand 1 of the Good Friday agreement, we should not neglect the other parts of the agreement or the process that led us to where we are today. I was glad to hear the positive tones of the Secretary of State's response to a question about strand 2 put by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) last week at Northern Ireland Questions. Incidentally, I am grateful for my hon. Friend's work when he stood in for me during my convalescence. Strand 2 is proceeding apace, and the north-south ministerial council will be in place by 31 October—an appropriate date because I always feared that the bogeyman of Halloween would get us if we did not achieve that deadline.
  The British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body has been very effective. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on finally conceding his envy at not yet being on that body. I assure him that many of us will lobby hard to ensure that he joins us one day.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I would turn up.
  Mr. Öpik: It is encouraging that most members of the body have turned up. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have worked hard, and we look forward to the body being converted into a partner as matters progress.
  Dr. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body will probably be laid to rest next year because of the strand 3 agreement, which creates a British-Irish Council made up of representatives of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly, this Parliament and the Dail?
  Mr. Öpik: It is interesting, albeit frightening as a Member, to think that such a successful body could be wound up, but the hon. Gentleman is right—it is a reasonable possibility. It would be a great loss if its work and the connections that it has built up over the years were to be lost. Perhaps it should be regarded as one of the bodies from which a future body could evolve.
  Strand 3, which deals with intergovernmental matters, does not come within the ambit of the Bill. Despite the Bill's emphasis on strand 1, it is the "settlement" Bill that its name implies, because it encompasses all the major issues. The Bill can be dealt with in this House in relation to the Good Friday agreement.
  The title "settlement" Bill is particularly appropriate, because we have often been close to a settlement in the past. Progress in Northern Ireland is not new; there was political progress in 1974, 1982 and 1991. The history of progress in Northern Ireland was gathering dust, because each time it was overcome by inertia or negated by regress. Progress in Northern Ireland is as common as Christmas, but settlements are as elusive as Santa Claus. Since my childhood, as I have watched politicians on television, I have been disappointed to see hope, promise and expectation dashed at the last moment. Now, on this occasion, we seem to have overcome many of the hurdles, and moved far further than ever before in my lifetime.
  That is the challenge this time. We have had the talks about talks, the elections to talks, the talks themselves, the negotiations, the deal, and the agreement. We then

  837
  had the success story: the referendum followed by the elections. However, we have yet to settle the final Bill, which must turn the agreement into a settlement. If we do our job well over the next fortnight, the agreement could be transformed into a lasting triumph. If we do not, the good intentions behind the Good Friday agreement may remain just good intentions.
  The Liberal Democrats' role during consideration of the Bill is to help to transform the agreement into a settlement, which means ensuring that the spirit and letter of the agreement are translated accurately into legislation. The Bill could be improved in a number of areas, and we shall table a few amendments so that it mirrors the agreement more effectively and clarifies some vagaries that could cause problems if they are not clearly defined now. Although we agree with the majority of the 82 clauses, we shall propose specific amendments in Committee—for example, to clauses 22, 38 and 66. Those amendments will strengthen the settlement, so that everything that has been achieved to date will not be brought down by uncertainty.
  We hope that our consistent, constructive contribution will aid the spirit of co-operation that is so often seen in Parliament on Northern Ireland issues. Furthermore, we hope that the Government will accept our proposals in good faith. Our aim throughout will be to help convert the agreement into a rational and reasonable law. I hope that that approach will be taken by all hon. Members, regardless of their party. I appeal to the democratic instinct of those who opposed the Good Friday agreement. It is clear from recent results that the balance of people in Northern Ireland, from all traditions, has been willing to give the new order a chance. It behoves us to honour their aspirations for a lasting settlement.
  I have always enjoyed speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. Indeed, it has sometimes struck me that Ministers would be well advised to consider closely the perspectives with which many on the Government Benches disagree, as they unquestionably provide an insight to the attitudes of many people in Northern Ireland. I have great respect for people with whom I have, on occasions, disagreed intensely on Northern Irish affairs, but I do not question for a moment that they represent a significant view that must be taken into account. Their contributions are valid and necessary if a lasting peace is to be achieved.
  I trust that even the sceptics among us will want to maximise the Bill's effectiveness. I hope that Conservative Members will participate positively. Some hon. Members may have assiduously opposed the agreement, but my early impression is that they, too, will add value to the debate.
  If, like the majority of people in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the mainland of the United Kingdom, we support the agreement, we must understand that it cannot be renegotiated: a deal is a deal. As politicians, we must be particularly conscious of the fact that our word should be our bond. We would not enter into a business contract and expect to renegotiate it unilaterally afterwards, and so it must be with the Good Friday agreement. We would be showing bad faith to all those who voted for it in May if we tried to add conditions in the Bill that were not in the agreement. That is what the enemies of the Bill—those who resort to the use of violence, bombs, guns and coercion—seek to do.
  838
  People with strong feelings can still be manipulated by those behind the scenes who do not accept the democratic will. Our challenge is to show that they have no currency in influencing the Northern Ireland agenda. I do not believe that the new decision makers in Northern Ireland or the more established legislators in the Chamber will succumb to those who use violence and non-democratic means to try to destroy or harm the achievements that have so far been made.
  There are still tensions: Northern Ireland politics is hot, but it is not burning. The challenge is to turn those tensions into positive energy that can drive Northern Ireland's economy and culture, and repair the damage caused by the hate and the dissonance.
  I welcome the urgency with which the Government have introduced the legislation. Parliamentary time is a precious commodity: it converts directly into the political capital on which we all depend for our positions in the House. The urgency with which the Bill has been treated suggests that the good will of the Good Friday agreement is alive and well.
  I hope that, in line with that spirit of good will, hon. Members will not clutter this debate or any other stage of the Bill with explanations unrelated to the agreement. I also hope that the Government, in their eagerness to thrust the Bill on to the statute book, do not overlook any important issues raised in the debates. I am glad that the Government will have the summer to reflect on the debate before the Bill is considered in the other place. Urgency is welcome, but cutting corners would be unforgivable.
  The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Bill, and look forward to working with Ministers. Also, we welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to taking a sympathetic and flexible approach to amendments that will improve the Bill.
  Finally, I admit that I am surprised we have got this far. At times I have felt positive, and at others I have felt a sense of despair. However, we have made it, and it behoves us all to do what we can to achieve a settlement of which we and Northern Ireland can be proud. We must create something that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland can turn into a living settlement and, above all, that turns the Good Friday agreement into a settlement that in Northern Ireland makes every day a good day in Northern Ireland.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and other hon. Members for their kind words. I welcome the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire back: it is a pleasure to see him again in one piece, and I am sure that all hon. Members would echo those sentiments.
  This is a long, complex, difficult and mould-breaking Bill. It will take us into a new assembly, a new century, a new millennium and, I believe, into a new era of trust and agreement in the north of Ireland. Given its complexity, I thank the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), for holding consultations, which were helpful to us. I have no doubt that they were helpful to other parties, and that the Minister will see us again for further consultations, because it appears that they will be needed.

  839
  The Secretary of State said that the Government will table amendments. We await those amendments either in this place or in the other place. As the Bill proceeds, clarification will be required.
  I have one abiding commitment: the legislation must be based on the letter and the spirit of the agreement that we reached on Good Friday. The Bill must include provision for all the assembly business, for the north-south institutions, the Council of the Isles and for the constitutional commitments and guarantees given. This legislation is not negotiable. Everyone who signed the agreement has a duty not just towards the agreement, but towards the people of Northern Ireland who gave their mandate. It is a duty towards the other parties not present who signed the agreement. I should point out, lest we forget, that another sovereign Government signed the agreement. It is a duty on all of us who signed the agreement and who want to implement it to achieve lasting peace, stability and a new quality of life for everyone. We are the custodians of the agreement. We stand by that agreement in all its manifestations, in its entirety and its integrity.
  Implementing the agreement will not be easy, as opinions are divided. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and I have had and will have difficult roles to play. It is not a recipe for disaster, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) suggested. I do not see it as a joint presidency, as was implied in another speech. I see it as something much more important. It is an honest attempt by the two communities in the north of Ireland—nationalist and Unionist, Catholic, Protestant, and dissenters—to grapple with the problem that can be dealt with only on the basis of trust and agreement and by working together.
  We stand by the agreement and we will stand with the people who have decided, in a referendum and an election, that this is what they want us to do. We shall implement their wishes as expressed in the referendum and in the election with fear of nobody and favour towards no one. I believe that we must proceed on that basis.
  Our task will not be easy. We have functions under the agreement and the Bill in relation to the north-south ministerial council, the shape and operation of the new Assembly, a new civic forum, a new Council of the Isles, the designation of departments and the steerage of the creation of a new Executive. That would be almost enough work for a parliamentary Session; indeed, it might be enough for a longer Session. Unfortunately, we must ensure that the business is completed and the necessary proposals are made between now and 14 September, and we shall need the help of the entire community to achieve that. We shall need the help of all our colleagues in the House, as well as the assistance of the civic community in the north of Ireland. I shall return to that later.
  We have been through a pretty difficult time—a crucible. I refer to Drumcree and Ballymoney. Like the people of the north of Ireland collectively, we had to go through a pain barrier—and it was certainly painful; but three lessons emerged from it, and we must learn those lessons. First, the issue of marches and parades, counter-marches and counter-demonstrations must be dealt with now, by every sector of our community. It cannot be left until we approach the period next year
  840
  when marches will take place. The heart of Northern Ireland cannot be made to bleed as it is now, every year, without a solution being reached.
  The second lesson is that there are political agendas on both sides. There are street marches, and street protests. That is a fact of life: we must live according to it, and we must be aware of it in all our deliberations.
  The third lesson is that we all pay the cost. We are talking about three white coffins coming out of a hearse, and about something in the region of £100 million going down the drain in the last few weeks. It may have been only £80 million or £90 million, or it may indeed have been £100 million. In any event, let each of us think of that in terms of our constituencies. How many schools, how many carers' wages, how many hospitals could have been financed by £100 million? We all pay the cost, so we must all do what we can to prevent such things.
  I want to discuss three aspects of the Bill, with which my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) will deal in more detail. First, our party and the nationalist community—in the negotiations, and now—have wanted a legal base for the north-south ministerial council. That will come as no surprise: we all spent two years trying to negotiate it, successfully in the end. Paragraph 1 of strand 2 states, very explicitly:
  "Under a new British-Irish Agreement dealing with the totality of relationships and related legislation in Westminster and the Oireachtas a North-South Ministerial Council to be established".
  I want that to be carried through in the Bill.
  In an early draft, there was a paragraph that continued the provisions of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, but it is no longer there. Clause 66 of the Bill requires the First Minister and his deputy to ensure participation in the council, and clause 68 allows the Secretary of State to set up implementation bodies during the period leading up to the transfer of powers; but, following amendments and further explanations, clause 26 of the original draft is no longer there. There may well be an argument that the establishment of the north-south ministerial council derives from an international agreement and not from legislation, but there is surely a requirement for an authoritative description of the council.
  Concern has already been expressed about the human rights section of the Bill, and I share some of that concern. Substantial representations have been made. I understand from what the Secretary of State said that amendments will be tabled, and the Government will expand their thinking. I look forward to that happening before we finally decide on our position; but we will table amendments, and will try to ensure that both the spirit and the letter of the agreement underlie that part of the Bill.
  Let me now deal with my final area of concern. In fact, "concern" is the wrong word; I consider it important. I believe that we must create a new civic forum. I suppose that many people see that as involving the "great and the good", but that assumption greatly underestimates the potential of the forum. I think that the forum—along with those who, like me, are elected to the assembly—has an opportunity to introduce a new dimension to life in the north of Ireland. I refer to the dimension of communities, and representatives of the various sectors. They will not just observe the political process; they will become, as representatives of a civic forum, a partner in that process, having responsibilities, having influence and being able to grapple with and solve the problems that we face.

  841
  I think—I know—that we have an opportunity to do something that is new and is needed: something that can be imaginative, but must deal with enormous problems. I believe that we will achieve that; I also believe that we will achieve it in a spirit, and a way, that will maximise public opinion in the north of Ireland.
  The shadow Secretary of State gave advice to both Unionists and nationalists. I would never presume to speak on behalf of any of my Unionist colleagues in the House in regard to the acceptance of advice, but I can speak about what the right hon. Gentleman said about the nationalist community. Slowly, over many years, I have come to believe that each generation has a right and a duty to write its own history—that we cannot bind future generations, any more than we should be bound by the past that has been handed down to us. In that spirit, I believe that the suggestion made by the Secretary of State is right. We will not be bound, in terms of our actions, our imagination or our will to deal with that with which we have to deal.
  7.8 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Bill fails utterly to live up to the Prime Minister's pledges and promises. At the time of the referendum in Northern Ireland—which has been much talked about this afternoon—we were led to believe that a range of issues would be dealt with properly before terrorist front organisations could be allowed to reap the benefits of the agreement. It has been admitted in the House that those pledges had a great influence on voters. As things stand now, IRA-Sinn Fein will be able to claim all the advantages without having to give up violence, without having to hand over a single bullet or an ounce of Semtex, and without even having to begin the dismantling of its terrorist machine.
  The killing in north Belfast yesterday by republicans who are linked to the IRA demonstrates the necessity for this issue to be properly addressed and resolved. Gerry Adams has told us and the city of Belfast that the IRA has not gone away. The threat from other sources has not diminished. I am speaking about loyalist paramilitaries, who are also fronted in the Assembly by political leaders and who pose a real and continuing risk to the entire community. It is interesting to note that it is from their ranks that the police are interrogating people about the tragedy of the murders in Ballymoney. However, that is not given to the public. In other statements, the police are quick to say who they are interrogating and from which side of the community they come, but on this issue there is a wall of silence.
  The police issued a statement that three Roman Catholic children had been murdered and they apologised for that statement because the facts were not so. In the home that night there were two Protestants, a man and a woman, and Mrs. Quinn. Three children were being brought up as Protestants, attending the Protestant school and Protestant churches. We know what happened and we know about the insinuations. I hope that no step will be spared and no stone will be unturned until the full truth of what happened in Ballymoney comes out. At the moment, some of those who are identified with the community that endorsed the agreement, who said they were for it and who were represented in the political life that brought about the agreement are being interrogated by the police.
  842
  In some respects, the Bill goes further than the agreement. It gives greater powers to Ministers on north-south issues than the agreement envisaged and set down in plain print. One of Irish republicanism's key objectives has been the destruction of the Union that binds Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom. The Bill states that the Government of Ireland Act 1920 must go: it will be abolished by the Bill. The 1920 Act established the supreme authority of the United Kingdom Parliament over Northern Ireland. Some say that the removal of that Act is meaningless, but that ignores the massive effort by the pan-nationalist front to have that Act on the table. In particular, the Dublin Government campaigned to get rid of that legislation.
  The Northern Ireland spokesman for the Conservative and Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), made some amazing statements at the Dispatch Box. They do not stand up to historical scrutiny, let alone the facts of the matter. We are told that everything in the agreement is balanced. I do not see much balance in the removal of the 1920 Act. I draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that other Acts, including the Union with Ireland Act 1800, are to be superseded.
  We have been told that Dublin has amended articles 2 and 3 of the Republic of Ireland's constitution. How has it done that? Dublin has amended them by widening its claim, not on territory but on the people who live in that territory. Further, the changes that the south of Ireland says that it will make will be made only if the institutions with executive powers and functions for the whole of Ireland are set up. Until that happens, Dublin has the right not to proceed on the basis of the result of its referendum.
  The 1920 Act will be abolished by this House at once, but the Irish legislation allows Dublin to revert to the original constitutional provisions for up to one year later if all-Ireland executive powers are not being implemented. Changes to the Irish Republic's constitution are provisional and conditional, while changes to Ulster's position within the Union are not so. In the referendum campaign, Northern Ireland people were bombarded by a series of promises, pledges and assurances by the Prime Minister and others who were increasingly desperate to persuade people to vote yes. The Bill and the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill show how little regard the Government have paid to the real concerns of the people of Northern Ireland.
  People were led to believe that IRA-Sinn Fein would not get into government without giving up violence for good and handing in at least some of their weaponry. The Bill shows that the most that will happen is that if the Secretary of State thinks that the Assembly should debate the removal of individual Ministers or parties from the Executive, she can refer the matter to the Presiding Officer. The crucial factor is that only a vote by Members of the Assembly under the consensus provisions can remove any person or party from office. Do we expect IRA-Sinn Fein to vote themselves out of office?
  According to some hon. Members, the election victory was just as great as the one in the referendum. It should be noted that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has 28 votes in the Assembly. Those Unionists who oppose this matter also have 28 votes, and the right hon. Gentleman owes his position to the representatives of two paramilitary organisations. I have already spoken about those people. The House should not

  843
  think that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister had overwhelming votes because, in the context of the consensus on the Unionist side, the majority was three.
  The Bill is unique in its description of the First Minister and the second Minister. They are not first and second: they are co-Ministers. The Bill states:
  "A reference to—

  (a) the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland; or

  (b) the chief executive member,

  shall be construed as a reference to the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly."
  There are two Prime Ministers—one from the Unionist side and one from the nationalist side. It is helpful that the schedule gives us the definitions of the delegated Ministers and their powers.
  The Bill fails to provide adequately for a link between a party and the terrorist organisation that it fronts. Under clause 23, the only link is to a Minister of the party concerned. That gives plenty of loopholes for Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness to remain in office no matter what atrocities the Irish Republican Army carries out.
  The interesting matter raised by Mr. Mallon—[HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh."] Pardon me. I should say the second Minister designate of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Donaldson: Of the north of Ireland.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I call it Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke about clause 26, about which I wrote to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does not usually answer my letters speedily—in fact, he did not bother to answer my last three letters—but he answered that one very quickly. He insisted that the clause did not mean what I thought it meant. I was relieved that it was deleted when the Bill was redrafted, but then I found clause 66, in which the measure is written in another way. Will the Minister explain the difference between the original clause 26 and clause 66? I am glad that the second Minister of Northern Ireland thinks that the measure means what I thought it meant—we seem to be on the same wavelength, and I look forward to seeing the amendment that he says he will table.
  The Bill forces Ministers not only to consult other members of a north-south body, but to make arrangements with them on transferred matters. That goes beyond the agreement. The Bill seeks to take apart the structures of the Union; it will put Northern Ireland under increasing influence from the south and will exert increasing pressures to destroy the Union.
  The people of Northern Ireland know that. The Unionist people of Northern Ireland know it, as has been demonstrated by the division in the official Unionist party. Hon. Members should not think that they can ignore a substantial section of the community. Just as they cannot ignore the nationalists, they cannot ignore those who are at least 50 per cent. of the Unionist population. Hon. Members must realise that those people, too, have views that must be listened to and respected.
  844
  The lady who is the Social Democratic and Labour party Assembly representative for Portadown—
  Mr. John D. Taylor: The Donegal lady.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know where she comes from, but I know that she said that those who voted no were outside the pale. "We are the real majority," she said, "and they are really nobodies." The nobodies may have greater influence than hon. Members recognise. I say that those nobodies need to be listened to carefully.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join in the applause that so many hon. Members have given to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State and to all those who took part in the negotiations. I shall not elaborate on that too much, not only to spare their blushes, but because of the pressure of time.
  My first point concerns human rights, especially the right to choose an attorney. We have heard bad news from Derry today—Lord Saville has rejected the requests of the families at the tribunal for better legal representation. I believe that that puts the inquiry on to the wrong foot; it will put an enormous amount of work on the lawyers working for the families of the deceased and their dependants.
  Dr. Godman: About an hour ago, I was told about the inadequacy of the legal representation offered by Lord Saville. I join my hon. Friend in saying that that is a matter of profound regret.
  Mr. McNamara: Yes. I hope that Lord Saville will reconsider his decision.
  It is important that the proposed Human Rights Commission should be effective, should be seen to be effective and should be properly respected by the Government of the day. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights was a brilliant body. It produced many fine reports that were strong on analysis and in their conclusions and recommendations, many of which—especially on human rights—were ignored by previous Governments. Sadly, even this Government ignored some of the recommendations on fair employment, which I believe should enjoy a proper status in the new arrangements.
  The Human Rights Commission must have adequate powers—indeed, that must apply not only in Northern Ireland, but for the rest of Europe as a whole. At the Heads of Government meeting in Strasbourg, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister signed a document appointing a human rights commissioner for Europe. That was an important step, especially as the commissioner may well recommend that the emerging democracies in central and eastern Europe use a human rights model similar to the one that we are establishing in Northern Ireland. It is important that we get that model right; we do not want to give the emerging democracies the opportunity to say, "They haven't got this in Northern Ireland. If the Brits don't need it, why do we?"
  Three improvements must be made to the measures on the commission. First, the Bill should specify that the commission has the right to investigate human rights abuses where appropriate by public inquiry. Secondly,

  845
  the commission should have the right to initiate litigation in its own name; clause 57 denies the commission that right, although the Good Friday agreement said that the commission's role would include,
  "in appropriate cases, bringing court proceedings or providing assistance to individuals doing so".
  That was not an either/or choice; the two were seen as complementary. I believe that the commission should be given back the right to bring court proceedings.
  Thirdly, the commission is restricted to assisting only those individuals who bring cases under the Human Rights Act. That will—wrongly, in my view—prevent the commission from assisting individuals who want to bring cases with equally significant human rights implications under other legislation, such as cases involving assault in custody.
  I know that some hon. Members will argue that the commission should not be able to litigate in its own name as amicus curiae because third-party cases will not apply under the Human Rights Act, but the Home Secretary has indicated that if a human rights commission were to be established for the United Kingdom in parallel to that Act, he would reconsider that restriction. It is of the utmost importance that the Human Rights Commission has that right in Northern Ireland.
  I shall deal now with the Equality Commission. I join the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) in wondering why some provisions have been included in the Bill, as there is no need for them. In fact, I wonder whether, as has been suggested, the old regime was throwing in something that would not be properly considered and which would in many ways preserve the status quo.
  It is the Equality Commission which has caused the biggest hue and cry in Northern Ireland. Of the 123 submissions made in respect of the White Paper, only 29 supported the single Equality Commission. It is significant that one of them was from the Confederation of British Industry—I do not want to say anything about new Labour, as that would be very wrong of me. It is important to note that all the important institutions—SACHR, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Fair Employment Commission, the Disability Council, the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the agencies representing ethnic minorities—are against the idea because they believe that it has not been properly thought through.
  It is no great matter of principle whether we have one Equality Commission or whether all the commissions remain. It is evident that the Equality Commission has not been properly thought out in terms of its relationship with other agencies, its staff or the money involved, but we shall not have the time to examine it properly. We have six hours next Monday to deal with all the equality issues.
  In the past, these matters have taken days to examine in Committee. In addition, there is no need for this provision to be in the Bill. I also wonder whether it has been included as an excuse to avoid including the suggested further fair employment legislation. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bear in mind what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh said, and ask her to consider whether this provision should be included.
  846
  We can examine the matter of the Human Rights Commission, but my right hon. Friend should reconsider the single Equality Commission.
  Marjorie Mowlam: Yes, we included it in the Bill in a bit of a rush because it is part of the Good Friday agreement. Not to have included it would have meant that the complaints would have been even greater. Yes, the structures are there, but if my hon. Friend reads the provision more closely, he will find that the four chief executives of the commissions, plus representatives of the other four groups concerned, can shape it as they want. If there is no difficulty with the principle, this provision gives them the opportunity to choose the format with which they can live most easily.
  Mr. McNamara: That is being a bit jesuitical, if I may say that. The agreement refers to the British Government considering the matter and undertaking consultation. That consultation was abruptly brought to an end and there was no undertaking by any party to accept the proposal. It was a question of what was noted in the agreement. I urge my right hon. Friend to think again, because I believe it is wrong. I note that my right hon. Friend did not disagree with the notion that the proposal was a way of getting round the need for extra fair employment legislation.
  I come now to the policy appraisal and fair treatment agreement and putting it out to private contract or tender under the Equality Commission. Mrs. Joan Smyth, the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, said:
  "The responsibility to bring about equality should lie where the policies are made. And that is within Government".
  Again, the Northern Ireland civil service has chickened out, as it has over earlier legislation and as it does all the time because it has always resented this fact. As the Assembly and Government Departments are going to have to consider it, the right place for it to be considered is within government so that decisions are referred to a strong, central body which can decide whether those decisions really meet proper PAFT criteria. Putting the matter at arm's length is a major error.
  Finally, I greatly regret clause 79(5) which states:
  "A certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and certifying that an act specified in the certificate was done for the purpose of safeguarding national security shall be conclusive evidence that it was done for that purpose."
  That is the old clause 42 brought back again, something that we voted against and which we considered very wrong when we were in opposition. Now, we have the judgment in the Tinnelly case in Strasbourg. As I understand it—I was reading it in French, and it is a long time since I did French at school—Tinnelly has been upheld by Strasbourg. The original clause 42 and the current clause 79 are now outwith the convention on human rights to which, as we are told in the agreement and in statute, we should be paying attention. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would examine that point when we come to consider any alterations.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend said that she will be flexible. We have already tabled some amendments, and there will doubtless be more. She has been promised them like confetti at a wedding. It would be wrong to seek to affect the principles of or what is contained in the agreement, but I have to say that where matters are not

  847
  specifically spelt out in the agreement it seems that the Government have taken the de minimis line rather than looking to expand and be generous.
  Human rights issues are going to be important not only for the people of Northern Ireland; how we deal with them will be an example to the rest of Europe and to the emerging democracies. My right hon. Friend has to be bold and not restrict the powers of the various bodies. They must be shown to be open and strong, able to initiate proceedings and investigations and to assist claimants, not merely reacting to propositions put to them.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. David Davis: Like most hon. Members, I support the aims of the Bill and want to see it work. I add my congratulations to the Secretary of State, her Ministers and the Prime Minister and, indeed, to the previous Prime Minister for all the work that went into creating a formidable achievement.
  Because of the understandable speed of preparation, some of the arrangements are less than satisfactory from the perspective of public accounting and accountability for United Kingdom taxes. I know that there was some rapid consultation with the Northern Ireland Audit Office in preparation for the Bill, but I do not believe that there was any discussion with the Comptroller and Auditor General for the House who has a locus as we are dealing with UK taxes as much as with Northern Ireland money.
  I shall talk briefly about a specific, relatively technical, but important matter—the scrutiny of expenditure in Northern Ireland of UK taxpayers' money under the Bill. If necessary, I shall table amendments in an attempt to correct matters about which I am concerned, but if the Government consider the points that I raise worth while, I should prefer them to introduce amendments.
  I am sure that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office will do all they can to help the Government with a difficult, technical, House of Commons matter—although it is not as difficult as what the Secretary of State has already achieved.
  Between 1921 and 1972, the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Parliament was funded from the Northern Ireland consolidated fund and scrutinised by the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General, who reported directly to the Accounts Committee of the Northern Ireland Parliament. It was originally envisaged that Northern Ireland would be self-financing, but a series of ad hoc legislative measures provided for extensive subsidies from Westminster without ever correspondingly extending the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee or the National Audit Office.
  With suspension of the Northern Ireland Parliament in 1972, the Northern Ireland Audit Office reported to the Westminster Public Accounts Committee.
  The current position is that the expenditure of Northern Ireland Departments is voted separately by Parliament on Northern Ireland estimates. The accounts of the Departments and other public sector bodies are audited and scrutinised by the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General, and his reports are laid before the House and taken by the Public Accounts Committee. Currently, the House's Public Accounts Commission determines funding of the Northern Ireland Office.
  848
  The essence of the Northern Ireland Bill is to transfer to the new Assembly's Executive from Northern Ireland Office Ministers the responsibility for the Northern Ireland civil service. Because of the Bill, the House will continue to approve supply estimates for the Northern Ireland Office, including the allocation to the Northern Ireland Assembly paid into the Northern Ireland consolidated fund.
  The key points about scrutiny and accountability in the Bill are, first, that the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General will lose his statutory powers to report to the Westminster Parliament. Secondly, the House—in the form of the Public Accounts Committee—will lose its powers of overseeing expenditure from the Northern Ireland consolidated fund, which is £7.4 billion, but will keep oversight of law and order expenditure, which is £900 million. Thirdly, the Bill will largely restore for the Northern Ireland Assembly the oversight, audit and scrutiny arrangements that existed before 1972.
  The Northern Ireland Bill, like the Scotland Bill, does not give Parliament or the Comptroller and Auditor General any specific powers to receive reports on, or to investigate, the use of public funds once those are transferred to the consolidated fund for Northern Ireland. There is no provision for direct accountability to the House by the accounting officers who will head the Northern Ireland Departments.
  The proposed arrangements raise questions about the adequacy of oversight that the House could exercise over United Kingdom taxpayers' money voted for the Northern Ireland consolidated fund. The issues are particularly significant in Northern Ireland, where the proportion of United Kingdom taxpayers' subvention is very high. As the Secretary of State will know, it is about £3 billion in 1997–98—which is almost 40 per cent. of total expenditure of £8.3 billion.
  Within Northern Ireland, moneys issued from the consolidated fund will be subject to the Assembly's scrutiny under Northern Ireland legislation—principally the Exchequer and Audit (Northern Ireland) Act 1921 and the Audit (Northern Ireland) order 1987, which provide a framework for estimates, accountability and auditing by the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General that is closely modelled on current United Kingdom practice. The 1987 order particularly ensures independence of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Northern Ireland Office's powers to undertake value-for-money investigations.
  As a result of the overview of the Public Accounts Commission and the Public Accounts Committee, the Northern Ireland Office has developed in parallel with the mainland United Kingdom's National Audit Office. For that, I give my compliments and praise to my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), for his work on the Committee.
  Therefore, in practice, the devolved Assembly will take over arrangements for accountability that closely follow Westminster practice and for public sector audit that are in line with National Audit Office statements. However, in principle—this is one of the two problems that I wish to raise—any current Northern Ireland legislation relating to the role of Comptroller and Auditor-General could be altered by the Assembly. That arrangement is very different from those for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, as in each of those cases scrutiny provisions are written into United Kingdom law.

  849
  Therefore—for example—because the independence of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General is not stated in the Bill as United Kingdom legislation, the Assembly could dilute his independence by amending or repealing a relevant Northern Ireland order. Such a situation is not unusual—it has happened in Denmark, where Governments eroded the power of scrutiny. We will have to think about the possibility of such a situation developing in Northern Ireland not only in the next two years but in the next 20 or 120 years.
  Furthermore, although the existence of the Accounts Committee in the previous Northern Ireland Parliament gives us hope that the Assembly will establish a similar committee, there is nothing to compel the Assembly to do so. There is also no precedent for a body equivalent to the Public Accounts Commission to determine funding of the Northern Ireland Audit Office independently of the Executive, as happens in the House.
  The absence of any oversight by the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General or the Public Accounts Committee of expenditure by the Northern Ireland Departments raises in this House serious issues of taxation without representation. There must also be concern about whether the brief audit provisions in clause 52 give the same assurance of independence to the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General as the Scotland Bill and Government of Wales Bill give to their respective auditors.
  Those matters are particularly important for Northern Ireland for three reasons. First, as I said, the percentage of funding for Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom is almost 40 per cent., which is the highest percentage of any part of the United Kingdom.
  Secondly, the history of management of public sector spending in Northern Ireland is not very good. In conversation with me, such management was described by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—I am sure that he will not mind my quoting him—as ghastly. Many management weaknesses have shown up in recent audit reports. Moreover, as the Secretary of State will know better than anyone, there is a history of paramilitary-based fraud in Northern Ireland. We should not expect that fraud or the related pressures to disappear overnight.
  Thirdly, as we have seen in other parts of the United Kingdom, problems of waste and corruption are often endemic to authorities that are dominated over a long period either by single parties or by single coalitions. I support the power-sharing arrangements that we are creating for Northern Ireland and yield to no one in my admiration for the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Nevertheless, in the scrutiny arrangements that we build into the Bill, we must plan against the very long-term effect of having one coalition in power, which is perfectly possible under the arrangements that we are making.
  I therefore ask the Secretary of State to examine two issues. The first is the House's continuing right to knowledge and scrutiny of UK taxpayers' money given to Northern Ireland—even if that is only as a fall-back option for the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General, to give him somewhere to go if things go wrong.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if there is a coalition and no
  850
  effective opposition within a body such as the Assembly to exercise principles of adversarial scrutiny, his point about accountability and the necessity for some scrutiny by the United Kingdom is all the more valid?
  Mr. Davis: That is precisely the point that I was making. For understandable and real reasons—[Interruption.]
  Mr. McNamara: There are 28 opposed in the Assembly.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Is the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) giving way?
  Mr. Davis: No, I am not giving way, but I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman. The point about our arrangements is that we have a tradition of 130 years of structured scrutiny of the Executive that will not exist there ab initio. We have to ensure—I hope that the Secretary of State will see the reason for doing so—that there is structured scrutiny if, as is possible, there will be a single long-term coalition. In other countries in Europe—Austria comes to mind—extremist parties have developed simply because there has been a single coalition in power which has led to suspicions about how government is run. I should not like the same thing to be visited on Northern Ireland in 20 or 30 years' time.
  I should like the Secretary of State, secondly, to examine the possibility of minoring the arrangements that we have discussed for the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office—in the Welsh case, in talking to the National Audit Office beforehand; in the Scottish case, in debate in the House—to guarantee that the independence of appointment, funding, choice of work and dismissal of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General and National Audit Office is written into United Kingdom legislation. If she does that, I shall do all within my power to facilitate the speed of the Bill's passage through the House.
  7.48 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I begin by welcoming the Northern Ireland majority commitment to the Good Friday agreement and by congratulating all those who played a leading role in achieving it. Although I sometimes feel the smallest frisson of disagreement or annoyance with the Government, I take great pleasure in what they have achieved in Northern Ireland.
  Only days ago, we had reason to fear that it would all unravel, and that, once again, intransigence would win, so it was heartening that so many in both communities recoiled at the murder of innocent children and at the attacks on the police and the armed forces at Drumcree, declaring that they would have none of it. We owe much to those who have had the courage to stand up to extremists on their own side.
  Courage is a much over-used word in politics: it usually means merely having the backbone to disagree with one's own side. The Labour Whips do not kneecap people or carry out politically motivated murders, however. We must put the courage of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and

  851
  others into its proper context. They showed true courage and played an admirable role, for which the entire British Isles should be grateful. I congratulate the Government on making it clear that they would not give in to extremists on either side.
  The behaviour of one party has been less than admirable, however: the Conservatives have created unnecessary difficulties in respect of the Bill. For many years in opposition, Labour stood faithfully by bipartisan policies, but the Conservatives have shown themselves less than willing to fulfil the role that we accepted for so many years.
  For some odd reason, the Bill lacks the resonance of the first sentence of the Scotland Bill. I recommend to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the inclusion of similar wording. Clause 1 of the Scotland Bill reads:
  "There shall be a Scottish Parliament".
  That simple ringing statement was noted throughout Scotland. A statement such as, "There shall be a Northern Ireland Assembly" might well have a similar effect in Northern Ireland.
  Like the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly will have full freedom to legislate on matters that relate to the responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Departments. It is interesting to see how often the Bill reflects the legislation relating to Scotland. Scottish Members are glad to have been of service.
  The civic forum, which allows more women to participate, is a new development in Northern Ireland. I welcome the fact that, at long last, some half a dozen women have been elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. More women were elected to represent Northern Ireland at that one election than in the entire history of Parliament. Women's voices will also be heard in the civic forum. As a result, social policies in Northern Ireland are likely to reflect more truly the community there, especially on matters of general interest and concern when no sectarian disagreement is involved.
  There is a great deal to welcome in the Bill. The creation of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly have opened up a new approach to the governance of Northern Ireland. Irish politicians have also mentioned that point.
  The Northern Ireland Women's Coalition is also to be congratulated on its contribution to the democratic process, as are the Government on being progressive enough to welcome the idea of the civic forum and establish it in legislation. I also welcome the legal underpinning given to the bodies mentioned in clauses 66 and 67. I have had only brief experience of the British-Irish parliamentary body, but, in a short time, I have seen how well elected representatives from the Republic of Ireland and from the United Kingdom can work together to the benefit of the island of Ireland. I have high hopes of those bodies, and of strand 3 in particular. The assurances that we built into the three strands have played a fundamental part in overcoming doubt and suspicion and making progress.
  A thought occurred to me about the strand 3 body, which, through the good grace of the Government, did not specify that Scottish representatives had to be members of the United Kingdom Parliament. It has been accepted
  852
  as highly appropriate that newly elected Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly should have the right to participate. No one would have objected if the Government had not taken that decision—if they had stipulated membership of the United Kingdom Parliament alone. There is a key point to be made. I am sure that participation of representatives of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly will be very welcome to people in Ireland, particularly because of long-standing historical connections.
  It is pity that no Scottish National party Members are present in the Chamber, as I should like to put the point to them. If Scotland separated from the rest of the United Kingdom, it would not necessarily be able to participate in that body. Its role would depend on the terms of whatever agreement had been reached in respect of its separation from the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not think that the majority of people in Scotland want to say goodbye to having any influence on events in Northern Ireland. As no SNP Member is present, we cannot find out whether the SNP has a policy on that, or whether it has been trashed on the internet in recent weeks.
  I do not believe that the equal opportunities provisions were added to the Bill as an afterthought. I am pleased that our progressive Government realise that equal opportunities are a major aspect of our lives and have written that principle into the Bill. When I saw the White Paper and the list of ways in which discrimination would be unlawful, I used it to improve the Scottish legislation.
  Scotland does not have a separate equal opportunities commission, but it will continue to have an EOC office relating to United Kingdom legislation. There is much to be thought through as to what should happen in Northern Ireland. Unnecessary difficulties could be created by the existence of separate legislation on equal opportunities in different parts of the United Kingdom. I should like Northern Ireland to have the same degree of autonomy that we have in Scotland, so I shall follow the debate with interest, and may sign some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The important principle is that there should be autonomy in practice which might lead to universality in legislation.
  Finally, I should mention the inclusion of the European convention on human rights, which was particularly welcomed by the Council of Europe in Strasbourg a few months ago. COE members representing 40 European states welcomed it, because the entire process devised to achieve a way forward for Northern Ireland could be a useful guide to resolving conflicts in other parts of Europe. The progress that we are making tonight will not only affect Northern Ireland but may provide lessons for other parts of the world. For that reason, it is all the more welcome.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Robert McCartney: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) spoke of courage. She congratulated the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on their courage. Without in any way attempting to detract from their contributions, may I say that it is easier to be courageous when one has the big battalions on one's side and enjoys the plaudits of all the major parties in the House?

  853
  Everyone—particularly politicians—would like to be loved. All would like to be on the side of the angels. All would like to be in favour of peace, justice, goodness, equality, love and hope—all sentiments in which both democrat and dictator have, from time to time, wallowed. Those concepts of false sentiment and cheap emotion are the coin in which too many politicians increasingly deal. It enables them to ignore the real issues, suppress the unpalatable differences and dress everything up in spin and spoof. By the time the electorate wake up to the realities of what really matters, it is too late.
  Nowhere was that more apparent than in the conduct of the referendum. It was plain that every artifice of government, propaganda, pressure, money and control of the media was brought to bear on the people of Northern in order to obtain the yes vote that was obtained. Indeed, the propaganda in which the Government engaged would instantly have been declared unlawful in the other part of Ireland. Legislation in the Republic provides that, on any referendum issue, both sides of the debate must be fairly and adequately reported. That did not occur in Northern Ireland, where the yes campaign was supported in 70 per cent. of coverage on Ulster Television and the BBC, and in 71 per cent. of coverage in the three major local papers, the Belfast Telegraph, the News Letter and the Irish News. Curiously, that almost exactly reflects the results subsequently obtained in the referendum.
  Mr. Öpik: Does that not suggest that, in fact, the media merely reflected the public mood?
  Mr. McCartney: No; with respect, I do not think that it does anything of the kind. As I have said, such imbalanced reporting would have been unlawful in the Irish Republic, which has rather more experience of referendums than we do.
  During my entire professional and political life, I have been dedicated to the principles of democracy, equality and justice, which I have endeavoured to serve. I loathe and detest any violence that serves any political end; I have condemned it unequivocally. During the 14 months that my party spent in the negotiations, I refused to have any dealings at all with representatives of loyalist paramilitary parties, who were present on the basis that they were representative of armed organisations. I made it clear that, regardless of whether Sinn Fein was ever admitted, I would not enter into substantive negotiations with any party—loyalist or otherwise—that was a front organisations for terrorist groups that retained arms. My position, and that of my party, has always been entirely consistent.
  It has been suggested by some hon. Members who have spoken in the debate that the Belfast agreement and the Bill are triumphs of democracy over terror. I believe that they are nothing of the kind. They represent the appeasement of terror—not just by the present Government but by successive British Administrations. They represent allowing those in Sinn Fein who have fronted an organisation that has murdered, maimed and pillaged both communities in Northern Ireland for 30 years to enter government, while, at the same time, permitting the IRA to retain all its weaponry and explosives.
  Any suggestion that the IRA will decommission over the next two years is a myth. The IRA will not decommission and Sinn Fein will not call on it to do so.
  854
  All that the agreement and the Bill that reflects it do is to call on parties that front paramilitary organisations to use such influence as they may have to persuade those organisations to decommission.
  It is said that it does not really matter whether such organisations decommission, as long as they do not utilise their arms and explosives. The continued ownership and possession of such arms and explosives is an on-going form of political leverage to ensure that those who would use violence obtain their ultimate objectives. It is not without significance that Sinn Fein—or Sinn Fein-IRA, since, in the words of the Secretary of State, they are inextricably linked—views the agreement and the Bill that gives effect to it as purely a transitional phase. En route to what? En route to its ultimate objective of an united Ireland.
  Much has been made of the principle of consent. It is said that, because clause 1 suggests that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom until the majority decides otherwise, the constitutional future of the citizens of Northern Ireland in the UK is in some way guaranteed. That is far from being so. As far back as September 1988, in the most comprehensive and detailed statement of Labour party policy on Northern Ireland that has ever been made, the whole score for both the agreement and the Bill was written. A process of creating institutions that would first allow consultation, then harmonisation, then full Executive powers to cross-border or all-Ireland bodies was envisaged.
  It was accepted by the creators of that policy—one of the signatories being the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—that there could be no immediate disengagement from Northern Ireland, which was the real object of party policy. The policy had to be conducted by such a method that there would be
  "no sudden withdrawal which might make disengagement impossible".
  It was, and is, necessary to establish a series of institutions—under the Bill, the institutions are the north-south ministerial council and the all-Ireland implementation bodies—that create, perhaps on the European model, a functionally and factually united Ireland over a period of time. That explains why Sinn Fein-IRA openly expressed the view that the arrangements are transitional. There will come a time when, if such institutions expand, and are dynamic, as proposed in the framework document, Ireland will be factually and functionally united. At that point, the question of consent will arise—but consent to what? It will simply be consent that has become either inevitable or unnecessary: a consent to the formal transfer of the legal sovereignty of Northern Ireland to a united Ireland.
  Mr. Winnick: Is the gist of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument that the Government are really engaged in a sinister plot—clearly with the Opposition's support—to bring about a united Ireland by one means or another? Does he think that that is the objective of the legislation?
  Mr. McCartney: Yes indeed. Why should anyone be aghast at my suggesting that? The Labour party policy document, which was signed by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who was then the shadow

  855
  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and countersigned by the present Secretary of State, states exactly that. The object of Labour party policy was to disengage from Northern Ireland and to create a united Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman does not possess a copy of that comprehensive statement of Labour party policy, I shall provide him with one.
  Hon. Members talk about the protection provided by the need for consent. There is no protection in that, because the agreement provides for institutions that will circumnavigate such a principle of consent and allow only for a consent to the formal transfer of legal sovereignty. That dichotomy between the institutions required to obtain factual and functional consent and legal sovereignty is also spelled out in that party policy document. Mr. Kinnock, then leader of the Labour party, hailed the document as the only way forward. It explicitly set out a policy whose elements can be identified in the framework document and, more effectively, in the agreement and the Bill. I am not suggesting that off my own bat. It is for the Government to show that their proposals are significantly different from what they set out in their detailed and comprehensive policy document on Northern Ireland in September 1988. The facts are there for all to see.
  Sinn Fein-IRA are one of the strong parties in the yes camp. Their endorsement of the agreement was heartily supported at the Ard Fheis when the agreement was put for approval. Speaker after speaker at the Ard Fheis said that the document was a transitional agreement and that they should advance on the political front, but should retain all their weapons, and certainly should not give up the threat of armed terror, particularly on the mainland, which had been such an effective weapon in advancing their political cause.
  Those people, who are inextricably bound up with the IRA—that means that Sinn Fein can never be separated from the IRA—are to be entitled under the d'Hondt rule to two seats as Ministers in any proposed Government. They merely have to sign up to the democratic principles of non-violence. They will have no problem with that, because they will simply say, "We are not the IRA. We have no weapons. We are a party with an electoral mandate." They have said that all their political life. Everyone knows that they are synonymous in personnel, political objectives and policy.
  Since 10 April, when the agreement was signed, Sinn Fein-IRA have been actively involved in acts of terror. In the communities that they exclusively control, they have been kneecapping—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am afraid that the hon. and learned Gentleman must resume his seat. His time is up.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Desmond Browne: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, together with other Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office, on their achievement in bringing the process as far as they have. I also congratulate and commend the courage of hon. Members and others who helped to forge the agreement. Bearing in mind the contribution of the
  856
  hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on having been able to move on from 1988 and helping to forge a new consent-based solution.
  However, my loudest congratulations are for the people of Northern Ireland. On 22 May, a majority of 71 per cent. of them supported the Belfast agreement. On 25 June, 74 per cent. of them voted for candidates seeking a pro-agreement mandate. With those votes, the people of Northern Ireland changed the political landscape of the Province for ever.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said when introducing the Bill, in passing the Bill and devolving power to an assembly of Northern Ireland politicians, this Parliament will merely be setting up the necessary legislative framework to give expression to the desire of the people of Northern Ireland. That is a good enough reason to welcome the Bill, but there are others.
  The strength of the Belfast agreement lies in its recognition of the value of diversity. Paragraph 1 of strand 1 says:
  "This agreement provides for a democratically elected Assembly in Northern Ireland which is inclusive in its membership"
  and is able
  "subject to safeguards to protect the rights and interests of all sides of the community."
  The morning after the Assembly election count was completed, The News Letter confirmed in its page one view how successfully that objective had been achieved, describing the elected Assembly as
  "a democratic institution so broad in its diversity that it should become the envy of the world and a model for other divided communities to follow."
  If that achievement is to be maintained, we must learn lessons from the past. A principal lesson from the past 25 years in Northern Ireland is that, in a divided society, if democratic institutions lack the necessary safeguards to ensure the participation of all sections in the decision-making processes, they will fail and the initiative will pass to undemocratic forces. For that reason, among others, the parties to the Belfast agreement placed great store on the importance of safeguards, setting them out in paragraph 5 of strand 1.
  The achievement of those who forged the Belfast agreement will be lost if the Bill does not put in place the necessary safeguards to protect the new democratic institutions of Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, her colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office and those who serve them have ensured that the Bill does so. A principal safeguard is the requirement that key decisions of the Assembly are taken on a cross-community basis. The parties to the Belfast agreement reached consensus on the definition of a "cross-community basis". That phraseology translates into "cross-community support" in the Bill, but the definition remains the same.
  The Bill sets alternative quotas for measuring cross-community support. Those quotas will apply to, among others, the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the passing of a resolution by the Assembly that a reserved matter should become a transferred matter or vice versa, the number and functions of Ministers and, in clause 34, the majority required for an issue that has generated a petition of concern from 30 or more Members.

  857
  The imposition of quotas on the democratic process can be a device to deny the will of the majority. That happened when the 40 per cent. hurdle was insinuated into the referendum on the Scotland Act 1978. That was a wrecking device designed to thwart the will of the Scottish people, and it succeeded. However, the measure of cross-community support in the Bill has come from the political representatives of the Northern Ireland people and, importantly, has been overwhelmingly endorsed in a referendum held on a simple majority basis, although the yes vote in the referendum would have satisfied the cross-community support test.
  As important as cross-community support is the safeguard of a comprehensive commitment to human rights and the equality agenda, also included in the Belfast agreement. All who have a commitment to the protection of human rights and to equality of opportunity will welcome the new institutions set forth in the Belfast agreement and legislated for in the Bill.
  The incorporation of the European convention on human rights in the law of the United Kingdom was a clear commitment of the Labour party at the general election. The Human Rights Bill will work best in conjunction with a human rights commission with powers and statutory responsibilities, such as those set out in part VI of the Bill.
  On Second Reading of the Human Rights Bill, I argued for a human rights commission for the UK for that very reason. I argued that there was a need for a commission to promote ideas of human rights and to help promote the development of a human rights culture. Consequently, I welcome the setting up of a commission in Northern Ireland and hope that it will act as a catalyst for setting up a similar body in Britain.
  There are those who will argue that the last thing Northern Ireland needs is another unelected quango. However, for a human rights commission to perform its necessary functions in Northern Ireland, it must be independent of both the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly, since part of its function is to ensure compliance by both of them with human rights legislation. I have reservations about the lack of transparency in the appointments process as set out in clause 54, but we will no doubt return to that matter in Committee.
  For the reasons I have articulated—and because I am also persuaded by the arguments in the document "Creating an Effective Human Rights Commission for Northern Ireland" by Brice Dickson of the university of Ulster—I welcome the provisions in the Bill. Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I welcome the establishment of the Equality Commission and the attendant imposition of a duty to promote equality of opportunity on certain public authorities, while outlawing discrimination by other public authorities.
  I draw the attention of Ministers to the differing descriptive definitions of public authorities in clauses 61 and 62. Clause 61 requires public authorities to "promote equality of opportunity", whereas clause 62 sets out where it would be unlawful to discriminate. I see no reason to have differing definitions of public authority in the clauses, and would welcome an explanation on the divergence.
  In the long term—and like some of the parties who responded to the White Paper on the subject—I favour incorporation in the Northern Ireland Human Rights
  858
  Commission itself of all the functions and duties to promote and police the equality agenda. I also hope that a Minister for equality will be appointed by the Assembly.
  Those are long-term goals and, in the meantime, I believe that the aggregation of expertise and experience and the pooling of the resources of the four existing equality bodies in one significant commission will enhance the equality agenda in Northern Ireland.
  The lack of confidence in the institutions of Northern Ireland has its roots, to some degree, in a perception of inequality by a significant part of the community. The Equality Commission legislated for in the Bill, and reflective of yet another safeguard from the Belfast agreement, will give significant weight to the equality agenda in Northern Ireland and will go a long way towards helping to sustain the confidence of that part of the community in the process of political reform.
  For those reasons—unlike the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—I argue that the rightful place for the provisions is in the Bill. I am supported in that by the provisions of the Belfast agreement. I draw the attention of those hon. Members who doubt that the proper place for such legislation is in the Bill to strand 1, paragraph 5(e) of the Belfast agreement which sets as one of the safeguards for the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland
  "an Equality Commission to monitor a statutory obligation to promote equality of opportunity".
  There is no better place than the Bill for that.
  I wish to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to one matter that is troubling me. There may be a simple answer. Under head 10 of schedule 5 to the Scotland Bill, broadcasting—and, in particular, the British Broadcasting Corporation—is listed among the matters reserved to the UK Parliament. In my hurried examination of the Northern Ireland Bill, I cannot see whether broadcasting—and, in particular, the BBC—has been reserved to the UK Parliament. It may be reserved, but I should welcome a statement on how that will be achieved, as it is not obvious in the Bill.
  I ask about broadcasting in particular because the matter created some controversy in Scotland. There were those who wanted to get their hands on the BBC; I have no doubt that there are those in Northern Ireland who want to do that, too. For consistency of devolution, that issue should be addressed.
  I remind the House that, in supporting the Belfast agreement and in electing the Members of the Assembly, the voters of Northern Ireland formed an historic alliance between Catholic and Protestant and nationalist and Unionist peoples. We should not forget that they did so to bring stability and lasting peace to their community. We must not let them down, and we will not be doing so by passing the Bill.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. John D. Taylor: I am a Unionist who believes in Northern Ireland remaining within the United Kingdom, and believes that the people of Northern Ireland—Roman Catholic and Protestant—would be best served in matters of equality and justice by the United Kingdom Parliament remaining in charge of all affairs within Northern Ireland. None the less, I recognise that

  859
  the policy of the Government is to proceed with devolution throughout the United Kingdom—to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, perhaps, to the regions of England. We must fit in to the overall plan for the UK.
  I served in many of the various devolved institutions in Northern Ireland—in the Parliament from 1965 to 1972, the subsequent first Assembly, the constitutional convention and then the second Assembly, which collapsed in 1986 following the imposition of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Yet again, we have another attempt at devolution in Northern Ireland. From my experiences in those four previous devolved institutions at Stormont, I fear that some of the weaknesses that were inherent in them and brought about their collapse exist yet again in this somewhat tortuous formula for the return of devolution to Northern Ireland.
  It is a tortuous formula and a complicated Bill. None the less, the Belfast agreement—its proper name—has been welcomed throughout the United Kingdom and Europe, where it was approved in the Assembly of the Council of Europe. It has been welcomed throughout the United States. It was supported in a referendum in Northern Ireland and in the elections for the new Assembly. Indeed, the empty Press Gallery throughout this debate leads one to assume that the journalists have concluded that the Belfast agreement is safe and home.
  That is not the case. There was considerable support for the Belfast agreement; it has slipped considerably in recent weeks—let us not pretend otherwise. To do so is to deceive the House and the wider public. Why has that support slipped? It is not because of the terrible deaths of the three children at Ballymoney. It is not because of the impasse at Garvaghy road, Drumcree. It is because one participant in the agreement is not honouring what the agreement was intended to achieve.
  When the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke today, I was surprised that, although he mentioned Drumcree and Ballymoney, he never once mentioned how the IRA is breaching the terms of the Belfast agreement, and is doing so in his own constituency. A 1,400 lb bomb near Armagh city luckily did not get into the centre of the city at the weekend because the vehicle carrying it got a flat tyre. A 600 lb bomb at Newry courthouse in the hon. Gentleman's constituency was luckily defused by the security forces.
  In Newton Hamilton in the hon. Gentleman's constituency recently, dozens of Roman Catholic and Protestant businesses and homes were destroyed by a 1,000 Ib IRA bomb. At the weekend, a Roman Catholic was murdered by Provisional IRA, or so it was stated. A man was badly beaten up by the IRA—a Mr. Kearney, a Republican from the Ormeau road, who would have died had the RUC not arrived in time.
  Today, all hon. Members have received a faxed letter from Families Against Intimidation and Terror—which is not a pro-Unionist organisation, I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That letter says:
  "The current Bill makes no reference to paramilitary violence being a bar to membership of the Assembly Executive which effectively means that Sinn Fein Ministers only need to say they are opposed to violence to stay in office while the IRA continue to be involved in violence."
  There is a major problem.
  860
  Undoubtedly, the Belfast agreement was a setback for Provisional Sinn Fein—the IRA. They said that they would not agree to anything unless it was a united Ireland. Well, there is no united Ireland. They said that they would not agree to the removal of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution and the territorial claim of the south of Ireland over Northern Ireland. Well, the people of the south of Ireland have now agreed to remove the territorial claim. Then Sinn Fein said that it would never go into an assembly at Stormont. Well, some of its members were elected to the Assembly, and they are there now; they attended the first meeting. There has been progress on that front.
  Moreover, clause 1 says:
  "It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".
  Clause 5(6) says:
  "This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Northern Ireland."
  That is the exact guarantee that the Scotland Bill will give the people of Scotland when it becomes law. There is progress, therefore, on constitutional matters.
  Subsections (10) and (13) of clause 15 state that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister can also hold ministerial offices. Rightly, Members of Parliament who are Members of the Assembly have had great deductions from their salary. I am assuming that a First Minister or Deputy First Minister, if he is also a Minister, does not take both salaries.
  I come to the key issue of the removal of Ministers from office, to which clause 23 applies—especially subsection (8). The clause says that Ministers must be exclusively committed to peaceful and democratic means. The Dublin Prime Minister has said that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked together. Today, the Secretary of State confirmed that that was her position [Interruption.]—she is nodding yet again—in reply to a question that I asked at the start of the debate. However, she then passed the buck. She said, "But the removal of Ministers is not really for me; it is for the Members of the Assembly." Of course Sinn Fein—the IRA—will not expel its own members. No way.
  Where does the SDLP stand on that issue? That is the point on which we need clarification. That will be the turning point for the success or failure of the Belfast agreement. It is time that we teased the SDLP out into the open, to give assurances to the people of Northern Ireland that it is fully committed to peaceful and democratic means, and that it accepts that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked together. We want to hear the SDLP using the same phrase as our Secretary of State used today, and as the Dublin Prime Minister has used several times. Once we hear that from the SDLP, we shall proceed to obtain other assurances.
  On clause 56, I warn against too freely giving financial aid for legal advice and support on human rights issues. When I was a member of Castlereagh borough council, the Fair Employment Commission handed out money left, right and centre to people to enable them to claim compensation. There was one case that we knew that the claimant had no chance of winning; the council fought it and won. However, although we won the case, we had to pay the legal expenses and then charge the ratepayers for them. A borough council may do that, but private

  861
  individuals cannot afford to fight. They cannot pass on the charge to ratepayers; they must pay themselves. Often, an organisation, especially an employer, accused of discrimination will settle a case for a small amount of compensation instead of fighting it, although it may not have been guilty of discrimination.
  Interestingly, although the Bill provides funding for the north-south ministerial council, it does not even allocate any money for the British-Irish council, which is of much greater importance to most people in Northern Ireland. It is not mentioned. Strangely enough, although the Assembly is setting up a seminar on all kinds of issues—such as human rights, the administration of various Government Departments, and the north-south ministerial council—there is no seminar on how the British-Irish council would work. Incidentally, has anyone ever told the Governments of the Isle of Man, Jersey or Guernsey that they are involved in the British-Irish council? Perhaps, if they have been told, the Minister will tell us the response of those three Governments.
  Finally, I want to make a quick point on a constituency matter. Schedule 2 says that Crown property is an excepted matter. As I understand it, the foreshore of Strangford lough is Crown property. It comprises a major part of my constituency. Is it an excepted matter? Does that mean that we cannot discuss Strangford lough in the Assembly? That is an important issue for me as a local constituency Member, and for my colleague, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who represents Strangford village but not the rest of Strangford lough.
  I have supported the Belfast agreement, although I have had doubts about some of the issues. As this is a Second Reading debate, I shall support the Bill in principle tonight, but there is no guarantee that I shall support it on Third Reading unless we receive further assurances on the key issue of the exclusion of people who are inextricably linked to paramilitary organisations when such paramilitary organisations are still carrying out murders and bombings.
  Not only can the Secretary of State help on that matter as amendments to the Bill are debated, but the SDLP—to which she passed the buck earlier this afternoon—must clarify its position, because in the Assembly, by cross-voting, the majority of the nationalists must vote for the expulsion of such people if that expulsion is to take place, and we must have some assurance from the SDLP that it will do so.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I am very pleased indeed to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. Anyone who knows my track record concerning Northern Ireland and the whole island of Ireland will know that I am delighted by the Bill. It may be one of the most significant pieces of legislation that I have had to deal with; it is certainly one of the most significant that I have ever spoken on.
  Some of the speeches have not encouraged my hopes as much as they might have, but the Bill has every hope, when it becomes an Act, of ending one of the saddest legacies of the history of these islands. We must make it work. There must be a constructive approach. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and I agree on many things—if we leave Ireland out, on most things—but, with respect to him, we must not score points, however robustly. We must do the constructive job that he did at Stormont to bring about the Belfast agreement.
  862
  We are not out of the wood yet. Anyone who has had anything to do with the agreement—not least the Secretary of State, who has done a marvellous job—knows that we are living on a knife-edge in every respect. The agreement creates an enormous opportunity, but it also creates the dangers of failure and having to start all over again.
  We can make the agreement work only if we get together. In Northern Ireland—with all respect to Northern Irish Members who are present—that is starting to happen. I welcome the tone of the speeches of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Both speeches were constructive. Each patently took into consideration the agenda of the other community. That is what all this is about, and will increasingly be about. The 71 per cent. vote in the referendum was a vote of both communities. The cross-voting in the election on preferences was again of both communities. That is enormously significant.
  We must get the act together on the mainland as well as in Northern Ireland. I especially welcome the tone of the speech by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who adopted the right approach on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition.
  All of us can and should take some of the credit for making the agreement succeed. Once or twice, I have trembled for the bipartisan policy, not least on the Opposition's vote on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, about which I shall say nothing now. It is essential that the bipartisan policy remains and is strengthened.
  The full weight of all the political parties in the House, as has been apparent the speeches today, must be behind the Bill, pushing it through to become an Act, and making the Act work. The record of the Conservative party in government in recent years shows that it has been far from ever playing the Orange card again. It brought about the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The efforts of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) started a process that has been ably continued by the present Government. If we all get behind it, it can succeed.
  As hon. Members will realise, I am telescoping my speech so that others may speak. On constitutional structures, I shall deal with the parliamentary aspect, which has been referred to in other speeches, but perhaps not in as much detail as I am qualified to speak of the workings of the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body, which has been of great use.
  With reference to the parliamentary aspects of the Bill, strand 1 gives us the Assembly, which is a vital component that fits in with United Kingdom constitutional development. Strand 2 makes provision for a new parliamentary forum from the Assembly and the Oireachtas. That introduces another parliamentary aspect, which may initially lead to some confusion.
  Strand 3 establishes the British-Irish council, which involves not the institutions with primary responsibility, such as the Northern Ireland Assembly, but the devolved institutions of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man and the Channel islands—it is high time that there was an institution that brought them into the picture—and others, if appropriate, as well as representatives of the United Kingdom and Irish Governments. By definition, the task of the British-Irish council is consultative. No doubt it will be a useful body, although it may be somewhat bland in decision making.

  863
  Strand 3 also sets up the British-Irish intergovernmental conference. There is no parliamentary shadow at that level. The Belfast agreement states:
  "The elected institutions of the members will be encouraged to develop interparliamentary links, perhaps building on the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body."
  That provides a link between the two sovereign Parliaments. We shall no doubt return to these matters in Committee. There is a need to think through the concept of parliamentary links under strand 3. There must not be too many bodies, but they must cover all aspects, allowing sovereign Parliaments to question sovereign governments.
  On the release of prisoners and decommissioning, from the remarks that we have heard about clause 23 and other clauses there is no doubt those will form a considerable part of our debate. I shall lay out some general points.
  It is fundamental to the peace process that it seeks to contain and bring the extremes into an accepted constitutional system. That system will succeed only if the extremes are within it. They are in it at present because there are no absolute preconditions. They will not be able to remain within it if unrealistic conditions are set for decommissioning or the release of prisoners.
  Those two issues are complementary. Prisoner release has enormous significance on both sides of the sectarian fence. It will do more than anything to signify the end of war, which will help to deliver the real decommissioning that we all want. I believe that it will come, but it would be counter-productive to try to achieve too much too soon.
  Let us all—the whole House—unite behind this worthy Bill, get it through and grant peace to the island of Ireland, a peace which has been too long delayed and is much deserved.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill to the House, she said that it was the Government's intention to put into legislative form the agreement reached on 10 April. It is worth the time of the House to consider how closely that has been done, and to use a few tests to determine whether it has been done properly.
  This is the first major debate that we have had on Northern Ireland since the Assembly election—the last major debate was on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. I remember being told by many hon. Members on both sides of the House that the Prime Minister had played a key role in securing a yes vote in the referendum, and that that yes vote had produced a positive result in both the Unionist and nationalist communities.
  We were told that a majority of nationalists and a majority of Unionists had voted yes. I made it clear that, statistically, it was obvious to anyone who knew Northern Ireland that a majority of Unionists had voted no. So that there is no doubt, I place it on the record now that the results of the Assembly election proved my case, and clearly show that the majority of Unionists are against the Belfast agreement. The majority of Members returned for the Unionist tradition are against the agreement. The majority of votes cast were cast for Unionist candidates who were against the agreement.
  864
  When the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) says that there was a substantial body of opinion in Northern Ireland against the agreement, that represents an overwhelming majority of his constituency, and a majority of the Unionist community, where he rightly says support for the agreement is decreasing as the days and weeks go past. He would know that better than most, as deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist party.
  The right hon. Gentleman will have read in the newspapers recently that even one of his party's Assembly Members admitted that, although she had voted yes in the referendum, if she were asked to vote again today she would vote no to the agreement. She was not counted as one of the Assembly Members who would vote against the inclusion of Sinn Fein-IRA activists in a Government of Northern Ireland, and executive powers for an all-Ireland body.
  That is the backcloth against which the House should consider the future of the Belfast agreement. The test that we should use is the commitment given by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the First Minister designate of Northern Ireland to the people of Northern Ireland in relation to what the agreement meant. They were vociferous at the time of the referendum. The Prime Minister made it abundantly clear on 6 May in the House of Commons that substantial decommissioning was required before sentenced prisoners could be released or Sinn Fein-IRA personnel could be in government.
  In his Hillsborough speech, the Prime Minister went into great detail about the criteria that would have to be met before the Provisional IRA representatives, or representatives of any loyalist paramilitary organisation—although that does not arise, because they were roundly rejected by the Unionist electorate—could get into government.
  In an interview with Des McCartan of the Belfast Telegraph, the Prime Minister was asked:
  "How can you guarantee there won't be people in the Assembly who, by others' perception, are linked to the men of violence?"
  The Prime Minister replied:
  "Because the agreement provides very clearly that people can be removed or excluded from office, if they are pursuing non-democratic or violent measures."
  When he came over the Northern Ireland and gave his five pledges, one of them clearly stated that those who used or threatened violence would be excluded from the Government of Northern Ireland. In the Belfast News Letter of 14 May, the Prime Minister said:
  "People need to know that, if they are sitting down in the room of the executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly with other people then they are not sitting there with the guns under the table, outside the door and all the rest of it… That can't happen and we must make it absolutely clear that that can't happen."
  I suspect that we are about to see whether it can or cannot happen.
  I am sorry that the First Minister designate is not in the Chamber, as I should like him to show where in the Bill is the commitment that he gave the people of Northern Ireland on 9 May. In an article in the Belfast News Letter, he said:
  "I think the unionist community has confidence in itself. We have the capacity ourselves"—
  that is, the Unionist community—
  "to exclude Sinn Fein from office, if we so wish, because we are going to have a majority in the Assembly, now that is clearly going to be the case. Why then should people worry what an Assembly

  865
  will do if they are going to have the majority in it? The Agreement itself is absolutely clear that only people who have a genuine commitment to peaceful means and a democratic process can accept office. Those words were fudged in the past, but they were fudged by governments. It's not going to be a question for Government in the future, it's going to be a question for the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives."
  Where in the Bill is the right hon. Gentleman's commitment that Unionists can exclude Sinn Fein from government? He knows that there is no such provision in the Bill—and I suspect that he knew as much when he wrote the article. One of his colleagues got very hairy-chested about the matter. The Ulster Unionist party member David McNarry vowed that Unionists would not back down on the handover of weapons before Sinn Fein could take up positions in the Assembly. Mr. McNarry, who stood with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann at Castle Buildings after the agreement was signed, said:
  "We are not going to be softies on this issue."
  Those commitments stated that there had to be decommissioning before Sinn Fein got into government. They declared that Sinn Fein could not get into government if it did not renounce violence for good. There is no such provision in the Bill. The only provisions in the Bill are either that Sinn Fein will put up its hands and surrender, saying, "No, we cannot take the pledge of office, because it requires us to have given up violence for good"; or that the Assembly will take a political vote that puts Sinn Fein out of, or excludes it from, office. On that basis, Sinn Fein would have to vote itself out of, or exclude itself from, office, or the SDLP would have to do it. Can anyone honestly see the SDLP voting to put Sinn Fein out of the Government of Northern Ireland? I do not think that that is a remote possibility.
  In a previous debate on the sentences legislation, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made it clear that he wanted the Executive to be inclusive, and that no preconditions should be set down in terms of membership of that Executive. As far as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the First Minister designate of Northern Ireland are concerned, their pledges have not been honoured in the Bill. They have once again betrayed the people of Northern Ireland.
  Apart from there being no effective means of excluding or removing people from the Government of Northern Ireland, another promise was made to the people of the Province. They were told in clear terms by both the Prime Minister and the First Minister designate that the north-south body would be accountable to the Assembly. I challenge the Government to show where the Bill states that the north-south body or the implementation bodies will be subject to the will of the Assembly.
  There was considerable discussion about clause 26 in the draft legislation. I noticed hon. Members around the Chamber looking with some bewilderment at clause 26 of the present Bill, but, of course, the original clause is not there. Clause 26 of the draft Bill stated:
  "A Minister or Northern Ireland department may…consult on any matter with any authority in Ireland…enter into agreements or arrangements with any such authority in respect of any transferred matter".
  We made it clear to the draftsmen that that went well beyond even the scope of the agreement. The clause gave power directly to Ministers to enter into arrangements and agreements with their counterparts in the Irish Republic
  866
  or with any authority in the Irish Republic. Ministers would not be accountable to the Assembly or their Executive colleagues.
  Mr. Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Ministers' decisions and agreements should be subject to ratification by the rest of the Assembly?
  Mr. Robinson: I believe that the work of the north-south body and the implementation bodies should be subject to the will of the Assembly, but it is not under this Bill. It is essential that those bodies are brought under the Assembly's authority.
  The wording of clause 66 in the current legislation is almost identical to that of the old clause 26. It uses the same words, with a slightly different introduction regarding participation. The Minister must—not only for my edification but for the benefit of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who is concerned that clause 26 has disappeared—tell us what the effect of clause 66 will be. Under that clause, can a Minister make an agreement or arrangement—albeit one that does not require legislative input—with his counterpart in the Irish Republic without the north-south body's being aware of it or the Assembly's approving of it? That is a simple question, and I hope that the Minister will respond before the debate concludes.
  Hon. Members referred to several matters in relation to Northern Ireland's constitutional position, which is outlined principally in the Bill's opening clauses. It is very clear that, far from the Bill's leaving Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, it introduces a transitional state. The Bill moves Northern Ireland from its full and rightful place within the United Kingdom out on to a limb; it is being pushed towards an all-Ireland state. That is undoubtedly the Bill's political intention, and I believe that its provisions will encourage that eventuality.
  As far as the Union with Ireland Act 1800 is concerned, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann told us at the time of the referendum that it would be unaffected. That was clearly a misleading statement. Clause 2 makes it very clear that the Act is affected: it is superseded by this Bill. That is the whole import of clause 2.
  Clause 1 makes it clear that the Secretary of State may call a poll if she believes that people might wish to leave the United Kingdom and form a united Ireland.
  Why should going into a united Ireland be the only option for which the House would legislate? Is the House taking upon itself the right to say, "We shall divorce Northern Ireland and at the same time tell the people of Northern Ireland with whom they will have to live"? That seems an outrageous proposition for the Government to put forward.
  If the Government are saying that if the people of Northern Ireland want to leave the United Kingdom, they will make the necessary arrangements for them to do so, they are entitled to do so. However, they are not entitled to say, "If the only option is to go into a united Ireland, you can go in that direction, but anything else is outside the ambit of what the House is prepared to legislate for." The House does not have a right to say to the people of Northern Ireland, "We shall allow you to leave the United Kingdom but only if you go into a united Ireland," and allow them to do so only by simple majority voting in a poll.

  867
  When voting is referred to elsewhere in the Bill, we find references to cross-community voting, consensus voting and parallel voting. Those are the requirements. However, when it comes to leaving the United Kingdom, a simple majority of one will be sufficient, thank you very much.
  It seems outrageous that everyday decisions must be made on the basis of consensus because it is believed that consensus is required in a community as divided as Northern Ireland, but the most major and fundamental change in the life of the people of Northern Ireland—taking Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and into a united Ireland—can take place by means of a simple vote. That is an absurdity: I trust that the Government will examine the amendments that are tabled on that issue, and allow either a weighted vote, as is done in many constitutional votes throughout the world, or a cross-community vote in the Assembly before a poll can be called under schedule 1.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  8.59 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: On moving the Second Reading, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that this was an historic Bill. I think that that is a true description of it. The Bill will lead to statute law that will embrace and embody an historic agreement, which I call the Good Friday agreement, which was so painstakingly constructed line by line over two difficult and demanding years.
  However, the tenor of the terms of that agreement took much longer to develop and evolve, to identify the problems that we faced and the solutions that might apply to them, and to establish a consensus on the relationships that must be addressed within the north of Ireland, within Ireland, and within the east and west.
  The agreement is soundly founded on the pillars of non-violence, equality of treatment and esteem, full participation by the greatest cross-section of the people's representatives and a sound endorsement by the vast majority of the people of Ireland, north and south.
  I hope that the Bill will enable the two communities in Northern Ireland to work in harmony together for the greater good, without the fear of domination or the fear of total victory by one side over the other. It is my hope that, by this working together, we in Northern Ireland can evolve to a normal democratic society that is free of violence, intimidation and sectarianism.
  My party, by its strict adherence to only democratic and peaceful methods of political persuasion, has clearly illustrated the utter futility of violence and coercion. My response to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who is not in his place, is that the history of my party clearly illustrates its total abhorrence of violence from any quarter. The guarantees that the hon. and learned Gentleman and others have mentioned that are required from my party were fully implemented when it signed the Good Friday agreement, which itself is an eschewing of any attempt to use violence, or the threat of violence, for the pursuance of a political objective. The hon. and learned Gentleman
  868
  mentioned many events that seemed to prove that certain parties to the agreement were thwarting or violating their commitment to the agreement.
  I am not privy to the intimacies and nuances that construct the IRA, but I understand, as an outsider, that many of the bombings and atrocities that have been referred to were conducted by the very people who are trying to bring down the agreement, who call themselves the Continuity IRA or some other such name. As a lay person in that context, I do not accept that there is collusion between the two. There may be, but I can make a judgment only from where I stand.
  The coercion and the violence pursued by others have been at great cost to human life, limb and property. It has left us a legacy of great personal tragedies and trauma, which will take many years to assuage. The violence of loyalist and republican paramilitaries was the greatest single hindrance to finding an accommodation between the communities to enable us to move forward.
  The coming together in the Assembly of a wide spectrum of political representatives—an executive and administrative Assembly for the people of Northern Ireland, with its north-south and east-west dimensions—is the vehicle by which we can learn to work, to live and to evolve socially and politically together. The struggle towards that consensus has been difficult amid violence, which touched almost every family, and sectarianism, which poisoned nearly every relationship.
  It has now been clearly shown that violence in Ireland can achieve nothing in political terms or in respect of political advancement, and that it was an obstacle to agreement. Unfortunately, individuals and small groups will think that there is a future for the use of violence, but we, as a community that is knitting together, can eschew those people and deal with them as we evolve into political maturity.
  The acceptance of the validity of divergent political aspirations and the holding of each in equal esteem will enable us to set aside the constitutional debate as the primary matter of our political debate. Although the constitutional aspirations of all will always remain a valid and laudable objective, the way is clear for much more meaningful dialogue about economic development, social care and the evolution of our society into more normal forms of democracy and relationships. The expansion of our horizons beyond the Six Counties to the whole of Ireland through north-south and intergovernmental administerial bodies, and their further expansion to the Council of the Isles and to western Europe, will enable us to progress more comprehensively and cohesively to the development of the new society to which I have referred.
  It is important to consider the Good Friday agreement and the Bill not as a solution but as the beginning of a process to address the problems that have dogged us for so long. We in Northern Ireland are being given the opportunity to address our economic and social ills by ourselves and to participate in the broader outreaches of our relationships within the island and with our neighbours.
  That new beginning is an opportunity for us all, but it is also a challenge for us all. I hope that those who oppose, find fault with and, indeed, in many ways fear the agreement will give it a fair trial, because it is the will of the people of Northern Ireland, and the will of the people of the Republic of Ireland, that it be given a fair trial.

  869
  Many assets and advantages can be obtained through the agreement and working together for the common good of north and south.
  The Bill translates as best it can the delicate and intricate agreements of the three relationships in the Good Friday agreement. Many aspects of the Bill require further teasing out and, like other hon. Members, I note the Secretary of State's intention to listen carefully and with a sympathetic ear to what has been said, and to table amendments to the Bill, if that is appropriate and necessary.
  Valid concerns have been expressed by the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Committee on the Administration of Justice about the human rights clauses of the Bill; they must be listened to, and those fears must be addressed in dealing with the component parts of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. Groups dealing with equality of opportunity, gender equality and disability legislation feel threatened by embodiment in the greater umbrella of the Equality Commission. If the Secretary of State, as she hinted at the Dispatch Box in answer to a question, could produce amendments that would ensure that those separate and distinct executive functions of the Equality Commission could be seen to be self-standing, that would go a long way towards addressing those concerns.
  My party welcomes the Bill as an expression of many years of labour, endeavour and suffering. Members of my party have been the victims of the violence which we are accused of insidiously or half-heartedly supporting. No other party in the north of Ireland has evolved from a non-violent origin. Those who try, by snide innuendo, to attribute to my party support, tacit or otherwise, for violence do us and the community that we represent a grave injustice.
  We have struggled hard over many years in difficult circumstances to keep burning the light of democracy and persuasion which are the only way forward in Ireland. Indeed, we would go so far as to claim that our single-track mindedness has enabled us to persuade people who had taken violence as a way forward to see that it was not in their interests, or the interests of the people whom they were supposed to represent, and that the only way to make progress as a society in Ireland was through the democratic process. I resent being classified as a fellow traveller of violence.
  My party will support the Bill. We cannot tonight go into the details of the amendments that we shall table, but I hope that, at the end of the long sittings that we shall have over the next two weeks, the Bill will give full expression to the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland, which were expressed clearly in the referendum, despite what was said to the contrary.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I am one of the Northern Ireland Members who voted against the agreement. On the constitutional issues, as a Unionist I support the Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland because it is in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, regardless of their religion or political affiliation. In social and economic terms, Northern Ireland is better off within the United Kingdom. I was born a British citizen, and I want to remain one.
  How does the Bill strengthen my British citizenship? I believe that it weakens my position as a British citizen by placing a question mark over it. Clause 1 provides for
  870
  a poll to be held, at the whim of the Secretary of State, to determine whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom or join a united Ireland. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, the only alternative that we are given to remaining within the United Kingdom is to be part of a united Ireland. There are other options that the people of Northern Ireland could pursue, but the Bill contains no provision for the Secretary of State to take those into account. It simply confers on the Secretary of State the right at any time to hold a poll if he or she believes that a majority would vote in favour of a united Ireland. That is significant. Why does a united Ireland appear to be the only alternative to remaining within the United Kingdom? Could it be that this process is designed gradually to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom? That question must be answered.
  Many Unionists are wrongly accused of being paranoid about a united Ireland. I do not believe that a united Ireland is feasible from an economic or social perspective. The United Kingdom is a multicultural, multi-ethnic society and can best accommodate the cultural differences and the diversity of identities that exist in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that a united Ireland could ever accommodate that diversity of culture and identity. Based on what I read in the Bill, I believe that there is an agenda on which a united Ireland is the only alternative to remaining part of the United Kingdom. That must be challenged.
  I welcome the establishment of an Assembly. Unionists have long strived for that, because we wanted the restoration of proper, local, democratic government on a par with other parts of the United Kingdom, which we have not had in Northern Ireland since 1972. However, I am concerned about the manner of the Assembly. I am afraid that it will be hamstrung by the enormous number of checks and balances that have been built into the system. There is a real danger that the Assembly will get—to use local parlance—bogged down with those checks and balances.
  Unfortunately, the degree and extent of those checks and balances militate against the building of trust between the two traditions in Northern Ireland. They build into the system the notion that Unionists and nationalists are distinct and different. The voting strengths in the Assembly will be perpetuated, and the divisions in Northern Ireland will continue in perpetuity because of those checks and balances. Is that the way we should go? Will those checks and balances lead to a healthy, proper democracy in the Assembly?
  My most major concern is that people who are linked to terrorist organisations will become Ministers in the government of Northern Ireland. The prospect of the representatives of Sinn Fein-IRA holding ministerial positions in the government of Northern Ireland is an affront to democracy. Sinn Fein-IRA have not wholly embraced the democratic process. They are not fully committed to exclusively peaceful means.
  I shall refer to two incidents that occurred at the weekend, when the IRA were supposed to be under a ceasefire. The family of Mr. Andrew Kearney are in no doubt—even if the Secretary of State is—about who murdered him. They say that it was the IRA who murdered him, as does the organisation Families Against Intimidation and Terror, but the Secretary of State has to wait for the evidence. It is a pity that she did not wait for the evidence on the murders of the Quinn family in

  871
  Ballymoney before she and others pointed the finger and demonised the Orange institution. I condemned those murders in the House last week: they were tragic and despicable murders, as was the murder of Mr. Kearney. The political representatives of the IRA, who are accused of murdering Mr. Kearney by his family and by Families Against Intimidation and Terror may soon become Ministers in the government of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Vincent McKenna was assaulted on the Ormeau road. He was prepared, from a republican perspective, to put his head above the parapet and criticise Sinn Fein. His reward was to be beaten up by an IRA gang. The Secretary of State wants evidence. Is Mr. McKenna's evidence not good enough? He says that he recognised some of his assailants as senior members of the IRA. Is that not evidence on which the Secretary of State could base her conclusions about the IRA's commitment to exclusively peaceful means?
  The reality is that there is no effective means by which Sinn Fein-IRA will be prevented from taking up a ministerial position in Northern Ireland in a few weeks' time. That is a major deficiency in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) said, the Government have failed to provide an effective mechanism to exclude from the holding of office—not just to remove from office—those who have not committed themselves to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The evidence exists that the IRA is not committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in the terms of the Bill, if the Unionists were not prepared to vote in cross-community terms, this House—and others—would immediately accuse them of being those who had brought the Bill to an end, rather than the terrorists who have been trying to do that all along?
  Mr. Donaldson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but the test will soon come. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), who is not present now, said that no one could question the commitment of the SDLP to peaceful means. We shall see. Soon, the SDLP will be required to vote on whether Sinn Fein-IRA should hold ministerial positions. We shall then see whether the SDLP is prepared to demonstrate the fulness of its commitment. In my opinion, Sinn Fein-IRA is not fit to hold government office in Northern Ireland.
  The Bill proposes that a north-south ministerial council be established, because that was part of the agreement. The establishment of the council provides for co-operation between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Government.
  I have some anxieties about the ministerial council. I do not see in the Bill the kind of accountability that we were promised. We were told that the council would be fully accountable to the Northern Ireland assembly, but I do not see that explicitly expressed in the Bill in the way in which I, along with others—including colleagues who are members of the assembly—would like it to be expressed. I think that the Government will have to examine the whole question of accountability.
  Many share my fear that Irish nationalists hope to use the north-south ministerial council as a means of creating an all-Ireland dimension that will be about the creation of
  872
  an all-Ireland Government, through the harmonisation of Northern Ireland with the Irish Republic and through the creation of all-Ireland executive bodies. That is what these so-called implementation bodies are: they are all-Ireland executive bodies. They will be given power by this Parliament to exercise power and authority over the whole of the island of Ireland. Those who have said that there are not all-Ireland bodies with executive powers need to read the Bill, and need to understand that there is provision for the creation of all-Ireland bodies with executive powers. I have no doubt that Irish nationalists will want the process to be accelerated to the point at which we have, in effect, an all-Ireland Government.
  Clause 68 provides for the Secretary of State to empower the implementation bodies, but one wonders what will happen if the assembly collapses. Will the implementation bodies be disbanded or prorogued, or will they continue to exist? The agreement provides for the assembly and the north-south ministerial council to be totally interdependent—one cannot operate without the other—but what of the implementation bodies? Can the implementation bodies operate if the assembly collapses? We need to know, but the Bill does not spell it out. The real reason for the Assembly and the north-south ministerial council being interdependent is so that Unionists will have to acquiesce in the evolution of an all-Ireland Government if they are to retain their positions in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  I have concerns about the Bill which carry over from my concerns about the agreement. I make it quite clear that my view, which is shared by many of my colleagues, is that, as democrats, we will not countenance the holding of ministerial office in the government of Northern Ireland by those who are linked to terrorist organisations that continue to be responsible for murder and violence on the streets of Northern Ireland. We will not support that, and I hope that the Government will step back, look at the Bill and ensure that terrorists and their political representatives do not become Ministers in Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom.
  9.25 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) puts a perfectly legitimate Unionist case for strengthening the United Kingdom, but, with respect, he overlooks profound constitutional change throughout the United Kingdom. The UK has changed, largely as a result of the Scottish referendum decision on 11 September last year and the Welsh referendum. In terms of constitutional reform, this will prove to be a remarkable year in parliamentary history.
  I offer my sincere compliments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to her ministerial colleagues and to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and I gratefully acknowledge the small number of Northern Ireland political representatives who have sought to bring about constitutional reform through peaceable and democratic principles and methods.
  The Secretary of State said that the Bill is a constitutional milestone, but that is an understatement. She is aware of my view that the Assembly should be housed in a new building. We in Scotland are to have a new Scottish Parliament which will result from an international architectural competition. I thought that the

  873
  model that was presented by a Scots firm should have won the competition, but the Secretary of State for Scotland and his estimable colleagues chose a firm of Spanish architects.
  Hon. Members have spoken about a future debate between the United Kingdom and a united Ireland. Perhaps that debate will focus on the issue of federalism versus a united Ireland. In Scotland, the more intelligent elements of the chattering classes are debating federalism versus separatism. Matters are changing dramatically. The Northern Ireland Bill, with the Scottish and Welsh legislation, will have profound intended and unintended consequences. For example, the House will experience considerable change over the next year. I assume that Grand Committees and some Select Committees and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland questions will disappear. This House will pass no Northern Ireland, Scottish or Welsh legislation and eventually, whether some of us like it or not, as a result of such constitutional reform, we shall have to discuss a reduction in the number of Northern Ireland, Welsh and Scottish Members.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Godman: No. I have waited too long to make a speech of a few minutes. The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me on this occasion. I usually give way to the charming fellow.
  In the years ahead, we shall not be able to duck a debate on such reductions.
  I have reservations about a number of clauses. For example, clause 10 states that the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland will refer conflicts between the Northern Ireland Assembly and Westminster to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. When we debated the Scotland Bill, I suggested that there should be a national constitutional court made up of representatives from Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England. That idea was dismissed, but I still believe that it is worth arguing for.
  Clause 27—about which I completely disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)—allows for vacancies in the Assembly to be filled through by-elections, substitutes or any
  "other method…as the Secretary of State thinks fit."
  I long to see a Northern Ireland Assembly, a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly discussing and legislating on everyday matters. As in other assemblies and Parliaments, vacancies should be filled only through by-elections. I disagree with the idea that substitutes should be found to fill vacancies.
  Clause 62—I have made known my views on this—should be extended to include other forms of discrimination. It mentions only religious belief or political opinion, but I believe that that definition must be widened. Part VII deals with the creation of a British-Irish council. Despite what has been said, that council must eventually lead to the demise of the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body.
  I think that we are on something of a constitutional helter-skelter, and I am delighted to support the Bill, just as I was to support the Scotland and Government of Wales Bills. I have some reservations, but the United Kingdom will never be the same—and thank heavens for that.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: I begin by reiterating the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) in congratulating both the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) on their election—or selection—as First Minister and Deputy First Minister of the incipient Assembly.
  I also congratulate the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire Mr. Öpik)—unfortunately, he is no longer in the Chamber—on his return to the Opposition Benches. He was much missed in Committee considerations of Northern Ireland business, and it is good to see him back more or less in one piece. He said—it may have been a throwaway comment—that he hoped that the Conservatives would participate constructively. The Government have admitted that the Bill was prepared in record time. It is not a Scotland Bill mark II or even a Government of Wales Bill mark II; it is unique, not least because Northern Ireland had a Parliament for almost 50 years. I reiterate the Conservative party's support for the agreement. Conservative Members want the Assembly to work, and to work well, but a rushed Bill will always have defects and difficulties, and the duty of the House is to ensure proper scrutiny, especially when legislation has had to be put together in such a limited time.
  Many hon. Members have alluded to the difficulties in the detail. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, like other hon. Members, queried clause 66, which deals with the establishment of the north-south ministerial council and the British-Irish council. He questioned whether the wording of the Bill was true to earlier agreed drafts in the talks process leading to the Belfast agreement. The hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) challenged clause 23, which deals with the exclusion of Ministers. They pointed to an interpretation whereby the clause could exclude Ministers only once they were in place, and could not prevent them from taking up their posts at the outset.
  Furthermore, we heard from the Secretary of State's own lips—I wrote this down at the time and hope that it is accurate according to Hansard—that the Bill was needed, among other things, to fill a number of "practical gaps" in the agreement. I trust that that was not a slip of the tongue, because I agree with those sentiments whole-heartedly. No agreement can hope to cover all the practical aspects of making it work on the ground. Many of them will, by their very nature, be legalistic. They need to be specific, incapable of misinterpretation, and clear to all parties to the agreement. That should be the aim of the House and those of us who have elected to scrutinise the Bill.
  We welcome the Secretary of State's admission at the outset that the Bill is not yet finalised and that the Government are open to constructive amendments. I give an assurance from the Opposition Benches that that is our intention. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.
  The relationship that is crucial to the success of the Assembly under strand 1 was referred to by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh; it is the Ulster Unionist-SDLP axis. I have seen it working for many years in Northern Ireland, particularly at local council level. Both sides of

  875
  the community—nationalist and Unionist—have worked together in community groups and on partnership boards, particularly the one in Londonderry and the one in Belfast, so I have no qualms about believing that the two political parties can work together at the higher level of the new Assembly.
  I should think that the objective of all Governments since 1974 has been to end the direct rule that was implemented at that time. I should say that direct rule itself has achieved several things: it has been fair; it has been efficient, in the main; and it has been an effective method of government. I do not agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann who referred to bad government and to the running down of the civil service during the period of direct rule.
  Of course, there were defects. Much of the legislation was passed by Order in Council, which did not enable local Members of Parliament to have much of a say. Also, Ministers were often not local. Indeed, I was accused of being a carpetbagger when I first arrived in Northern Ireland. Ministers in Northern Ireland have considerable power, but little direct accountability is seen on the ground. There is no local government in Northern Ireland on the level that exists in the rest of the United Kingdom. All this leads to a democratic deficit. It is the aim of the agreement and of the Bill, which seeks to give a legal framework to that agreement, to put right that democratic deficit.
  We have tabled some 39 amendments to date, and one new clause. There will no doubt be more. Indeed, many have been promised in this debate. There have been numerous hurdles on the way to a settlement in Northern Ireland, beginning, as many have said today, with the work done by the previous Conservative Government and culminating in the Belfast agreement and the referendum. Each new hurdle seems to loom larger.
  We now have the critical responsibility of ensuring that the legal framework on which the successful working of the Northern Ireland Assembly, among other things, will rest, is written in an unambiguous and unequivocal way that is understood and accepted by everyone who is wholly committed to peaceful means and the democratic process. It is indeed a mammoth undertaking, and we need to get it right.
  I trust that the Government will realise that those sentiments are what lay behind the Opposition's stance on the Bill. If a constructive approach is being invited, the Government will not find Opposition Members backward in coming forward.
  9.39 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): I very much agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). As he said, in the next fortnight, we will be considering amendments to the Bill, in Committee, on Report, and in the other place.
  This Bill is very different in its conception and in the approach taken to it by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is based squarely on, and incorporates,
  876
  the agreement. It has been endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland: we hope, therefore, that it incorporates not only the words but the spirit of the agreement.
  As events have happened in record time—the agreement was reached in April; the referendum was held in May; elections to the Assembly and its first meeting occurred in June and July—the Bill, which has more than 80 clauses and many schedules, will inevitably have to be amended. The Government will not only have to pass their own amendments: we will have to take into account sensible amendments made by the official Opposition and by hon. Members from other parties, particularly those representing Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Mackinlay: And from the Labour party.
  Mr. Murphy: At the beginning of this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised the issue of by-elections and substitutes. Although I shall return to that issue in Committee, I can tell him now that the House and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed that substitutes rather than by-elections represented the proper way of dealing with vacancies, as that system will maintain the Assembly's balance. There may indeed be a case for by-elections—for example, if no substitutes are offered, or if substitutes refuse to take seats—when vacancies have to be filled. By-elections may be held in such cases. We will also have to take into account the Registration of Political Parties Bill. Moreover, paragraph 6 of schedule 14 to the Northern Ireland Bill will ensure that orders that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may have to produce will remain in force after devolution.
  The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) made a very interesting and useful speech. He said that the House should keep a close interest in Northern Ireland—and, of course, we shall. He also raised a matter of concern to himself and the Conservative party—removal and exclusion from ministerial office in Northern Ireland. On Thursday, there will be considerable debate on that matter. However, for now, I shall say simply that the agreement essentially says that the Assembly will decide whether Ministers should be excluded from office. It seems to be clear that that is what both the agreement and the Bill say. Several hon. Members have raised that issue.
  We will have to examine the pledge of office—which mentions non-violence—and ways in which the Assembly itself can deal with matters on cross-community votes. We will have also to consider the points that the Prime Minister made in Balmoral, outside Belfast, which are included in the Bill, and, in forming a judgment and informing the Assembly's presiding officer, my right hon. Friend will have to take into account whether she thinks that those matters have been breached. We will have a full-scale debate on those matters on Thursday, when I am sure other points will be made.
  I particularly agreed with the right hon. Member for Bracknell when he said that the principle of consent is uppermost in the Bill. At its very start, the Bill refers to the fact that only the majority of the people Northern Ireland, by consent, will decide their fate. It is so important that that principle is mentioned at the very start of the Bill, incorporating the agreement itself.

  877
  The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made an interesting and important speech in his new capacity as First Minister for Northern Ireland. He made detailed references to the executive powers in the Bill, particularly those in clause 18. I can tell him that they relate only to the prerogative and other powers that are vested in Her Majesty and exercised by the First Minister and his deputy. They may be exercised through the Department, but most ministerial powers are vested in statute and are not affected by the clause. We shall, however, consider the matter further in Committee.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred—as did other hon. Members—to clauses 66 to 68 and the relationship between the Assembly and the north-south ministerial council. As he knows, the initial implementation bodies are to be agreed in a shadow north-south ministerial council. They will be established by formal agreement between the two Governments with legislation by order under clause 68. After devolution, the Assembly will have full power to enter into further agreements by virtue of schedule 2(3)(b). Any legislative or financial consequences of such agreements must have the agreement of the Assembly. Ministers are bound by the pledge of office to act in accordance with any decisions of the Executive Committee. No laws can be passed and no money can be spent by the Assembly on matters regarding the affairs of the north-south ministerial council unless the Assembly is in agreement. Again, I am sure that we will consider that in further detail in Committee.
  I have sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's point about Orders in Council, as would any democrat. However, there are difficulties regarding business in the House that we have to consider in the next few weeks. Inevitably, the amount of business involving Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be less than it was before devolution, but we shall have to consider the matter. I know that, for many years, the right hon. Gentleman and others have made the point that Orders in Council, which are unamendable, are not as good as ordinary Bills which have to undergo the full legislative process.
  The right hon. Gentleman also raised the vexed issue of the Equality Commission, which has raised its head across the Floor of the House today. We shall look particularly at his point regarding the absence of reference to the relationship between the Assembly and the Equality Commission. There may well be a department for equality, but whatever the circumstances, there is a relationship, and it needs to be examined. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the one-stop shop. It makes sense for those who are troubled by matters with which the Equality Commission deals—equal opportunities for women, matters concerning disabled people, fair employment or whatever—to be able to consult one umbrella organisation to find out how they are affected as individuals and beyond that.
  A number of hon. Members have said that the structures that incorporate the Equality Commission and other bodies should not disappear completely, but I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has found a compromise between an Equality Commission and the other directorates. That is another matter to be considered later.
  878
  We shall consider carefully the points made by the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the financial provisions. There is no intention of moving away from the Barnett formula for Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, but we need to examine the matter further.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) raised a number of issues. I pay tribute to his work as chairman of the British-Irish Parliamentary Body. I am sure that no hon. Member can match his condemnation of terrorism. He made a significant speech. We certainly have to consider carefully what happens to the British-Irish Inter-parliamentary Body once the Assembly has taken on its full powers. I believe that it will have an enhanced role in another capacity, so we shall have to wait to see how it operates.
  We are pleased to see the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) back in the House discussing Northern Ireland matters. He was quite right to say that the Bill gives the people of Northern Ireland a golden opportunity to govern themselves.
  I agree that we will have the summer months to reflect on possible improvements to the Bill. I should emphasise that, owing to the gap between the consideration of the Bill in this House and in the other place, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, ministerial colleagues and I will have an opportunity to consult political parties, particularly those in Northern Ireland, as well as others represented in the House and other bodies, on where we go on issues of controversy and concern.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) also spoke in a different capacity—as Deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland, for what I suspect was the first time. We all agreed with him when he said that we are entering a new era of trust and agreement. He was right to say that he, and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, the First Minister, represent the two main traditions in Northern Ireland. He also rightly pointed to their enormous work load over the next few months and weeks. They are charged by the Assembly with producing reports on departmental portfolios and the north-south ministerial council by 14 September.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh highlighted the human and financial cost of the past few weeks. He also made specific reference to clause 66, which has replaced clause 26. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised the same issue. I should like to deal with both their points. The north-south ministerial council is to be formally established under the British-Irish agreement by an exchange of notes between the two Governments. The Bill provides the necessary legislative basis for the ministerial council to operate. Schedule 2 confers full powers on the Assembly and Northern Ireland Ministers to enter arrangements and agreement with the Irish Government. The draft clause 26, to which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh referred, re-enacted section 12 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, but, on further reflection, it was felt that clause 66 more properly reflected the agreement. Indeed, it allows only agreements in the context of the north-south ministerial council.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was right to point out—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—what he thought were several omissions on human rights. The agreement is silent on some aspects of the Human Rights Commission, such as

  879
  the right to call witnesses in evidence. It is certainly the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consult Northern Ireland parties further during the next two months precisely because the agreement is not clear on the issue.
  We all agree entirely with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that the civic forum should play a vital role in the new process. I know that he and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann are charged with establishing guidelines on how it should operate.
  The hon. Member for North Antrim spoke of the removal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. It is replaced by clause 1, which accentuates and emphasises the principle of consent. The hon. Gentleman knows that articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution have changed, too. I covered earlier his point about clauses 26 and 66.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North raised the issue of the Equality Commission, to which I have already referred. The Fair Employment Commission and the bodies that represent voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland are very much in favour of an Equality Commission. We believe that the four chief executives of the current commissions can shape the structure of the new commission to such an extent that we can arrive at a sensible compromise. I agree with my hon. Friend on the need to consider clause 79 in the light of the Tinnelly case.
  The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, made a very useful and important speech. He rightly referred to the financial aspects of the Bill and the need for proper scrutiny of spending, the need to combat fraud and corruption and the need for the House to be able properly to oversee Northern Ireland expenditure. He made comparisons with Scotland and Wales. We have taken considerable note of what he said. He can rest assured that, in Committee and beyond, we shall be taking the matters very seriously into account and will come back to him on them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) welcomed the measures on equality and made a useful comparison with Scotland. She is a great supporter of the political developments in Northern Ireland in recent months.
  The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) referred to my party's 1988 policy document on Northern Ireland. He and I have discussed the issue many times. I suspect that we shall continue to disagree, but I assure him that our policy has changed. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister were responsible for that change. A glance at the relevant documents shows considerable differences between our policy then and our policy now on issues such as agreement by consent in Northern Ireland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Scotland—[HON MEMBERS: "Kilmarnock and Loudoun."] I was out of the Chamber at the time. I have "My hon. Friend for Des Browne" written here, which is not right either. He made some important points. He asked why clauses 61 and 62 were different. We have had a look at that and we are not quite sure ourselves, so we shall come back to him on the reasons, particularly for the differences between the 1973 Act and clause 61. His points on human rights and
  880
  equality have been taken into account. He also raised schedule 5 to the Scotland Bill. As for Scotland, broadcasting is reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament, as laid out in paragraph 25 of schedule 3.
  The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) made a number of interesting points. We shall take most of them into account. He is right that the Human Rights Commission must look at its budget carefully and spend the money as wisely as possible. Spending on the British-Irish council will be a matter for the two Governments. We do not think that that will require a great deal of money, but legislation will not be necessary. I hope to meet representatives from Jersey, the Isle of Man and Guernsey this week. I am sure that I shall find time in my busy diary to do so, perhaps in their respective islands.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) also referred to British-Irish relations. We shall take his points into account. I pay tribute to his long involvement in relations between this country and the Republic of Ireland.
  I did not agree with most of what the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, but he never expected me to. He will have an opportunity to raise the issues about which he spoke, particularly clause 23, on Thursday.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) made an interesting and passionate speech. I agree that we should give the agreement a fair trial.
  The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) talked about consent. I do not agree with his interpretation of the agreement. The Assembly has checks and balances and we shall consider the issue as we progress.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) made several useful and important points, as did the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. We shall deal with those in Committee.
  The past two weeks have seen some horrific events in Northern Ireland, with many despairing of the future. However, the will for change is too strong to go back to those conflicts and terrible tensions of the past 30 years. The people in Northern Ireland have voted for a new political landscape. The agreement was based fairly and squarely on an agreement that the parties forged—not the Irish Government or the British Government, but the Northern Ireland political parties. That is the strength of the agreement, allowing communities to work together and laying down sensible co-operation arrangements between both parts of the island and between the two islands, tackling the great issues of human rights and equality.
  Above all, the Bill gives back to all the people of Northern Ireland the right to govern themselves, and now in a way that respects both traditions. The Assembly is up and running, and the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are in office. We pay tribute to them for the wisdom and leadership that they have shown. They, like us, know that the agreement represents the hope and aspirations of all those in Northern Ireland who yearn for peace and stability for the generations to come.
  I unreservedly and enthusiastically commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 9.

  Division No. 340]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Allan, Richard

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Allen, Graham

  Darvill, Keith

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Davidson, Ian

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Baker, Norman

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Banks, Tony

  Dawson, Hilton

  Barron, Kevin

  Denham, John

  Battle, John

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dobbin, Jim

  Beard, Nigel

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Doran, Frank

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Dowd, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benton, Joe

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Berry, Roger

  Edwards, Huw

  Blackman, Liz

  Efford, Clive

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Boateng, Paul

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Follett, Barbara

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Foulkes, George

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Browne, Desmond

  Gapes, Mike

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burnett, John

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Byers, Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caborn, Richard

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Goggins, Paul

  Cann, Jamie

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gorrie, Donald

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hanson, David

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Hesford, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoey, Kate

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Home Robertson, John

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cotter, Brian

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cox, Tom

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle Lindsay

  882

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hutton, John

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morley, Elliot

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Mullin, Chris

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Norris, Dan

  Oaten, Mark

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Kemp, Fraser

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pendry, Tom

  Khabra, Piara S

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Pike, Peter L

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Plaskitt, James

  Laxton, Bob

  Pond, Chris

  Lepper, David

  Pope, Greg

  Levitt, Tom

  Pound, Stephen

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Purchase, Ken

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lock, David

  Radice, Giles

  Love, Andrew

  Rammell, Bill

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rapson, Syd

  McCabe, Steve

  Raynsford, Nick

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Rendel, David

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  McFall, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Rogers, Allan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rooker, Jeff

  MacKay, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  McLeish, Henry

  Ruane, Chris

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  McNulty, Tony

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  MacShane, Denis

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sawford, Phil

  Mallon, Seamus

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Maples, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Maxton, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Merron, Gillian

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Michael, Alun

  Spellar, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Milburn, Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  883

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stringer, Graham

  Wallace, James

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Watts, David

  Swinney, John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Willis, Phil

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilson, Brian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Winnick, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Todd, Mark

  Wise, Audrey

  Touhig, Don

  Wood, Mike

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wray, James

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tyler, Paul

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Vaz, Keith

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Gray, James

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Rev. Ian Paisley and

  Mr. Peter Robinson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to the Order [17 July].
  Committee tomorrow.

  NORTHERN IRELAND BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act;

  (b) the charging on, and payment out of, the Consolidated Fund of sums to be paid into the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland;

  (c) the issue out of the National Loans Fund of sums required by the Secretary of State for the making of advances to the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland;

  (d) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund.—[Mr. Dowd.]

  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  That the Special Grant Report (No. 36) (HC 823), which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.
  HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION
  That the draft Houses in Multiple Occupation (Charges for Registration Schemes) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.

  SPECIAL GRANT REPORT (WALES)
  That the Special Grant Report (No. 3) (Wales) 1998 (HC 832), which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [17 July],

  PUBLIC HEALTH (S.I., 1998, No. 1582)
  That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 2) Order 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 1582), dated 29th June 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.

  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Howard Flight be discharged from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and Mr. John Randall be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  HEALTH COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Andrew Lansley be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr. David Amess be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  SOCIAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Nick Gibb be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mr. Howard Flight be added to the Committee.—Mr. Mudie, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Waste Disposal (Essex)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  10.14 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am grateful for this opportunity to bring before the House the subject of waste disposal in Essex. I have requested this debate in order to discuss waste disposal in, but not by, Essex. Essex disposes of its waste in its own backyard, but the problems experienced in my constituency are caused largely by other counties disposing of their waste in Essex. I believe that they should process it in their own backyards.
  My constituency is situated in the south-east corner of Essex. It is the most heavily populated part of the county, and is situated on the north side of the Thames roughly 30 miles from London. It faces across the river to Kent. It is very close to the Dartford crossing, which is part of the M25 ring road and one of the most heavily trafficked areas in the country. For centuries, gravel and sand has been extracted from the river bed along the Thames estuary. That has left many large holes in the ground that are used mostly as landfill sites—although the Lakeside shopping centre is situated in one of them. That shopping centre has parking spaces for 12,000 cars, so one can appreciate the size of the hole.
  There is a large waste fill site in Pitsea in my constituency. Others are located in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is in his place, and in the delightfully named Mucking flats. Mucking flats is actually in the constituency of Basildon, but it used to be in my constituency, and, because it has such a wonderful name, I have become particularly fond of it, and often mention it in the House.
  My main concern is that the county of Kent, which is perfectly able to dispose of its own rubbish, has refused to open and use new landfill sites. It has twice refused to install incinerators in the county, and has chosen instead to move more rubbish across the Dartford crossing and deposit it in landfill sites in Essex. It already exports half a million tonnes of waste a year to Essex, and its present proposals would double that quantity.
  As a result, there would be an additional 200 heavy goods vehicle movements a day on the Dartford crossing. If one adds up those movements during a year, one sees how much traffic that decision would generate in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Thurrock. By 2010, Kent will have no more landfill space, so it will want to export an additional 1.5 million tonnes of waste to surrounding counties.
  Most of that rubbish could be processed easily within Kent—if not by landfill then by incineration, as I shall explain later. One can imagine the effect that large numbers of lorries would have on my county, which is already heavily industrialised. Shell Haven is located in Essex, and there are many oil transporter movements. Tilbury docks is situated nearby, and large container lorries move backwards and forwards in the area. We could well do without the extra traffic.
  A proposal for a waste from energy incinerator in the Erith and Crayford area of Kent was turned down by Kent county council on the ground that the facility was not
  886
  needed. That means that the waste will be transported across the river and dumped in my part of the world. Brian Griffiths, the director of Biffa waste—a major waste servicing company—said:
  "It is not acceptable that Essex should have to bear the cost of Kent's failure to provide for landfill. This is part of a dangerous trend for waste problems to be shunted from one community to another."
  The next problem we have is London, which produces 8 million tonnes of domestic and commercial waste every year. Most of that goes to surrounding counties, including Bedfordshire, but a great deal of it comes down the road into my part of Essex. Over 17,000 tonnes of it is transported by river, which is the sensible way to send it, to Mucking flats, where it is used for landfill. At least that keeps it off the road, but that is only a small part—about 20 per cent.—of the rubbish from London, because 80 per cent. comes by road and generates about 1,000 heavy goods vehicle movements in and around the London area each week.
  If that is multiplied by the amount of rubbish coming from Kent, the number of extra vehicles on the roads becomes clear. If the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions really wants to tackle the problem of overuse of the roads, he can well start by dealing with the rubbish that is being moved from one county to another when it could easily be dealt with in the counties that produce the rubbish.
  As a result of this transfer of rubbish, anyone travelling along the A13 or Al27—the major roads into my constituency—will see in the hedgerows plastic bags, which are blown out of heavy goods vehicles, many of them uncovered, as they return to Kent or London. The wind gets into the back of the lorry and whips up bags that have been stuck in the vehicle. As a result, black bags adorn the verges. We have some of the filthiest verges in the country, and we are not proud of that. One of my constituents said to me recently, "I am ashamed to invite friends to visit me in Essex because of the filthy state of the roadsides." I understand exactly what she means. The heavy goods vehicles leave a trail of plastic bags that we can do without.
  London is one of the main culprits in depositing its waste in other people's backyards. Essex county council will not tolerate this for ever. In fact, it is to stop other counties bringing their waste into Essex by 2011, which is not so very many years away. Essex will look after its own problems, but it will not be taking in rubbish from elsewhere, for which it does not have room.
  The opportunities for dealing with rubbish within the county that produces it are well discussed. The opportunities are either recycling, which is very fashionable, or composting, which may help with some domestic waste. In Essex, one can obtain a free composting bin. It is handed out gratis from the county council. I suppose that the bin is put outside one's back door and the kitchen waste is shoved into it. However, only a tiny and trivial amount of the rubbish can be dealt with in that way.
  There is the fashionable attitude that a great deal of rubbish can be recycled. Essex is very good at providing sites, and there are 23 major recycling sites in the county. I have been to see those involved in recycling, and I have spoken to the people employed at the recycling sites. Although official figures tell us that 40 per cent. of

  887
  rubbish is recyclable, those at the sites tell me that, in truth, only about 20 per cent. of it ends up in the recycling process.
  For example, there is no market for waste paper. It is too expensive to recycle it all by extracting the dyes and reusing it. Although people spend time in their cars travelling to recycling sites to dump waste paper, it ends up in landfill sites in the end. They might as well have put it in the dustbin. Apparently, plastic bottles cannot be recycled because there are many different kinds of plastic and it is too expensive to sort them. As a result, they end up in a landfill site.
  Although we do our best in Essex to recycle rubbish, that is not the answer. It is an environmentally friendly approach, but it is not the solution.
  Richard Sandbrook is a veteran "green", and was once a director of, or some prominent official in, I think, Friends of the Earth. He is now the director of the London-based independent research group, the International Institute for Environment and Development—goodness gracious me, what a title. He wrote an article recently that appeared in the New Scientist. It reads:
  "Much thinking on recycling is fundamentally flawed because environmentalists refuse to countenance any argument that undermines their sacred cow."
  Richard Sandbrook says that
  "truck movements transporting recyclables"
  and domestic waste and the car journeys of individual households going to and from the recycling site emit large amounts of the very substances which most people who object to incineration object to—carbon dioxide and all sorts of other bits and pieces. According to his research, they generate as much pollution as anything that is done to incinerate rubbish.
  Another gentleman, Matthew Leach, who is an energy policy analyst and a lecturer in environmental technology at Imperial college, wrote a good article in New Scientist in November. He said:
  "In terms of fossil fuel used to supply one tonne of paper in the UK, virgin paper accounts for roughly half as much energy as recycled paper."
  Both pieces of research undermine the idea that recycling is the answer to all our prayers.
  Mr. Bob Russell: The previous Conservative Government had national targets for recycled materials. Will the hon. Lady accept from me that collecting recyclable materials from the doorstep, as the council does in Colchester, is the way forward, and that we must recycle more materials? I was with her 100 per cent. when she criticised London and Kent, but I am parting company with her now.
  Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman restates the common perception that recycling can solve this problem, but experts are telling us that it cannot, and that it is a bit of a dream that we can recycle everything. The usual target is 40 per cent., so, by definition, 60 per cent. is not recycled. When we come down to it, only about 20 per cent. is recycled. I had that from the environmental officer in charge of recycling for Essex county council, and I am giving hon. Members his words, not mine.
  888
  Incineration is the bugbear. The two incineration plants in London cause no problems in their locality. The plant in Deptford has some of the latest technology, which was installed in 1994, and has no more effect on the community than would an ordinary factory with a chimney. It does not cause great trouble for the local people, there is not a "not in my backyard" attitude towards it, and it produces a genuinely useful product.
  The plant caters for Lewisham, Greenwich and other parts of south-east London; material comes from the streets nearby, so long-distance travel is not involved, and it produces electricity and heat energy. The waste product from the incineration is recycled—metals are extracted—and the ash that is left is used in building blocks, which are used for insulating houses, in tarmacking roads or for forming layers in landfill sites so that raw waste is bedded down.
  That is an environmentally friendly and useful way of carrying on. There are about 10 of those plants in the country—for example, in Nottingham, Middlesbrough, Dudley and the Tildasley area of Birmingham. There are also several in Sheffield. The technology has been developed in France, where it is extremely widely used by a company called Vivende. Its British offshoot is the south-east London combined heat and power consortium.
  The process is tried and tested, and the recycling unit is not a vast factory with a horrible chimney. Although I have never decided to do it, I am assured that a person could sit on the top of the chimney, breathe what comes out and not be damaged. I do not know whether one would last long enough to come down and tell the world about it.
  The main problem that people raise is that of dioxins. Those are chemical substances which, allegedly, are not filtered out. In a paper on dioxins and incineration, a leading authority, Professor Andrew Porteous of the Open university, says:
  "The risk from living near an incinerator is put at 7 in 10 million, something akin to being struck by lightning."
  He says that the dioxin release is extremely low—he gives the figure in nanograms, which most of us would not understand. To put it in context, he says that it is the equivalent of throwing a quarter of a sugar cube into Loch Ness. He obviously means to imply that an extremely small risk is involved, once the mechanism for recycling in modern units is understood.
  The Government must balance the demand of the environmental lobbyists, with the best will in the world—Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace—against the damage that is done by carting rubbish all over the country, in terms not just of the filthy exhaust fumes produced by the lorries, but the fact that they clutter up the roads. The environmentalists cannot have it both ways. If they are against the amount of traffic on the roads, they should welcome incineration and dealing with rubbish on site.
  My constituents are fed up to the back teeth with juggernauts trundling down country lanes on their way to landfill sites. They no longer want to tolerate that. In 10 or 12 years' time, we will not tolerate it. By that time, both London and Kent will have to deal with the problem in their own back yards.
  10.32 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I shall be brief, because the Minister wants to reply to the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) for

  889
  allowing me to speak in her debate. She has mentioned many places in my constituency, so it is incumbent on me to make some comments.
  First, I wholly agree with the hon. Lady about the need to stop the importation of waste into the county borough of Thurrock and the county of Essex from other areas. It is intolerable. My constituency is like a moonscape, having been exploited over many, many decades, and it is time that the exploitation of that part of Essex stopped.
  Secondly, although I sign up to the Government's strategy for the Thames gateway, I have some reservations. If the Thames corridor is to be built up, it is legitimate to ask where all the human and household waste will go. The Thames gateway strategy must not be considered in isolation.
  My third point is on incineration. The benefits of exploiting new technologies are not incompatible with the need for a recycling strategy. The two are inextricably linked and complementary.
  I realise that those on the Treasury Bench are anxious about the raising of matters in my constituency, so my final point is that the Government have an opportunity to have strong green credentials if they make the tipping of waste—landfill—very expensive, as other European countries have, and knock back the rapacious appetite of the aggregates industry, which wants to dig holes and exploit minerals, particularly in the south of Essex. That area has been exploited intolerably for too many decades.
  I hope that the Minister will feel able to say that the Government are prepared to say no to the exploitation of my part of Essex, to outline a bold recycling strategy, to use technologies to minimise waste, and to stop the importation of waste from other local authority areas that do not meet their obligations.
  10.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I have only about nine minutes to try to deal with these complex questions.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) on securing the debate. She clearly believes in slaughtering sacred cows: she did so on global warming the other day, and she is doing it again on recycling. I do not accept her pessimistic view that 20 per cent. is the maximum that can be attained by recycling. I have visited places where much higher levels are achieved. We must decide what is the best environmental option.
  I have considerable empathy with the issues that the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) have outlined. Essex faces a problem that is common to the south-east of England. Existing landfills, on which the area is heavily reliant, are filling up quickly, suitable new sites are in short supply, and the large landfill site at Mucking will reach the end of its planned life by the end of 2001. That has a significant effect on established patterns of waste disposal.
  Established patterns of waste disposal will be affected by the changes identified in our strategy document "Less Waste; More Value". One such change is the landfill directive, which we are currently negotiating with our European partners. It has two main thrusts. In addition to its welcome regulatory aspects, which should ensure a
  890
  high standard of landfill engineering and management across the European Union, it will set progressively diminishing limits on the landfill of biodegradable municipal waste, down to a maximum of 35 per cent. of the total amount of such waste produced in 1995 by the end of 2020.
  Perhaps that is a European directive which the hon. Lady can support. It will ensure that we consider other ways of disposing of waste. Essex has a particular problem because of its closeness to London, where many tonnes of waste are produced.
  Those measures will require developments in the treating of wastes by reduction at source, recycling, composting or incineration with energy recovery, which are all in the waste disposal hierarchy. We must plan for the introduction of new technologies and new infrastructures, which will enable us to make progress in meeting what are likely to be stringent targets under European Union directives.
  I appreciate the hon. Lady's concerns about the planning advice issued by the London planning advisory committee on waste management and its possible impact on Essex. I stress that that is not a Government proposal, and that its status is advisory. The hon. Lady will know that the plan, on which there have been consultations, proposes a moratorium on the building of new incinerators. It also suggests a high level of recycling—40 per cent. for London's waste, whereas currently only about 8 per cent. is recycled. The plan is very ambitious, and it still has to be discussed by the London boroughs and the outlying areas.
  We are considering the advice of the London planning advisory committee, and we shall respond in detail shortly. We have no fundamental difficulty with the aim of the guidance to minimise the amount of waste produced and to increase recycling, but we share the concerns to which the hon. Lady alluded and which have been expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) and for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) about how the proposed ambitious recycling targets, which form the basis of the advice, will be met, and, crucially, what will happen if they are not met.
  The London planning advisory committee has proposed a moratorium on all but small capacity incineration. The Government believe that high levels of energy from waste and recycling are compatible, and that they each have their place in the hierarchy of waste disposal. It should be possible for local authorities and other waste producers to ensure that their contracts with energy-from-waste plants allow for successful waste minimisation strategies.
  I visited SELCHP, and was impressed by the way in which the project was brought to fruition and the local community was brought on board—a member of the local community sits on the board. It has made a good start, and it is not worried or upset by the idea that London boroughs may be able to achieve high levels of recycling. It believes that that is compatible with its process of incinerating whatever cannot be recycled.
  However, as the hon. Lady said, we must consider the environmental effects of all the lorries that trundle around London taking waste to incinerators or landfill tips. I suspect that we must also consider the fact that the River Thames flows to the sea in order to establish what best use can be made of it. At present, waste

  891
  flows down the Thames on barges to the Mucking landfill site—although that will stop when the site is filled up.
  I recognise Essex county council's concern that London should take responsibility for a greater proportion for its waste, and the need to move away from its current reliance on landfill. I do not think that anyone would argue with that analysis; it is simply a question of how we get there from where we are now in the time available, and that will obviously take time. We are concerned about the development of an integrated strategic approach to waste management in the capital, given the split into 33 London boroughs that was introduced by the last Administration. That fractured the planning, and made it much more difficult for issues of this kind to be dealt with on a strategic basis.
  The creation of the Greater London authority is designed to tackle a fragmented and confusing picture. First and foremost, London needs a proper municipal waste strategy, which the new mayor for London will be required to produce. The mayor will be required to develop an integrated municipal waste management strategy for London. In drawing up the plan, he or she will need to have regard to the principles of sustainable development, and the best practicable environmental option.
  Such an option must take account of the fact that lorries may be carrying waste around, and of other strategies involving transport, air quality and economic development. He or she will have to consult all bodies affected, including authorities such as Essex and others surrounding London. The mayor will have to take account of the national waste strategy, and the boroughs' waste recycling plans; he or she will also have the power of direction over any non-compliant boroughs. In short, counties such as Essex will be consulted by the mayor as proposals are developed.
  892
  In the meantime, I remain concerned that decisions should not be made that close down options for the Greater London authority. There are two concerns. First, the final waste plans of neighbouring areas such as Essex must recognise a continuing need for some landfill outside the capital for treated waste. The GLA will obviously need sufficient time to consider the issue, and to develop its own waste strategy. We would be interested to hear from Essex county council what flexibility there is in its future plans to assist that.
  Secondly, we want proper consideration of the issue of river-borne waste transfer. The Thames currently provides an important route for the transport of the capital's waste, keeping some 500 heavy lorry movements a day off London's congested streets. The Government would like to get even more waste off the roads.
  "Less Waste; More Value" makes it clear that we are concerned about the risk of increased waste transport. Local authorities should think carefully about the full range of the implications of their decisions on waste—not just the cost and not just the direct impact of waste disposal on the environment, but factors such as emissions resulting from the transport of waste.
  I understand that the hon. Member for Billericay and the other Essex Members have been invited by the county council to a briefing meeting on waste issues in Essex, to be held in two days' time. The meeting is designed to discuss the issues raised tonight: the Essex waste plan, the county council's responsibilities and strategies for managing household waste—including increasing recycling and composting—and the continuation of options for limiting future waste imports into Essex from areas such as London and Kent. I urge the hon. Lady to use that occasion to make clear her thoughts on the issue to those responsible for waste management in Essex, as she has made her thoughts clear to the House tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what plans his Department has to correspond electronically with(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public. [49830]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 13 July 1998]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 17 July 1998,Official Report, column 315.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Action Zones
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the initiatives undertaken by his Department since 1 May 1997 which have involved the establishment of(a) action zones and (b) pilot schemes limited to particular geographical areas, indicating the name of the programme and the action zone or pilot scheme areas covered in each instance. [47051]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  No initiatives have been undertaken by my Department since 1 May 1997 which have resulted in the establishment of action zones. Regarding the establishment of pilot schemes, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 30 June 1998,Official Report, columns 135–36.

  Prior Options Reviews
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on 8 April 1998,Official Report, column 310, if the same options are applied to public sector research establishments included within the scope of the review. [49974]

  Dr. David Clark
  Yes. The prior options reviews of public sector research establishments must thoroughly examine the same options that are applied during reviews of Next Steps agencies and agency candidates generally: abolition; privatisation; contracting out; market testing; rationalisation or merger with other areas of government; and agency or NDPB status. In looking at whether the function is required, prior option reviews of public sector research establishments will consider the underlying question of the country's scientific needs in that area. As with all prior options reviews, there is no presupposition that any outcome is more favoured than another. The decision on future status is made with the aim of 362
  achieving the most appropriate and cost effective way of carrying out the functions so as to deliver best value for money and best service.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures he has put in place to ensure that small businesses can complete all their licensing requirements and inform themselves about relevant regulation in one office. [50015]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Access Business Group, chaired by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, aims to make the regulatory system more transparent, accessible and helpful. The Group is also looking at the provision of integrated information, advice and guidance to ease the burden on business. The use of Information Technology to help businesses fulfil their obligation is part of this work.

  In December, I launched the "intelligent" form which enables people to register as self-employed at a bank. This model has now been extended with the launch of the Post Office-led "Open for Business" pilot which enables people to register as self-employed in a post office, library, a community based "telecottage" or local government office. The "intelligent" form is just the start. The system proves the technology and we should eventually have electronic forms for people to apply for licences.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 13 July 1998,Official Report, column 1, what was the nature of the representations received from (a) the Minister without Portfolio and (b) the Secretary of State for the Home Department. [51159]

  Dr. David Clark
  Internal discussions between Ministers on policy issues are confidential under the terms of Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  People's Panel
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 6 July 1998,Official Report, column 337, on the People's Panel, how many waves of research the Government plan to commission. [51302]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Cabinet Office plans to commission a second wave of research later in the year. Plans for subsequent waves of research are being discussed with other government departments.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Government response to the second report of the Science and Technology Committee "The Year 2000—Computer Compliance" [HC342] will be published. [51804]

  Dr. David Clark
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I have today laid before Parliament the Government Response as Command Paper 3944.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many letters per day his office receives; how many staff are employed to answer these; what targets are set in respect of such letters; and what is the current performance against targets. [50686]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Cabinet Office is currently collating information on the performance of the main government departments and agencies in responding to letters from MPs and the general public. This includes information on the volume of correspondence received, the target for responding to such letters, and performance against the target. It will be made available to House.

  Information will not be included on the number of staff employed to answer letters as very few are employed solely in handling correspondence: in most cases correspondence is handled by staff across Whitehall as part of their normal duties.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is her Department's average response time to correspondence from members of the public; and how such response times are monitored. [48663]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 14 July 1998,Official Report, column 159.

  Orange Parades
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Orange parades have been re-routed in Portadown since 1985. [49520]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The following table shows the number of Orange parades re-routed in Portadown since 1990. The information prior to that year is not readily available.

  Year

  Total

  Illegal

  Re-routed

  Conditions imposed

  Disorder occurred

  1990

  85

  —

  6

  3

  —

  1991

  61

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1992

  69

  —

  4

  —

  —

  1993

  58

  —

  3

  —

  —

  1994

  55

  —

  6

  —

  —

  1995

  80

  —

  5

  —

  1

  1996

  68

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1997

  72

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Railways
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the(a) forecast cost and (b) planned completion date of improvements to the section of the railway line between Lisburn and Belfast. [50136]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Work on Phase 1 of the Belfast-Lisburn rail upgrade, ie, the line between Great Victoria Street junction and Lisburn, which commenced 364
  in March, will be completed by 31 December 1998. Work on Phase 2 between Belfast Central Station and Belfast City junction will commence in spring 1999 and is likely to be completed mid year. The total cost of the project is estimated at £16.1m.

  Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if land will be included in the list of goods, facilities and services in the Government's proposals to amend the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. [51306]

  Mr. Ingram
  The White paper "Partnership for Equality" indicated that Fair Employment legislation would be extended to cover goods, facilities and services and the disposal or management of premises. Premises includes land. Views were sought on possible exceptions within areas such as housing and land and comments received are still being considered.

  Equality Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of those organisations replying to the White Paper, "Partnership for Equality"(a) explicitly supported the establishment of a single Equality Commission and (b) did not mention it in their submission. [51308]

  Mr. Worthington
  In total there were 123 responses to the White Paper "Partnership for Equality" and of those 29 or 23 per cent. supported the establishment of a single Equality Commission and 24 or 20 per cent. did not mention it.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the current annual costs and manpower of those bodies which it is intended to absorb into the Equality Commission. [51309]

  Mr. Ingram
  The current annual cost of the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland and the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland is £4.8m. The staffing complement of these bodies is 117 full-time equivalents. The Northern Ireland Disability Council has an annual cost of £100,000 and no staff.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what evaluation her Department has made of the impact of the European Court of Justice decision in respect of unauthorised spending by the Commission on measures in favour of older people. [45422]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]No evaluation is required. The European Court of Justice decision (C106/96) given on 12 May was in respect of unlawful expenditure by the European Commission on projects to combat social exclusion. The Court agreed with the UK that whilst the payments had been illegal, the projects should be allowed to retain the money they had received.
  365
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has responsibility for the UK challenge against Commission expenditure on measures in favour of older people (C239/96). A date for the oral hearing is awaited.

  Independent Tribunal Service
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will set a maximum target for the time within which the Independent Tribunal Service has to respond to requests for statements explaining tribunals' findings on questions of fact and the reasons underlying their decisions; and if she will make a statement. [48815]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of the appeal system is a matter for His Honour Judge Michael Harris, the President of the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS). Tribunal chairmen provide statements explaining tribunals' findings on questions of fact and the reasons underlying their decisions. I understand the Chief Executive of the ITS has written to the hon. Member asking for more information and that the President will reply in more detail in due course.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is her Department's average response time to correspondence from members of the public. [48976]

  Mr. Field
  The Department and its Agencies aim to reply to all correspondence from members of the public within 20 days. Although performance is monitored, the information is not available in the format requested. I refer the hon. Member to the written answer from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 14 July 1998,Official Report, column 159.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans her Department has to correspond electronically with(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public. [49895]

  Mr. Field
  [holding answer Monday 13 July 1998]This Department provides a wide range of information through a variety of means, including electronic. We have a website on the Internet which contains Social Security information such as benefits and Green Papers and an E-mail box for Ministerial correspondence.

  We are actively looking at ways members of the public can deal electronically with the Department, with respect to benefit claims.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 17 July 1998, Official Report, column 315.

  State Pension
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the rate of return on the lifetime National Insurance contributions of(a) a man aged 65 and (b) a woman aged 60 retiring in the current financial year and receiving a full basic state pension. [48972]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government Actuary's Department estimates that the real rate of return on lifetime National 366
  Insurance contributions for someone reaching State Pension Age in 1998 would be 1.1 per cent. for a man aged 65 and 4.0 per cent for a woman aged 60.
  Notes 1. The following assumptions have been made:
  The man/woman is single and has been in employment throughout his/her working life from age 16. Juvenile rates of contributions have been used where appropriate. For the period covered by the Graduated Pension scheme and subsequently, the individual is assumed to receive constant full time average earnings. The amount of Retirement Pension (RP) payable includes Graduated Pension and SERPS on a not contracted out basis.
  The contributions are based on total National Insurance (NI) contributions (excluding any NHS Allocation or other elements), employer plus employee. It has been assumed that this total relates solely to RP entitlement. In practice NI contributions cover other benefits (e.g. Incapacity Benefit, Widows Benefit, and in the past Industrial Injuries benefit) in addition to RP.
  The value of the pension received has been based on mortality rates for a man reaching 65 and a woman reaching 60 in 1998 derived from the 1996 based population projection.
  The rate of return quoted in the reply represents a real rate of return, after adjusting for inflation (as measured by the Retail Prices Index).
  2. The rate of return for a married man whose wife is receiving a married woman's (category B) pension would be higher than the figure quoted for a single male.

  Pensioners (Christmas Bonus)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the cost of uprating to 1998 prices the £10 Christmas bonus as originally introduced on the basis of providing it(a) to all pensioners, (b) to pensioners other than higher rate taxpayers and (c) to pensioners other than standard and higher rate taxpayers. [49954]

  Mr. Denham
  The estimated cost of uprating the £10 Christmas bonus to 1998 prices on the basis of providing it to:

  £ million

  (a) All pensioners

  700

  (b) Pensioners other than higher rate taxpayers

  700

  (c) Pensioners other than basic and higher rate taxpayers

  600

  (d) Pensioners other than lower, basic and higher rate taxpayers

  450

  Notes

  1. All figures in 1998–99 prices and rounded to the nearest £50 million

  2. The uprated levels of Christmas Bonus were calculated using the Retail Prices Index (All items). The value of the bonus has been rounded to the nearest 5 pence at each uprating

  3. Estimates for the number of pensioners who pay tax were provided by Inland Revenue (IR), although it is not possible to determine whether a particular individual is a higher rate or basic rate taxpayer for the relevant year at the time the Christmas Bonus is paid. Due to the fact that in sections (b)—(d), the rounded estimates provided by IR were applied to the total extra cost, the figures should be treated with a degree of caution

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for industrial injuries disablement benefit for each of the last three years were made by officials or employees or former officials or
  367
  employees of (a) Government or Government agencies, (b) the NHS, (c) local government or local government agencies and (d) the private sector. [50628]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available. Information is available only on the employment status of people receiving Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit and is collected by the Standard Industrial Classification on Economic Activity relevant to the employment they were in at the time the injury occurred or the prescribed disease was contracted. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.

  Total number of claims to industrial injuries disablement benefit

  Period

  Claims

  April 1995–March 1996

  72,990

  April 1996–March 1997

  70,640

  April 1997–March 1998

  96,350

  Numbers of new awards to industrial injuries disablement benefit by industry type

  Industry

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Agriculture, hunting and forestry

  380

  334

  271

  Fishing

  24

  36

  —

  Mining and quarrying

  1,250

  1,246

  2,386

  Manufacturing

  6,501

  7,727

  7,752

  Electricity, gas and water supply

  307

  272

  354

  Construction

  3,147

  2,333

  2,639

  Wholesale and retail trade

  2,063

  1,559

  2,087

  Hotels and restaurants

  641

  647

  690

  Transport, storage and communication

  2,991

  2,576

  3,342

  Financial intermediation

  189

  140

  74

  Real estate, renting and business activities

  1,160

  1,137

  1,454

  Public admin. and defence; compulsory social security

  1,639

  1,590

  2,455

  Education

  309

  267

  315

  Health and social work

  2,635

  2,400

  2,777

  Other community, social and personal activities

  735

  684

  949

  Private households with employed persons

  95

  72

  104

  Total

  24,067

  23,019

  27,650

  Note

  The data are an estimate based on a 10 per cent. sample of claims and awards provided by DSS Analytical Services Data. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 25 November 1997, Official Report, columns 531–32, we gave details of total claims for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit and new awards based on DSS Central Data Unit data (based on 100 per cent. of all claims and awards). A breakdown of the data into industry type is available only from the 10 per cent. sample data

  Child Benefit
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the factors underlying delays in issuing child benefit payment books. [49219]

  Mr. Worthington
  I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Thompson, and I have asked him to arrange for a response to be given.
  368
  Letter from Chris Thompson to Mr. William Ross, dated 16 July 1998 I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the factors underlying delays in issuing child benefit payment books.
  A combination of factors gave rise to problems in the Child Benefit Office that caused delays in payment books being issued. There was disruption when the Office had to relocate to new premises at Windsor House in November 1997. Added to this were problems with the introduction of two new computer systems, one of which required a key additional feature which was not initially available. There were also technical problems which caused difficulties for staff accessing the computer system; response times were slower and in many instances live claims were rejected. Furthermore, staff took action in April 1998 in protest against threats by terrorist organisations which also had a serious impact on the provision of services.
  A recovery plan has been in operation which included the deployment of extra staff from elsewhere in the Agency. Extensive overtime is also being worked in order to clear the backlog which has been significantly reduced over the last six weeks. It is anticipated that normal service, including the telephone service, should resume in early August.
  I hope this explains the position for you but I would be happy to provide any further information you require.

TREASURY

  Correspondence
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the volume of correspondence sent to, and received from, hon. Members by(a) the Inland Revenue and (b) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise between (i) January to March 1996 and (b) January to March 1998. [47871]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Board of Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise receive a large volume of correspondence from hon. Members at local office level, regional and collection level, and at their respective Head Offices.

  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Government Debt
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in cash terms total Government debt in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [51474]

  Mr. Darling
  Cash figures for net public sector debt in 1996–97 were published in Table B7 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report. Estimates of net public sector debt as a proportion of GDP in 1997–98 were published in Table 4.5 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report. The estimate of GDP in 1997–98 was published in Table 4.1.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate total Government debt in cash terms for(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02. [51473]

  Mr. Darling
  Table 4.5 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report showed forecasts of net public sector debt as a proportion of GDP. Forecasts of GDP were published in Table 4.1.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Rent Tribunals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to broaden the range of people eligible to sit on rent tribunals. [50106]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We want to see tribunals drawn from a broader constituency and representing a balance of expert and lay membership. Though these are expert tribunals and necessarily include qualified lawyers and valuers, we have been concerned about the lack of lay members. My Department has started advertising to recruit more lay members and to widen the catchment from which they are drawn.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has to correspond electronically with(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public. [49815]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 12 July 1998]On(a), I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 17 July 1998, Official Report, column 315. On (b), as part of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's target of twenty five per cent. of dealings with Government being undertaken electronically by 2002, the Department is taking major steps to modernise and bring in electronic services. Among other things, this will provide more opportunity for the Department to correspond electronically with members of the public.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many letters per day his office receives; how many staff are employed to answer these; what targets are set in respect of such letters; and what is the current performance against targets. [50679]

  Angela Eagle
  In respect of the volume of correspondence and targets set by this Department for dealing with such correspondence, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service today,Official Report, colum 363. Few staff are solely employed by my Department to handle correspondence; for most staff this is part of their normal duties.

  Environmental Impact Assessment Directive
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library copies of correspondence his Department has received in the last six months from the European Commission concerning the implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive as it affects the offshore oil and gas industry. [50634]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Correspondence between the European Commission and the Member States (including the UK) concerning the implementation of EC Directives is regarded by all parties as confidential.

  Housing (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with Wandsworth Borough Council on the number of council properties that have been empty for periods longer than three months. [50704]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have had no such discussions. However officials of the Government Office for London regularly discuss with Borough officials, as part of the annual Housing Investment Programme determination, many aspects of the Borough's housing strategy and of its performance as a housing authority. Empty council properties are one aspect of that discussion. The Government regularly mention the number of empty houses in each local authority area, and encourage all local authorities to implement strategies to minimise the number of empty houses in their area.

  Cycling
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funds have been provided by his Department for the Sustrans UK project; and if he will make a statement. [50726]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department welcomes the contribution the National Cycle Network can make to encouraging people to cycle. In addition to the £43.5m Sustrans received from the Millennium Commission the Department has undertaken to fund the crossings on the trunk road network where this is appropriate.

  The Highways Agency is committed to spending around £7.8m on cycle schemes across England's trunk road network. A rolling programme of around 60 crossings are being targeted for completion by the year 2000. In most cases the Highways Agency is working in partnership with local authorities, cycling groups and Sustrans to identify the right schemes.

  Air Carrier Liability
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the representations received by his Department on the Air Carrier Liability Order 1998 indicating those in favour and those against the terms of the Order. [50821]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Representations have been received from the following organisations, companies or individuals:

  Association of Asia Pacific Airways

  Association of British Travel Agents

  Barlow Lyde & Gilbert

  Beaumont and Son

  Board of Airlines Represented in the United Kingdom

  British Airways

  British Air Transport Association

  Harold Caplan Esq.

  Dibb Lupton Alsop

  International Air Transport Association

  Peter Martin Esq.

  Lady O'Cathain.

  371
  Some of the representations were seeking clarification; others, particularly from the airline industry, were against the terms of the Order.

  Dog Fouling
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will discuss with HM Treasury methods by which local authorities could keep the proceeds of fines relating to dog fouling. [50826]

  Angela Eagle
  Section 4(2) of the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 currently requires local authorities to surrender the proceeds of fines relating to dog fouling to the Secretary of State. The Government will consider whether this should be changed when the next legislation opportunity presents itself.

  Packaging Waste Regulations
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many companies registered under the terms of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations by 1977(a) 1 August 1997 and (b) 1 April 1998; what income was received by the Government agency in respect of companies registering in each period; and how many prosecutions there were in each period of non-registering companies. [50753]

  Angela Eagle
  The first deadline for registration with the Environment Agency (the "Agency") as required by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 was 31 August 1997 and the second 1 April 1998.

  By 1 August 1997 records indicate a total of 581 businesses registered with the Agency and subsequently a total of 3,613 businesses registered for the period 31 August 1997 to 1 April 1998. Fees recovered on 1 August 1997 were £720 and subsequently increased to £1,650,600.

  By 1 April 1998 records indicate a total of 2,323 businesses were registered with the Agency for the registration period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999 and subsequently a total of 3,376 businesses were registered by the end of June 1998. Fees recovered on 1 August 1998 were £1,497,250 and subsequently £1,482,750.

  No prosecutions for non compliance have yet taken place.

  Eurostar
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 June 1997,Official Report, column 317, if he will estimate when Peterborough will be served by direct Eurostar services. [51148]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 3 June 1998,Official Report, columns 367–84, London and Continental Railways, which are responsible for the operation of the Eurostar service, have decided to award a management contract for the service to a consortium comprising British Airways, National Express and the national railways of France and Belgium. This consortium has been asked to
  372
  review urgently the feasibility of regional Eurostar services, and to report to the Government before the end of the year. We cannot prejudge the outcome of that report.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department's negotiations for the construction of the CTRL will be concluded before LCR's review of the feasibility of regional Eurostar services is completed. [51170]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Negotiations for the construction of the CTRL and the review of the feasibility of regional Eurostar services are being taken forward in parallel. Negotiations for the construction of the CTRL are being progressed with a view to allowing construction to start later this year. The consortium selected to operate Eurostar have been asked to review urgently the feasibility of regional services and report by the end of this year.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many companies have expressed an interest in taking a stake in the National Air Traffic Services. [51182]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  One organisation has so far expressed an interest.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the names of(a) consultants and (b) legal advisers currently employed or to be employed by (i) his Department, (ii) the Civil Aviation Authority and (iii) National Air Traffic Services to provide advice on the public-private partnership or National Air Traffic Services. [51181]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department is in the early stages of appointing consultants and legal advisers to provide advice on the public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services. Neither the Civil Aviation Authority nor the National Air Traffic Services currently employ consultants or legal advisers for this purpose, but are considering their need for such services.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many additional staff have been or are planned to be employed by(a) his Department, (b) NATS and (c) the CAA to deal with the proposed public-private partnership for the National Air Traffic Services. [51215]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions intends to staff the work relating to the proposed public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services from existing resources. Neither NATS nor the CAA employ or plan to employ additional staff for this work.

  Airports (South-east England)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what work(a) his Department and (b) the Civil Aviation Authority are carrying out to assess the possibility of (i) RAF Northolt and (ii) Redhill Aerodrome being used as feeder or reliever airports for Heathrow and Gatwick Airports. [51175]
  373
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Neither my Department nor the Civil Aviation Authority are carrying out work to assess the possibility of RAF Northolt or Redhill Aerodrome being used as feeder or reliever airports for Heathrow or Gatwick.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the working groups established by(a) his Department and (b) the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss airport capacity in the South East of England. [51190]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No working groups have been established for this purpose by either my Department or the Civil Aviation Authority in the last few years.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of when Stansted Airport will become slot constrained. [51167]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Stansted Airport Ltd. notified the Department on 7 July that in its opinion conditions are such that Stansted Airport should be fully coordinated for slot allocation purposes under Article 3 of EC Regulation 95/93 with effect from Summer 1999. The Government will consider if the airport should be so designated following consultation with airlines and other relevant organisations on a capacity analysis in accordance with the Regulation.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what work BAA plc has carried out recently at his Department's request on a scheme for a close parallel runway at Gatwick. [51377]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  BAA plc is not currently undertaking any work at the request of my Department in relation to the possibility of developing a close parallel runway at Gatwick Airport. The work which the previous Administration asked BAA to undertake into this concept following publication of the report on Runway Capacity in the South East (RUCATSE) is not yet complete. We have asked BAA to put the work on hold so that we can consider how to take this issue forward in the light of the Integrated Transport White Paper.

  Transatlantic Air Service
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the transatlantic routes that are currently served only by British Airways or American Airlines services. [51198]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The UK/US routes that are served only by British Airways are:

  London—Baltimore

  London—Charlotte

  London—Phoenix

  London—Pittsburgh

  London—San Diego

  London—Seattle

  London—Tampa.

  The UK/US routes that are currently served only by American Airlines are:

  London—Raleigh Durham

  Manchester—Chicago

  Glasgow—Chicago.

  374
  In addition to those routes London—Dallas is served by both British Airways and American Airlines, but no other airline.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of driver and vehicle records have been found to be accurate in each of the last five years. [51200]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has since 1994/95 been set targets for the accuracy with which it captures the data provided by its customers.

  The table shows the targets and the results:

  Percentage of output without error

  Vehicle registration documents

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  New vehicle

  Target

  98

  98

  98

  98

  Actual

  98.3

  98.4

  98.5

  98

  Changes

  Target

  93

  93

  96

  97

  Actual

  92.3

  94.3

  96.4

  97

  Drivers licences

  Target

  95

  96

  97

  98

  Actual

  95.4

  96.6

  97

  98

  These percentages apply to the 13 million registration documents and 7 million driving licenses issued annually.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) driver licence and (b) vehicle registration applications were received by the DVLA for each of the last five years. [51199]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The volumes of driver licences and vehicle registration applications received by the DVLA for each of the last five years are:

  million

  Year

  Driver licences

  Vehicle registrations

  1993–94

  6.4

  13.4

  1994–95

  6.3

  13.7

  1995–96

  6.4

  14.3

  1996–97

  6.7

  14.7

  1997–98

  6.8

  15.6

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the computer system used by the DVLA was last upgraded; and what proposals he has for future developments to it. [51172]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The DVLA drivers computer system has recently been upgraded to permit the issue of photocard licences. The vehicle system is currently being upgraded and this will be completed by the end of the year. A number of other amendments and improvements
  375
  are in hand including ensuring that all systems are year 2000 compliant and are responsive to customer requirements.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for the most recent five years for which records are available(a) the number of heavy goods vehicles tested and (b) the number of HGV test failures due to exhaust emissions. [51126]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The figures requested are as follows:

  Year

  Number tested

  Number failed

  1993–94

  448,446

  10,763

  1994–95

  447,660

  7,163

  1995–96

  447,836

  9,852

  1996–97

  452,916

  11,776

  1997–98

  453,568

  9,525

  Tenders (Environmental Criteria)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what specific environmental and energy-saving criteria are included in standard(a) tender documents and (b) tender evaluation procedures in respect of Government contracts for (i) new building, (ii) renovation works and (iii) heating and lighting. [51025]

  Angela Eagle
  Government departments are individually responsible for determining their accommodation requirements including the specification of environmental and energy saving criteria in their tender documents. Advice on these matters is available to Government departments from the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) and other sources such as the best practice guides produced by the Building Research Energy Conservation Support Unit (BRECSU) and the Energy Technology Support Unit (ETSU).

  DETR has produced a Green Guide for Buyers which provides general advice on conserving resources and reducing waste and pollution. It is available on DETR's web site for greening government.

  Elderly Tenants (Pets)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance to housing authorities and housing associations supporting prospective elderly tenants who already have and wish to retain a pet. [50937]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]It is for local authorities and Registered Social Landlords to decide which of their dwellings are and are not appropriate for pets, taking into account the needs of all their tenants and residents.

  Leaseholders
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) percentage and (b) number of long leaseholders have
  376
  taken advantage of the provisions contained in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 to enfranchise. [50942]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]Research carried out for the Department by Sheffield Hallam University, and to be published shortly, has found that 19 per cent. (49) of leaseholders who contacted LEASE for advice on enfranchisement under the provisions contained in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 successfully enfranchised under these provisions. The Department has no information on the numbers of leaseholders who have successfully enfranchised without contacting LEASE.

  We are concerned that the existing rules for collective enfranchisement for flats are unduly complex and that it can be difficult for leaseholders to enfranchise. We intend to address this problem in our forthcoming consultation paper on leasehold reform.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many leaseholders living in blocks of flats of 50 units or more have successfully enfranchised their leases under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. [50948]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]Research carried out for the Department by Sheffield Hallam University, and to be published shortly, found no leaseholders living in blocks of flats of 50 or more units who had enfranchised their leases.

  Coastal Pollution
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans his Department has for long-term monitoring of the effects of sludge dumping in Liverpool Bay; and what will be the role of water companies in such monitoring. [51383]

  Angela Eagle
  The arrangements for monitoring maritime sewage-sludge dumping sites around the United Kingdom, including Liverpool Bay, are described in "Towards 2000: Marine Monitoring in the 1990s", the fifth report of the UK Marine Pollution Monitoring Group, published this year by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science.

  OSPAR Convention
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to inform interested parties of the Government's policy at the forthcoming ministerial meeting of the OSPAR convention in Portugal; and if he will place in the Library the United Kingdom's submissions to the negotiating committee for the conference. [51410]

  Mr. Meacher
  On 17 July 1998,Official Report, columns 325–26, I answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) setting out our objectives at the forthcoming ministerial meeting of the OSPAR Commission. I and my officials are meeting various interested non-governmental organisations. I am placing in the Library copies of the paper which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has submitted to the OSPAR Commission and of

  377
  the papers submitted by the United Kingdom to the meeting of the Commission at official level and to the last three meetings of the official Heads of Delegation.

  Housing Corporation Grants
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of Housing Corporation grant has been allocated to rural areas; and how many new homes have been started or completed as a result in each of the last five years. [51487]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The table sets out details of the proportion of Housing Corporation grant and the number of approvals allocated to rural areas in the last five years. The information is based upon schemes within settlements of up to 3,000 population.

  Housing Corporation grant and approvals in rural areas

  Percentage of HC grant

  Approvals

  1993–94

  4.6

  2,200

  1994–95

  5.6

  2,399

  1995–96

  5.2

  1,363

  1996–97

  5.8

  2,157

  1997–98

  5.1

  1,034

  Source

  The Housing Corporation

  Housing
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of affordable housing need in(a) rural areas and (b) villages of less than 1,000 population. [51488]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department recently commissioned a study on the nature of demand for housing in rural areas, including affordable housing. The research looked at five different types of rural areas in England with populations ranging from 7,500 to 15,000 people, where most of the main settlements were of less than 1,000 population. A report on this project will be published by the contractors, DTZ Pieda, soon.

  All local authorities are encouraged to carry out assessments of housing need to inform housing strategies and development plans. Local assessments provide the justification for local authorities to specify a proportion of affordable housing to be provided on suitable sites identified in the development plan, and to negotiate the inclusion of an element of affordable housing in private developments.

  Boundary Review (London)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the boundary review in London will be conducted on the basis of universal three member wards in order to facilitate elections by thirds. [51470]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our consultation paper "Modernising Local Government: local democracy and community leadership" set out options for more frequent local elections, and considered the possible implications for 378
  warding arrangements. We are considering the responses to that consultation, and will put forward firm proposals in a local government White Paper this Summer.

  Transport Expenditure
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his expenditure plans for transport programmes, pursuant to the publication of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. [51805]

  Mr. Prescott
  I am today announcing, in conjunction with the publication of our Integrated Transport White Paper, plans to revitalise local and public transport. An extra £1.8bn of funds will be made available for local transport, bus services, road maintenance and railways.

  The table shows my Department's current plans to use the resources available for transport programmes.

  These plans will secure greatly increased investment in transport infrastructure, through both increases in public spending in areas identified as priorities in our Integrated Transport White Paper and through partnership with the private sector. It will allow local authorities to spend almost twice as much on their transport programmes in 2001–02 as they do now.

  Extra public spending on rail services will bring in substantial amounts of private investment, and by removing bottlenecks in the network, real improvements for passengers and freight in support of our objective of reducing car use.

  The plans involve:
  £700m more for local authorities to establish 150 new Local Transport Plans and to restore cuts in maintenance of their principal roads;
  £300m more for local bus services. Buses have a major contribution to make to developing more sustainable transport policies. The Government have already allocated this year an extra £50m for rural transport.
  more than £300m additional resources for the rail industry (including support for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link) on top of the annual subsidy of over £1bn to rail operators for existing franchise contracts. These new resources will allow for extra freight grants, and extra funds to be made available from two new sources—the Infrastructure Investment Fund and the Rail Passenger Partnership Scheme;
  over £400m extra spending on the trunk road and motorway network with priority given to maintenance of the existing trunk road network and to making better use of it;
  resources for the new Mayor to pursue an integrated transport strategy for London as soon as the Greater London Authority is set up and to allow the acceleration of various initiatives in the Capital.

  These plans reflect the reduced demands on public support for the London Underground from 2000–01 as a result of the new public private partnership arrangements. These were announced on 20 March, along with £365m additional resources for this year and next. The plans will allow £7bn of investment to take place in the Underground over the next 15 years. The expenditure plans also take account of the reduced subsidy required for train operating companies, which are contractually committed to maintaining service levels and improving performance whilst receiving less subsidy. All these savings taken together, amount to £1.9 billion over three years.

  379
  More details of how extra spending on the trunk and motorway network will be targeted will be given when the roads review is published.

  £ million

  1998–99 Budget

  1999–2000 Plans

  2000–01 Plans

  2001–02 Plans

  Programme area within Departmental Expenditure Limit:

  Motorways and trunk roads

  1,350

  1,407

  1,536

  1,580

  Local transport

  523

  598

  695

  987

  Support for local buses1

  262

  313

  355

  425

  Railways (Domestic and International)

  1,758

  1,569

  1,490

  1,630

  Transport programmes in London2

  599

  436

  128

  157

  Other transport

  186

  227

  266

  261

  1Bus fuel duty rebate, rural bus grants and concessionary bus fares for the elderly

  2Includes London Transport (and Croydon Tramlink) and other transport programmes currently administered by the Government Office for London. Excludes spending in London on trunk roads and motorways by the Highways Agency and support for transport capital expenditure by the Boroughs from the local transport settlement. Includes no provision for London Underground from 2000–01, from when a PPP is planned to be in place

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of CO2 emission levels from the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom, with particular reference to emissions during (a) construction, (b) generation and (c) decommissioning and disposal; and if he will make a statement. [50833]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  No separate figures in the form requested are available. It is estimated that nuclear electricity generation leads to emissions of about 4 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour of electricity delivered to the final user. Of these 4 grams, 3.2 grams are emitted in the process of uranium extraction and the remainder during fuel processing.

  Carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear generation are less than 1 per cent. of equivalent figures for any of the major fossil-fuelled electricity generation technologies.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applicants were unable to pay for legal representation to assist them in the preparation of their cases during the last 12 months. [50105]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that it is not possible to determine how many asylum applicants were unable to pay for advice or legal representation. The available information is that the Immigration Advisory Service and The Refugee Legal Centre—Home Office funded bodies—provided free advice to 10,578 refused asylum applicants at the appeal stage over the last financial year (4,455 and 6,123 respectively). In addition to this, the Refugee Legal Centre gave advice in 3,152 asylum applications. These figures do not include those advised 380
  by charitable organisations or others working without reimbursement who are unconnected with the Home Office.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average waiting time for decisions on applications for asylum in the United Kingdom; and what steps he is taking to reduce waiting times. [50824]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Applications lodged before the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 are currently estimated to be taking on average 58 months to reach an initial decision, while those lodged after the Act are taking an average of 14 months. Both of these figures reflect the proportion of inherited old cases within the system, but figures for 1997 show that 38 per cent. of initial decisions on asylum applications were taken within six months, as against 10 per cent. in 1992.

  We have been conducting a wide-ranging review of asylum and immigration policy. We hope soon to be able to make a full statement about our future strategy, including proposals to improve the handling of asylum applications. Quite separately, plans are now well advanced for the introduction of more efficient working practices and for the computerisation of casework in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. A trial of the new working practices is to start on 17 August.

  World Cup (Policing Costs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost to the United Kingdom Government of the co-operation by UK police forces with French police over policing of World Cup matches involving teams from Scotland and England. [50708]

  Mr. Michael
  In the case of officers from England and Wales, the cost of travel, overseas allowances and overtime will be met by the Football Association. The salary costs will be met by the officers' respective forces. The Football Association contributed to the costs of police equipment. The salary and associated costs and the cost of travel for officers from Scottish police forces will be met by their respective forces. Equipment costs were met by respective police forces from existing stock. Accommodation costs in France for both sets of officers were met by the French authorities.

  The Government will contribute to the costs associated with the 24-hour manning of the National Criminal Intelligence Service Football Unit during the Finals, and will meet some of the costs associated with the provision of additional football intelligence officers who were in France for some England matches. Detailed information about actual costs incurred is operationally sensitive.

  Pornography
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce further regulations to control the display of pornographic magazine covers and video cases in shops accessible to children. [50754]

  Mr. Michael
  Current legislation governing the display of pornographic magazines includes the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981, which makes it an offence to display any indecent matter which is exposed to view in a public place or where it can be seen from a public place. It is
  381
  the responsibility of the police to decide whether there are sufficient grounds to launch a criminal investigation, and that of the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to prosecute those alleged to be responsible for the publication.

  Most newsagents also abide by a voluntary code of practice, refusing to sell "adult" magazines to persons under the age of 18 and placing pornographic magazines on the top shelf and out of reach of children.

  With respect to videos, before the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) gives full certification to a video work, the sleeve must be seen and approved by the Video Packaging Review Committee. This Committee is chaired by a representative of the BBFC and comprises members of the British Video Association and the Video Standards Council. The sleeves seen by the Committee account for over 90 per cent. of all video works on the market.

  While the issue of indecent displays is kept under constant review, there are currently no plans to introduce further regulations in this area.

  Animal Experiments
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for reducing the backlog of applications for licences, and amendments to licences, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [50866]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We are continuing to explore and, as far as possible, exploit all possible options for managing and reducing the backlog in our London office. This backlog arose primarily due to the loss of experienced staff (for unavoidable reasons) and has built up due to difficulties in attracting and retaining staff for this type of work.

  We are in the process of recruiting staff, through open competition, and we are arranging a selection Board for promoting existing Home Office staff to fill two posts currently held by casual staff. These two recruitment exercises should provide the best choice of candidates and a more permanent solution than employing casual staff for short periods.

  In the meantime, we have recently recruited another member of casual staff and now have a full complement of staff in our London office. To reduce the backlog, staff are continuing to work overtime and have been joined in London, on occasions, by colleagues from our regional offices.

  A minor technical problem has recently been overcome to allow London cases to be transferred to other regional offices to process.

  We are also looking to see whether there are elements of work currently carried out by the licensing team which they might stop doing whilst the backlog is cleared—one possibility is to no longer advise project licence holders that their licence will shortly expire. Licensees would, as a consequence, need to remain alert to the date on which their authorities expire and the need to apply for any replacement licence well before that date.

  In the longer term, we are exploring how modern IT systems can improve the licensing operation and whether the personal licence system can be streamlined.
  382
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, for licences, and amendments to licences, were awaiting decision on(a) 1 July 1998, (b) 1 January 1998 and (c) 1 July 1997. [50867]

  Mr. George Howarth
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost, and the process would significantly worsen the backlog problem about which my hon. Friend is rightly concerned.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many duplicated experiments were carried out in 1997 under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. [51122]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 19 January 1998 Official Report, column 387.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to announce a ban on the use of animals for cosmetic ingredient testing; and what is the time scale for a ban becoming operative. [51121]

  Mr. George Howarth
  This is an extremely complex issue and we are still exploring the implications of various courses of action.

  Under European Directives, including the Cosmetics and Dangerous Substances Directives, ingredients must be tested on animals to show that they are safe in use, manufacture and transport. Industry strongly contends that there is a need for certain types of new ingredients for cosmetic products, particularly UVA filters for such products as sunscreens.

  We must ensure that any action we take is sustainable and does not unnecessarily disadvantage United Kingdom research, medicine and industry or compromise public safety.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors underlay the reduction in the proportion of non-legislative animal tests carried out for cosmetic purposes between 1995 and 1996. [51120]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Additional data on cosmetic testing, above that required for the annual statistics report, are collected separately. In 1996, the way in which this additional information was collected was changed. The data needed to identify the factors in which the hon. Member is interested are not available before 1996.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the countries from which dogs were imported into the United Kingdom for experiments in 1996 and 1997, indicating the number from each country; how often his Department's inspectors visited these overseas breeding establishments under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if the code of practice for breeding establishments is enforced in these non-United Kingdom establishments. [51123]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In total, 478 dogs in 1996 and 214 dogs in 1997 were acquired from the United States of America. All were purpose-bred and were obtained from breeding establishments which meet their national standards.
  383
  Home Office inspectors have not visited these establishments. They have no right to access to establishments in other countries nor can we enforce our codes in non-United Kingdom establishments.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals were bred for scientific procedures but killed prior to use in any procedure in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997. [51124]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 19 January 1998,Official Report, columns 388–89.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in reviewing section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and what plans he has to amend it following the Government's freedom of information proposals. [51207]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No decision has yet been taken. We are still awaiting final details on the proposals for freedom of information legislation.

  Air Guns
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for a public information campaign on the potential dangers posed by air guns. [51026]

  Mr. Michael
  Copies of a public information leaflet on air gun safety may be obtained from police firearms licensing departments or from the Home Office. We shall consider, in consultation with the police, shooting organisations and other interested bodies, whether this leaflet needs to be revised. We have no immediate plans for a further publicity campaign on this issue.

  Most air gun shooters are responsible and law-abiding citizens, who pursue their hobby safely. Regrettably, a small minority of people misuse air guns. There are already laws to prevent air gun misuse and people breaking those laws can face severe penalties, including life imprisonment for the most serious offences.

  Metropolitan Police
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Metropolitan Police has spent on the services of lobbying companies in(a) the last and (b) the current financial year; and which companies have been engaged. [51466]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner tells me that the Metropolitan Police Service does not engage the services of lobbying companies, and has no plans to do so.

  Crime (Care Homes)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons the British Crime Survey excludes from their statistics crimes committed against people living in care homes; and if his Department has any plans to include such crimes in future. [51505]

  Mr. Michael
  The British Crime Survey (BCS), conducted by the Home Office, is a survey of people living in private households in England and Wales. In its present format and structure, it would be impossible for it 384
  also to provide an adequate measure of offences committed against people who live in residential care homes without a major change to its format, structure and scope. A sample of care homes within the size of sample for BCS purposes would be too small to permit reliable analysis. For this reason we have concluded that it would require a specially designed survey. A feasibility study into a possible survey of communal establishments is being undertaken by Social Survey Division of the Office for National Statistics. As yet, no decision has been taken on the types of communal establishment this would cover, whether victimisation will be covered or the funding arrangements for such a survey.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Comprehensive Spending Review, when he proposes to announce the details of the settlement for his Department. [51806]

  Mr. Straw
  Tomorrow. At 3.30pm I will be publishing a research study entitled "Reducing offending: an assessment of research evidence on ways of dealing with offending behaviour", which will provide the evidential basis for my plans for tackling crime.

WALES

  Llanllyfni Bypass
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what account his Department will take of the impact on the health and safety of local residents in determining whether to allow the Llanllyfni bypass to proceed. [50828]

  Mr. Hain
  The benefits of removing traffic from communities, and the resulting improvement in the safety and environment of local residents, is an integral part of the consideration of any road scheme, including the A487 Llanwnda to south of Llanllyfni improvement, which is currently subject to the Strategic Trunk Roads Review.

  Food Sector
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his proposals for the development of the food sector in Wales. [51794]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The markets for general agricultural products are competitive, and will become increasingly so. Wales needs premium products, which can command premium prices. We need much greater food processing in Wales, to add value to Wales's primary agricultural products. We need products with a strong brand image, and we must exploit as many niche markets as possible.

  I have announced action today to develop industry-led action plans, setting clear priorities for the action that must be taken in the lamb and beef, dairy and organic sectors in the first instance.

  As part of this, I am very concerned that work on promoting Welsh food, and work in supporting economic development in the food sector in Wales should go hand in hand. This is critical if there is to be coherent effective support for action by the industry. I have therefore decided to give the WDA a clear responsibility for supporting the development of the food industry in Wales.
  385
  The WDA will work in close partnership with the Welsh Office Agriculture Department in facilitating the formulation of the industry-led action plans and it will lead in co-ordinating action in support of those plans. This new responsibility for the WDA will be a key part of the role that the new, all-Wales Agency will plan in promoting development in rural Wales. In giving the WDA this remit, I am endorsing the recommendations that the Welsh Affairs Committee, amongst others, have made to this effect.

  In support of this, the Board of Welsh Food Promotions has agreed that work should transfer to the WDA at the start of October this year. WFP staff will be offered employment with the WDA, and the Company will subsequently be wound up. Our aim in this way is to sustain and build on WFP's achievements. I would like to pay particular thanks to Alun Evans, the Chairman of WFP, and his Board, for steering the Company through a difficult period.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when an appointment will be made to the post of Chairman of the new Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement. [51795]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I am very pleased to announce that Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe has accepted my offer of the post of Chairman of the new Agency following an open competition. This will take effect in the Autumn upon the merger of the WDA and the Development Board for Rural Wales (DBRW) and the Land Authority for Wales (LAW).

  Local Authority Audit Arrangements
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set out the guidelines for determining the audit arrangements for trading subsidiaries of local authorities and the relevant definitions for not-for-profit companies financed in whole or in part by local authorities causing them to be regarded as(a) privately influenced and (b) public sector influenced. [51312]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The basic framework for classifying local authorities' interests in companies is set out in Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1985. Section 69 of the Act describes the circumstances which would lead to a company being one which is treated as "influenced" by a local authority.

  The Local Authorities (Companies) Order 1995 (SI 1995 No. 849) includes requirements applicable to companies subject to the influence of local authorities within the meaning of the 1989 Act.

  In March 1995, the Welsh Office issued an explanatory guide to local authorities' interests in companies. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of this guide provides general advice on private sector influenced companies and public sector influenced companies. The question of which category an influenced company falls into is one for local authorities to decide in conjunction with their auditors and legal advisers.
  386
  Not all local authority trading subsidiaries are companies. Where such subsidiaries are not legally separate from the authority, auditors will be the same as that for the authority.

  The Audit Commission is responsible for appointing auditors to local authorities in England and Wales. Appointed auditors should ensure that local authorities have complied with the provisions of the 1989 Act. This will include consideration of the classification of companies as well as other appropriate requirements. Auditors may also consider how local authorities have discharged their stewardship responsibilities in relation to transactions undertaken through the medium of a local authority company.

  Audits of private sector or public sector influenced companies must be carried out by auditors registered under the Companies Acts, although the authority's auditor may seek assurance as to the adequacy of controls operated by the company to safeguard public funds.

  In May 1996, the Audit Commission issued guidance to auditors on the audit approach to local authority companies in the form of Technical Release 11/96.

  Copies of the Welsh Office guide to local authorities' interests in companies and of Technical Release 11/96 has been placed in the Library of the House.

SCOTLAND

  Further Education Leavers
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of 18 year olds leaving further education entered(a) full-time or part-time education, (b) job-related training, (c) employment without a training element and (d) unemployment in Scotland in each year since 1988. [48492]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 8 July 1998]The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Young People (Reoffending)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statistics his Department collates on the re-offending rates of young people who have been referred to children's panels following the reporting of an offence; and if he will make a statement. [50601]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Responsibility for collection and publication of data on the Children's hearings system lies with the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration.

  The only relevant information collected relates to children referred to Reporters on offence grounds on more than one occasion, and this is not collated routinely. I have asked the Principal Reporter to write to the right hon. Gentleman with more details of this information.

  Community Organisations
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up a study to examine practice in the management of community organisations funded by Urban Aid, EU or other regeneration funds, and produce guidelines to ensure good management of such organisations in future. [50548]
  387
  Mr. Macdonald
  The allocation of moneys from the Urban Programme, EU and other regeneration funds is governed by clear conditions. The responsibility for supervising and monitoring the performance and activities of individual community organisations in accordance with these conditions rests with central departments, local authorities or other agents of government, depending on the source of the funding. However the Government take seriously any reports of poor practice in the management of community organisations which have access to public funds, and seek to ensure that the appropriate examination and monitoring procedures are adhered to.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list for each local education authority area the provision of nursery places to be provided by non-statutory bodies and private providers in the academic year 1998–99; [50426]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of children currently attending nurseries provided by private providers who will not be able to continue to do so in the academic year 1998–99 because the facilities have been withdrawn by the local education authority. [50427]

  Mr. Wilson
  The number and distribution of grant funded pre-school education places which local authorities will commission in school year 1998–99 from partner centres will not be known accurately until the autumn. Estimates have however been received from each authority and the information is set out in the table.

  It is likely there will be some parents of pre-school year children in the school year 1998–99 who, because their local authority has decided not to commission places from their preferred registered provider, will have to decide whether to move their child to another centre which is grant-eligible or to pay for a place at their preferred provider themselves. A reliable estimate of the number of parents so affected would however require data which are not collected centrally.

  Estimated number of pre-school education places to be commissioned by local authorities from registered partner providers in the voluntary and private sectors

  Local authority

  Number of places

  Aberdeen City

  600

  Aberdeenshire

  100

  Angus

  30

  Argyll and Bute

  469

  Clackmannanshire

  43

  Dumfries and Galloway

  100

  Dundee City

  0

  East Ayrshire

  0

  East Dunbartonshire

  300

  East Lothian

  120

  East Renfrewshire

  170

  City of Edinburgh

  680

  Falkirk

  0

  Fife

  120

  City of Glasgow

  150

  Highland

  417

  Inverclyde

  170

  Midlothian

  0

  Moray

  120

  North Ayrshire

  600

  North Lanarkshire

  524

  Orkney Islands

  6

  Perth and Kinross

  190

  388

  Estimated number of pre-school education places to be commissioned by local authorities from registered partner providers in the voluntary and private sectors

  Local authority

  Number of places

  Renfrewshire

  200

  Scottish Borders

  100

  Shetland Islands

  73

  South Ayrshire

  20

  South Lanarkshire

  630

  Stirling

  30

  West Dunbartonshire

  0

  West Lothian

  15

  Western Isles

  233

  Scotland

  6,210

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the criteria to be used to review the way that local education authorities have exercised their discretion in entering into local partnerships with private sector organisations to provide nursery places for the academic year 1998–99. [50425]

  Mr. Wilson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 21 April 1998,Official Report, column 585.

  Intestacy
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums passed to the Crown as ultimus haeres from Scottish estates where the deceased failed to leave an effective will in the last year for which figures are available. [51440]

  Mr. McLeish
  The total sum passed to the Crown Office in Scotland as Ultimus Haeres for the year 1 January 1997 to 31 December 1997 was £1,708,773.03.

  The part of the sum attributable to Scottish estates where the deceased failed to leave a Will cannot be identified separately from sums passing to the Crown from dissolved companies without disproportionate cost to the Department.

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his office's average response time to correspondence from members of the public; and how such response times are monitored. [48672]

  The Prime Minister
  It is not possible for me to deal personally with all of the letters I receive and I must therefore refer most of them to the Department with responsibility for the policy or the matter in question. We ask Departments to respond within their targets for dealing with correspondence.

  One of the six service standards for central government requires Departments to set a target for responding to letters from members of the public and to publish information on their performance. A report on the performance of the main Departments against the six standards is being prepared and will be made available to the House shortly.
  389
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the e-mail address of his Office's Ministerial Correspondence Unit.[49822]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 July 1998]Downing Street receives approximately 7,000 items of correspondence a week from the general public—approximately three times as much as received prior to the General Election. The majority receive a response from my office or the relevant Government Department. There are no plans at present to introduce a dedicated e-mail address for the 10 Downing Street Correspondence Unit. However, the Government are currently considering policy on providing Ministers with e-mail addresses. Number 10's allocation of an e-mail address will be in line with this policy once it has been finalised.

  The 10 Downing Street website (www.number-10.gov.uk) also provides five discussion fora where the public can post their views on matters of Government policy.

  No. 10 Policy Unit
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if a telephone log is kept showing the incoming and outgoing calls to and from the No. 10 Policy Unit. [49963]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 July 1998]The facilities under the previous Government continue to operate whereby an automatic record is kept of the telephone numbers called from the No. 10 switchboard.

  BBC Vice-chairman
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what names have been provided to him or his office following the advertisement for candidates who wish to be considered for appointment as vice-chairman of the BBC. [50535]

  The Prime Minister
  These appointments are made by the Prime Minister with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen and they will be announced, in the normal way, when the full appointment process is completed.

  The Observer
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on 8 July 1998,Official Report, column 1065, what factors led him to his conclusion that The Observer claimed to have a tape recording of a conversation with a member of his staff in relation to payments for contacts; and when he reached that conclusion. [50533]

  The Prime Minister
  In an interview broadcast on BBC Radio Five Live on 6 July 1998, Mr. Gregory Pallast, a journalist from The Observer, was asked in relation to an alleged conversation with a member of my staff "Do you have that on tape?". Mr. Pallast replied "I have that for certain".

  In a discussion broadcast that evening on the BBC television programme "Newsnight" Mr. Pallast was again repeatedly asked whether he could produce a tape. He did not take the opportunity to deny that one existed.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish an independent review of the legal processes relating to Lockerbie. [49275]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 July 1998]No. Since taking office, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, in his independent role as prosecutor, has fully reviewed the evidence relating to the Lockerbie case. He concluded that, on the evidence available, it would be right to pursue the petition warrants against the two Libyan accused.

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the most recent requests for investigations which the Government have made to the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the date each request was communicated to the Committee. [51224]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]The Committee on Standards in Public Life does not have powers of investigation, but undertakes more general inquiries about standards of conduct in public life. On 12 November 1997, I wrote to Lord Neill, Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, inviting the Committee to look at the funding of political parties, and extending their terms of reference to enable them to undertake this study. The Committee's inquiry is due to be completed in September 1998. The Government have made no subsequent requests to the Committee.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 23 February 1998,Official Report, column 2, when he expects to write to the right hon. Member for Wokingham indicating the cost of his trip to Japan. [51421]

  The Prime Minister
  Shortly.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  British Library
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the British Library has for the charging of readers fees for(a) commercial and (b) non-commercial users. [50743]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 16 July 1998]The British Library has no immediate plans to introduce charges for access to the reading rooms but is currently consulting its users on a broad range of issues, including introduction of charges. Any proposal by the Board to introduce charges would require my approval and would be considered in the light of all relevant factors, including the views of readers.

  Tourism
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what initiatives his Department has taken in respect of developing sustainable tourism within the United Kingdom. [51031]
  391
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]My Department has recently undertaken a nationwide consultation exercise on sustainable tourism and the responses to the consultation are currently being analysed. They will feed into the development of the new strategy for tourism which my Department will launch later this year and will help update the UK Sustainable Development Strategy which will be published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, also later this year.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he can report in lifting the ban on beef exports from the UK. [49420]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  A Commission proposal to enable beef to be exported from the UK under the Date Based Export Scheme (DBES) is currently under consideration by the Standing Veterinary Committee. The UK is making every effort to secure an early agreement on the best possible terms.

  Technetium-99
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that monitoring takes place of concentrations of Technetium-99 in seaweed and crustaceans along the north coast of Wales. [50635]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department continues to carry out regular monitoring and assessment of concentrations of technetium-99 in aquatic materials from the north coast of Wales.

  The results are published annually in the Department's report "Radioactivity in Food and the Environment". The latest report, for 1996, shows that concentrations of technetium-99 in seaweed and crustaceans along the north coast of Wales are of negligible radiological significance. The report for 1997 will be published in the autumn.

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Veterinary Medicines Directorate will publish the Annual Report on Surveillance for Veterinary Residues in 1997; and if he will make a statement. [51742]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are committed to giving consumers the maximum possible information on the presence of residues in food, with appropriate advice on the significance of any results. The Annual Report on Surveillance for Veterinary Residues in 1997 is being published by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) today and it paints a very positive picture of the current situation in the UK.

  The VMD operates a statutory national sampling and surveillance scheme and a complementary non-statutory programme. In 1997 some 42,000 samples were collected and subjected to around 57,000 analyses in GB. The VMD reports the results of its surveillance quarterly in the Medicines Act Veterinary Information Service (MAVIS)
  392
  and in much greater detail in this Annual Report. The results continue to show that the presence of residues of veterinary medicines from all sources in food is very low.

  The main points to emerge from the Report are:
  99.5 per cent. of statutory samples tested in 1997 were free of detectable residues compared to 99.2 per cent. in 1996.
  More significantly, the "positive" samples fell from 0.24 per cent. in 1996 to 0.13 per cent. in 1997.
  This Report, for the first time, gives details of the follow up investigations which are undertaken on all positive samples. Two successful prosecutions were taken and the report outlines initiatives which are being introduced to improve the chances of successful prosecutions int the future.

  The Report, which is available free of charge from the VMD, explains how the VMD obtains samples, how and where they analyse them and what they do with the results. It places the surveillance programmes into the current and future EC context and, to help the lay reader, includes a glossary of technical terms. The results are all placed into a toxicological context which I believe will re-assure consumers that, because of the considerable margins of safety which are applied when maximum residue limits for veterinary medicines are established, the very low levels of residues currently found under the schemes are unlikely to pose a health risk.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Attorney-General how many barristers over six years call were employed as lawyers by the Crown Prosecution Service during each of the years 1993 to 1997. [50096]

  The Attorney-General
  On 1 April of each year, the Crown Prosecution Service employed the following number of barristers with over six years' call:

  Number

  1993

  205

  1994

  284

  1995

  393

  1996

  441

  1997

  513

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Attorney-General what assistance is given to unqualified Crown Prosecution staff to develop their careers, with particular reference to obtaining formal legal qualifications; and if he will make a statement. [50145]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service offers a number of training contracts to law students leading to professional status as barristers and solicitors through its Legal Trainee Recruitment Schemes. Approximately one-third of the available places have been allocated to staff in the CPS enabling them to achieve professional qualifications and appointments as Crown Prosecutors.
  393
  There are also a number of other development opportunities available which include:
  A two level Casework Officer Training Scheme designed jointly with the Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX). The first level comprises nine modules covering general legal procedures such as committals, indictments and trial procedure. Level two is a two year course which provides more advanced legal training and can lead to exemption from the ILEX paper on criminal law.
  A range of in-house courses and distance learning packages offered to develop expertise on a number of legal and non-legal subjects. In addition, sponsorship is available for a range of external qualifications including NVQ's and the Institute of Legal Executives.
  The Crown Prosecution Service also takes part in the Prince's Trust Volunteer Programme which aims to help 16 to 25 year olds to develop their personal skills through practical teamwork in the community.
  A training programme is also being prepared for the Designated Caseworkers who will be undertaking the review and presentation of cases in the Reducing Delay pilots at selected CPS branch sites commencing October 1998.

  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Attorney-General how many registered pupil masters were employed by the Crown Prosecution Service; and how many pupils were trained by those pupil masters in each year since 1993. [50097]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service does not keep historic records of the number of registered pupil masters. However, on 1 July 1998, it employed 98 pupil masters who are registered with the Bar Council.

  Similarly, the Crown Prosecution Service does not hold records to show the number of pupils trained by its employed pupil masters. However, the number of pupils employed by the Crown Prosecution Service in each year since 1993 is:

  Year

  Number

  1993

  23

  1994

  11

  1995

  4

  1996

  1

  1997

  3

  1998

  0

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the answer of 24 June 1998,Official Report, columns 557–58, prior to 18 May, what mechanisms were used to determine how legislation passed in the current session would affect women; what consultation she had with women's organisations; and if she will make a statement. [49090]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development has not been responsible for any legislation passed in the current session. The Department assesses all its policies and programmes for gender impact, in line with the guidance on policy appraisal for equal treatment that has been available since 1992.
  394
  Our White Paper, published in November 1997, reaffirmed our commitment to gender equality and the empowerment of women by eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary education by 2005; one of the key international development targets to which we subscribe.

  We also played a key part in formulating the revised guidelines on gender, issued by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in April 1998.

  Fair Trading
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her decision to write to the chairmen of the top 500 companies urging them to use Cafédirect in their vending machines. [50553]

  Clare Short
  Trade is crucial to poverty elimination as it brings the resources that can help generate growth. But we need to ensure that the benefits of trade reach the least developed countries and the poorest people and lead to sustainable economic and social development. Fair and ethical trade have a key role to play in this, both by establishing codes of practice and improving the conditions of workers, and by dealing with smaller producers on the edge of the economy. Many British companies are working for fair and ethical trade in their own business practices and are discussing these issues with my Department.

  My letters to the chairmen of the FT500 companies was a request to ask them to consider using fairly traded coffee in their vending machines.

  Sex Tourism
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with other countries to offer help and advice in combating sexual tourism in their countries. [50706]

  Clare Short
  Sex tourism is just one element of sexual exploitation. Social and economic conditions create an environment where poor or vulnerable people in particular are subject to sexual abuse and exploitation, and combating sex tourism is therefore part of the Department for International Development's (DFID) goal of eliminating poverty in poorer countries.

  Commercial sexual exploitation of children is of particular concern to DFID. DFID funds non-government organisation projects in a number of countries, many of them in Asia, to address sexual exploitation of children.

  DFID is involved in the preparations for the ASEM Child Welfare Experts Meeting, which takes place later this year, gathering representatives from ASEM member countries in London, to share experience in tackling sexual exploitation of children.

  DFID is supporting the International Labour Organisations International Programme for Elimination of Child Labour in carrying out research on trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of children.

  The Global March against child labour brought the realities of child labour, including sexual exploitation of children, to many people and governments around the

  395
  world. Following the March, at the International Labour Conference, DFID took an active role in agreeing a draft international convention to immediately outlaw the worst forms of child labour; labour that maims, corrupts and kills children. Combating sex tourism is part of that.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards advising third-world countries of the dangers of importing and using asbestos. [50705]

  Clare Short
  My Department is committed to working with our partner countries in their efforts to develop and implement national strategies for sustainable development. This includes working to improve standards of environmental regulation and reverse overall trends in environmental degradation, which may include advice on the use and handling of asbestos in specific cases.

  The UK has previously assisted the Hirakud Power Station in India to assess health risks associated with the existence of asbestos lagging, and to identify the most appropriate and safe ways of removing and disposing of hazardous materials.

  European Council Regulation No. 2455/92 concerning exports and imports of certain dangerous chemicals establishes a system by which third countries, including developing countries, which import chemicals banned or severely restricted in the European Community are notified of the potential dangers and are informed of the safety precautions which have to be taken, and of the use restrictions of the products within the Community.

  The Regulation also implements the procedure of Prior Informed Consent set up by the United Nations Environment Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. This means that EC exporters have to comply with the import conditions of countries participating in the procedures. Asbestos is one of the substances covered by the Regulation, which is implemented in the United Kingdom by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Coral Reefs
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department has given to the International Coral Reef Initiative. [50020]

  Clare Short
  My Department has a particular interest in reversing the degradation of coral reef and other coastal ecosystems because these often represent an important source of livelihood of poor communities in the heavily populated coastal areas of the developing countries. Those with greatest dependence on these resources are often the poorest members of these communities.

  The United Kingdom is a founder member of the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) and participates in meetings of the ICRI Co-ordinating Planning Committee. Following financial and technical support which UK provided for the ICRI South Asia Region Coral Reef Management Workshop in 1995, my Department has recently funded the preparation and publication of a Manual of Coastal Resource Management in South Asia. We are also helping our partners in South Asia to protect
  396
  their coral reefs by providing funds and expertise to the International Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO for the development of a South Asia region coral reef monitoring network, the first regional component of a planned global network.

  In September this year, the performance of ICRI over its first four years will be reviewed at the International Symposium on Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management, to be held in Australia. My Department has agreed to support the costs associated with attendance at this meeting by representatives from our S. Asia partners countries, from the regional ICRI co-ordinating organisation and from the S. Asia coral reef monitoring network.

  The ICRI seeks greater understanding of the ecology of coral reefs, mangrove and seagrass systems on tropical coasts, and urges the sustainable use of these systems for the benefit of dependent populations. During the period 1990 to date, my Department has supported 35 projects with a total commitment of almost £10 million in pursuit of these objectives. Our concern in supporting the protection of coral reefs, and other tropical coastal ecosystems, is to help our partners stabilise and regenerate natural resources which are of significant importance to global efforts to eradicate poverty.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Funds
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), of 7 April 1998,Official Report, columns 202–04, if he will place in the Library a list of projects supported over the last year for which figures are available for budget lines (a) A-3024 and A-3104, (b) A-3020 and A-3100, (c) A-3029 and A-3109, (d) A-3037 and A-3117, (e) A-3025 and A3105, (f) B3–302, (g) A-3021 and A3101, (h) B3–301, (i) B3–300 and (j) A-3022 and A-3103; and who monitors the activities funded in the United Kingdom. [49651]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I have already placed in the Library reports on beneficiaries of grants from Part A of the Community budget in 1997 and 1998 (to 30 May). These cover all the budget lines in this question apart from B3–300 and B3–301 and B3–302, for which a breakdown of projects funded over the last year is not available. All activities funded under these budget lines are monitored in the first instance by the Commission.

  Edgar Fernandes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Turkey concerning the case of Edgar Fernandes; and if he will publish their response. [50673]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our Embassy sent a Diplomatic Note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) in Ankara on 5 June. The Note pressed the authorities for information on the investigation into Mr. Fernandes' death and the progress of the extradition request for the suspect to be returned from Malta to Turkey. the MFA replied with
  397
  Diplomatic Notes on 17 and 24 June. They confirmed an investigation was still being conducted and they had not yet received a response from the Maltese authorities. The Turkish authorities informed our Embassy orally on 14 July that a formal extradition request had been handed to the Maltese Embassy in Rome.

  Treaty of Canterbury
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions(a) he and (b) his officials have had with (i) the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, (b) Eurotunnel and (c) the French Government regarding Clause 33.3 of the Treaty of Canterbury. [51176]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There is no Clause 33.3 of the Treaty of Canterbury. My hon. Friend may be referring to Clause 33.3 of the Channel Fixed Link Concession Agreement.

  We are not aware of any discussions in recent years between Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers or officials and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eurotunnel or the French Government regarding Clause 33.3 of the Concession Agreement, other than in the context of preparing a reply to this question.

  AloÏs Brunner
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Syrian Government on the subject of AloÏs Brunner. [50899]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have made no representations to the Syrian government on this matter.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department has taken to assist the French Government to extradite AloÏs Brunner for crimes against humanity; and if he will make a statement on the whereabouts of AloÏs Brunner. [50898]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We have no record of any activity by the Government on the subject of AloÏs Brunner, nor evidence of his whereabouts.

  Philippines
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for how long those who have applied in the Philippines for settlement in the United Kingdom as the wife of a British citizen have had to wait on average for a decision in the last year. [51230]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In the last year, the average waiting time in Manila for an interview for a settlement visa has been 8 weeks. In almost all cases, a decision on the application is taken immediately following the interview and the applicant informed at the same time.

  Indian Ocean Territories (Fishing)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for the protection of coral reefs around fishing grounds in the British Indian Ocean Territories. [49590]
  398
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Administering the British Indian Ocean Territory's (BIOT) 200 mile Fisheries Conservation and Management Zone is the responsibility of the BIOT Government. It is alert to the need to provide protection for the coral reef fishery. May I refer my hon. Friend to the oral statement made to the House by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development on 1 July 1997,Official Report, columns 324–30.

  Mexico
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the timetable for discussions on free trade between Mexico and the EU. [51305]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We strongly support the strengthening of EU/Mexico relations, including the liberalisation of trade in goods and services. As EU Presidency, we secured EU agreement to Negotiating Directives which clear the path for formal negotiations with Mexico. The UK will be looking for a package that is fully compatible with WTO rules and offers the EU similar access to the Mexican market as that already given to Mexico's NAFTA partners, the US and Canada. We expect negotiations to begin after the Summer break when the Mexicans have had time to consider EU proposals.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Woking regarding Kenny Richey. [51489]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I am sorry that a substantive reply to the hon. Member's letter to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary of 25 June has been delayed. A full reply was sent to him on 17 July.

  Europe Houses
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries in which Europe Houses operate; what are the criteria for the establishment of a Europe House; and what discussions are taking place on the establishment of a Europe House in the United Kingdom. [46069]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The International Federation of Europe Houses (FIME) is an association of over 100 education and information centres in 24 European countries, including the UK. Questions about the criteria for membership of FIME should be addressed to them.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the implications for human rights of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [50763]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The purpose of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) is to prevent discrimination against investors on the grounds of their nationality. The Government are pressing for clauses in the MAI which will prevent countries attracting specific investments by lowering environment and labour
  399
  standards. We do not believe that the MAI will have any adverse effect on human rights, nor will it prevent the Government from pursuing their human rights agenda.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent developments there have been in discussions between Gibraltar and Spain regarding the use of Gibraltar airport; and if he will make a statement. [50676]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 15 July 1998:] We are not aware of any recent discussions between the Government of Gibraltar and the Spanish authorities regarding the use of Gibraltar airport. We believe that development of Gibraltar airport would bring significant economic benefits for Gibraltar and Spain. We would support any proposal on which all parties could agree.

  Pakistan and India
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sanctions have been applied by(a) the UK, (b) the EU and (c) the G8 to (i) Pakistan and (ii) India following their detonation of nuclear devices; and if he will make a statement. [50848]

  Mr. Fatchett
  G8 countries meeting in London on 12 June agreed to work for a postponement in the consideration of loans to India and Pakistan in the World Bank and other International Financial Institutions, except where these loans were to meet basic human needs.

  The EU adopted a similar policy on IFI loans on 8 June. The General Affairs Council also asked the Commission to consider, in a forthcoming review, India and Pakistan's eligibility to benefit from the Community's Generalised System of Preferences in the light of their tests. The General Affairs Council stated that the European Union would take all necessary measures should India and Pakistan not take early steps to accede to the relevant international non-proliferation treaties.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary outlined the measures that the UK took in response to the tests in his statement to the House on 1 June 1998, Official Report, columns 21–22. Additional safeguards to prevent proliferation activities by India and Pakistan in the UK were announced to the House by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on 10 July 1998, Official Report, columns 687–88.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Business Innovation
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reasons the Business Link Innovation Credit Scheme was cancelled; and what initiatives have replaced it. [48339]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 2 July 1998]The Innovation Credit scheme was discontinued at the end of March 1998 as part of a series of measures to simplify funding for Business Links, by reducing the number of separate programme budgets. Business Links are 400
  sufficiently experienced to decide for themselves at local level whether a voucher-based scheme of this sort is a priority use of funds.

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer of 24 June 1998,Official Report, columns 557–58, prior to 18 May, what mechanisms were used to determine how legislation passed in the current session would affect women; what consultation she had with women's organisations; and if she will make a statement. [49091]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Guidance on policy appraisal for equal treatment has been available in this Department since 1992.

  Within the Department we are making increasing use of consultation, research projects and disaggregated statistics to identify the impact of policy on women. For example, in developing the proposals on maternity and parental rights in the White Paper, "Fairness at Work", we consulted key stakeholders including representatives of women's interests.

  Similarly, the Low Pay Commission's recommendations for the national minimum wage, which the Government have accepted subject to consultation on the practicalities of implementation, were produced following extensive consultation, including with the Equal Opportunities Commission and women's organisations.

  Mirror Group Newspapers
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she will publish her Department's inspectors' inquiry, set up in April 1992, into the circumstances of the flotation of Mirror Group Newspapers plc; and what is the current state of progress with the report. [50836]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 16 July 1998]The inspectors have not yet reported to me. A decision on publication will be taken when the report has been received and fully considered. It is not our policy to comment on an inspection during its progress.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact on United Kingdom trade with Libya of sanctions against that country. [49435]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 16 July 1998]The Department keeps a watching brief on trade between the United Kingdom and Libya. The United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on Libya on 15 April 1992. These sanctions relate to a ban on the sale of goods related to the Military and Aviation sectors, a world-wide ban on flights to and from Libya, and restrictions on diplomatic movement. Further sanctions were introduced on 1 December 1993 and relate to oil-related goods and equipment; material for Libyan airfields, making aircraft available to Libya; and extending the earlier provisions related to technical advice and training. The extended measures also introduced a limited assets freeze. The effect of sanctions on United Kingdom trade with Libya has been minimal. Britain's exports to Libya for 1997
  401
  were £269 million, which equates to a 2.5 per cent. decrease on the end-of-year figure for 1993, the year sanctions were introduced. Imports from Libya for 1997 were £231.4 million compared with £156.6 million in 1993.

  Electrical Goods
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she is taking to monitor the electrical goods market to ensure that price fixing is not occurring. [51218]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Under UK competition legislation the Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for keeping the operation of markets under review, and considering allegations of anti-competitive behaviour, abuse of monopoly power or restrictive trade practices, including price fixing.

  As part of his responsibilities, the Director General will keep under review compliance with the Order made by my right. hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 19 May 1998, following the 1997 Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of eight categories of domestic electrical goods. The Order prohibits suppliers of those goods from recommending retail prices to retailers, and from influencing the prices at which retailers sell their goods, and comes into force on 1 September 1998.

  Branded Goods
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will take steps to ensure that United Kingdom consumers continue to benefit from high street retailers importing branded goods from outside the EU on a parallel basis. [51217]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Under present United Kingdom legislation (the Trade Marks Act 1994) trade mark rights cannot be used to prevent or control parallel importation into this country of genuine goods, that is, goods already put on the market by, or with the consent of, trade mark owners, but this reduction in their rights applies only to goods put on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA). Under current legislation, goods put on the market outside the EEA do not come within this exception. Trade mark owners may, if they wish, use their rights to prevent or control the importation into the United Kingdom of such goods. However, the effects of the exercise of rights in this way is subject to the requirements of European and domestic law governing supply and competition.

  The issue of parallel importation from outside the EEA into EC Member States is important for the operation of the European Single Market. The European Commission is currently undertaking a major study to investigate the economic effects of the use of trade marks and other intellectual property rights in relation to parallel importation. We will consider the results of this work very carefully when they emerge towards the beginning of next year, and we intend to take a strong part in the discussions and decisions which follow.

  The Trade Marks Act implements Directive 89/104/EC.

  In implementing, the UK Parliament, along with all other Member States, took the view that the Directive required that trade mark owners should be able to use
  402
  their rights to control or prevent parallel imports from non-EEA countries. This is reflected in the UK Act at Section 12. A recent case before the ECJ (the Silhouette case) questioned this interpretation. The judgment confirms that this interpretation is correct.

  The Commission's study into intellectual property rights and their effects on parallel importation was instigated following Dutch objections to provisions in a Directive concerning industrial designs protection, which provisions mirror those of the trade marks Directive.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures she will take to ensure that fuel poverty does not increase as a result of the introduction of competition into the gas and electricity supply industries; and if she will make a statement. [50927]

  Mr. Battle
  The Green Paper "A Fair Deal for Consumers: Modernising the Framework for Utility Regulation" highlighted a particular concern that disadvantaged consumers may be benefiting least from emerging competition in gas and electricity supply. Competition has, and will, continue to benefit all consumers in these markets by driving prices down and services standards and choice up. But it is important that these benefits should be enjoyed fairly by all. The gas and electricity regulators and energy companies, in consultation with consumer representative bodies, were therefore asked to draw up an action plan to ensure that disadvantaged consumers benefit from improved efficiency, more choice, and greater fairness. That action plan has now been received and is being considered carefully, along with the many representations submitted on these issues. The President of the Board of Trade will be announcing the Government's response as soon as possible.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will place in the Library a copy of the 93+2 protocol on international nuclear safeguards agreed in June between Euratom, IAEA and other relevant parties. [51400]

  Mr. Battle
  I have arranged for a copy of the Council Decision of 8 June approving the three Additional Protocols, with the text of the three Additional protocols attached as annexes, to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The three Additional Protocols were also approved by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency on 11 June.

  We expect the agreement to be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities in due course.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the impact on the United Kingdom aerospace industry of the award of the contract to Airbus Industries to provide aircraft for US Airways. [51038]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]The UK's industrial partner in Airbus, British Aerospace, has a 20 per cent. stake in Airbus which brings considerable
  403
  economic benefits to the UK. Airbus and related businesses support 25,000 UK jobs in 300 companies, and contribute £1 billion to the UK trade balance. Airbus is an excellent example of European industrial co-operation. In the first half of this year Airbus has estimated that it has won 52 per cent. of the world market for large civil aircraft.

  The US Airways order was for up to thirty A330–300 aircraft, comprising 7 firm orders, 7 options, and 16 reserved production positions. The 14 orders and options are estimated to be worth over $1,500 million. Orders such as this demonstrate Airbus' continuing technical and commercial excellence.

  Departmental Invoices
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of her Department's invoices were paid within the target period during the last year; and what was the figure for each of the three preceding years. [50014]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Small Firms, Trade and Industry will publish details of the payment performance of all Government Departments for the 1997–98 financial year before the Summer Recess. Following is the information for the Department of Trade and Industry, for the three preceding years:

  Percentage

  1994–95

  84

  1995–96

  93

  1996–97

  97.9

  Export Licences
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will place in the Library statistics on export licences issued and refused for the period 1 January to 1 March 1997. [51650]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The statistics on export licences issued and refused for this period were placed in the House Library today.

  Acquired Rights Directive
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research she has conducted on whether former local authority employees transferring employment under the Acquired Rights Directive are likely to receive their full anticipated retirement pension in cases of one or more subsequent transfers of employment. [51248]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  None. The coverage of occupational pensions is, however, one of the issues that the Government have under active consideration in the context of their intended revision of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (the TUPE Regulations) which implement the Acquired Rights Directive in the UK.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she plans to publish the results of the review of renewable energy policy; and if she will make a statement. [50827]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government expect to make an announcement about the Review later in the summer.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research she has commissioned to assess the potential of renewable energy in contributing to the Government's 12.5 per cent. target for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. [51317]

  Mr. Battle
  In June 1997 the Government initiated a review of new and renewable energy policy, including what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010, and what contribution new and renewable technologies could make to meeting greenhouse gas reduction commitments. The Review is considering, inter alia, the current status and potential of the relevant new and renewable energy technologies. The Review is also addressing the need for research, development, demonstration and dissemination, and the barriers to the deployment of new and renewable energy and the measures which may be necessary to overcome them.

  The Government expect to make an announcement about the Review later this summer.

  Business Links
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the latest survey of Business Links' level of activity, with particular reference to the number of small businesses using Business Links. [50013]

  Mrs. Roche
  In the period January to March 1998 just over 112,000 businesses in England used Business Link. Of those of known size, over 56,000 of these businesses had less than 10 employees, and more than 29,000 had from 10 to 49 employees.

  Sombrero Island (Rocket-launching Platform)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to discuss with the Government and Governor of Anguilla the plans of Beale Aerospace to build a rocket-launching platform on Sombrero Island. [50127]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government's approach to the proposal by Beale Aerospace to develop a satellite launch site on Sombrero Island is being co-ordinated by the British National Space Centre (BNSC) which is seeking advice on the proposal from a range of Government Departments. Officials from BNSC are in close contact
  405
  with both the Governor of Anguilla and officials from the Anguillan Government. I have no immediate plans to discuss the issue with the Governor or Government personally.

  Science and Engineering Research
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much of the proposed £1.1 billion extra spending on science and engineering research will be spent in the North West; [51040]

  (2) where the extra funding recently announced for science and engineering research will be spent in the North West. [51039]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make decisions on the allocation of the Science Budget in the usual way, being advised by the Director General of Research Councils (DGRC). Decisions on the Research Council's programmes will be announced in the Autumn. The Research Councils and other funded bodies will then take decisions on the basis of the quality of the proposal and its relevance to sustainable growth and quality of life. The arrangements for the £600 million joint Infrastructure Fund with the Wellcome Trust will involve the peer review of proposals, as agreed between the DGRC and the Director of the Wellcome Trust. It is not possible to specify in advance which research proposals at which universities/institutes will get funding.

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what ways she has been involved in the Government's consideration of European monetary union. [13040]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My Department is playing a full role in the key task of ensuring that British business is fully ready for the launch of the euro on 1 January next year. We are also working with business on what we must do to prepare for possible UK entry. In this way, the UK could be in a position to join early in the next parliament if the single currency is successful and if Government, Parliament and the people agree.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to answer the questions for answer on(a) 29 October 1997 (13040), (b) 28 January (25826), (c) 25 June (47544) and (d) 29 June (48339) from the right hon. Member for Wokingham. [51441]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have answered q13040 today. The delay arose because the question did not appear in the electronic system used to transmit such information to my Parliamentary Branch, and we were thus unaware it had been tabled. Action has been taken which should prevent this recurring.

  Q25826 was answered on 3 February and the text will appear in the bound volume of the Official Report.

  I have answered q48339 today and will answer q47544 shortly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Hon. Members (Facilities)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Council what steps she is taking to improve the range of facilities available to hon. Members to increase the effectiveness of their offices. [49613]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Accommodation and Works, Administration, Broadcasting and Information Committees have responsibilities which affect the effectiveness of Members offices and I am sure that those Committees would be willing to consider any specific matters within their terms of reference which my hon. Friend wishes to raise.

  Staff Costs
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the impact on staff costs per week of the House sitting in August. [49609]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Staff of the House are paid on an annual basis. If the House were to sit in August, the additional staff costs would therefore be confined to overtime and additional hours payments together with the cost of late night transport. The precise amount would depend on the hours of Sitting but could be of the order of £10,000 per week.

  Refreshment Department
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what ethical and environmental policies are in place in respect of the purchasing of food by the Refreshment Department. [49860]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  In the purchasing of food, the Refreshment Department not only considers the price being offered, but also takes into account criteria such as the quality and wholesomeness of the produce available, food safety issues and consumer confidence; the latter requires the Department's procurement officer to be aware of ethical and environmental issues relating to the food chain and to advise the Department's management in order that customer confidence can be maintained at all times.

  The Refreshment Department maintains purchasing guidelines which include the following food-related issues:

  1. animal husbandry and, in particular, the procurement of fresh meat and poultry only from sources approved under an accredited 'farm assurance' scheme;

  2. the purchase of 'dolphin friendly' tinned and fresh tuna;

  3. the purchase of free-range eggs only;

  4. the purchase of coffee which has been accredited by the Fairtrade Foundation;

  5. to support the aims of the Lomé Convention, specifically with reference to the purchase of Caribbean bananas and cane sugar;

  6. to encourage food suppliers to minimise the use of packaging materials and wherever practicable, to use packaging manufactured from recycled materials;

  7. to maximise the recycling of food packaging, disposable products, glass, plastics, cans and waste oils;

  407

  8. to maintain close contacts with organisations such as Freedom Foods, the Soil Association, the Fairtrade Foundation and others who operate schemes promoting the availability and quality of ethical or environmentally-friendly foods; in particular, to work with and encourage such organisations to extend their schemes into the catering food supply chain;

  9. to avoid, wherever identifiable, the procurement of foods which contain genetically modified organisms.

  PDVN
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what was the cost of the Parliamentary Data and Video Network in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [51021]

  Mr. Allan
  The Capital and Revenue cost of providing the PDVN, in the financial year 1997–98, including expenditure on upgrade and improvement projects, but excluding expenditure on IT from the Office Cost Allowance and money spent by Departments of the House in providing information services on the PDVN (such as POLLS) was £2,207,000. Associated staff costs over the same period were an additional £647,000. It is estimated that some £750,000 was spent by the House of Commons on PDVN cabling in 1997–98.

HEALTH

  Medicines (Children)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the newly established system for licensing medicines for the treatment of children in the United States of America and the advantages and disadvantages of such a system for the United Kingdom. [43821]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]There is a newly established system for licensing medicines for the treatment of children in the United States of America. There have been recent amendments and proposed amendments to the already existing legislation which applies to the licensing of medicinal products for the treatment of all age groups.

  In December 1994 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published the Final Rule on paediatric labelling. The Final Rule required applicants to examine their existing data for already approved drugs to determine whether there was enough information to permit a paediatric indication. If appropriate, applicants were to apply for the addition to their licence by April 1997. This rule has not been very successful in adding paediatric age groups to existing licences as the available data were generally inadequate.

  In November 1997 the FDA Modernisation Act of 1997 was signed into law. Section 111 deals with paediatric studies of drugs. Where appropriate, studies are encouraged in children for all newly authorised drugs so that new medicines will be available for use in children. For certain already approved drugs (list published in May 1998) applicants will be required to carry out studies in paediatric age groups with the aim of obtaining a licence for use in children. The Act allows 6 extra months of market exclusivity for pharmaceutical manufacturers who conduct acceptable studies in children of drugs identified by the FDA for which paediatric information would be beneficial.
  408
  There is also a proposed rule, published in August 1997, which would require manufacturers to conduct studies in children if requested to do so by the FDA. If the incentives in the Modernisation Act are successful this additional regulation may be unnecessary.

  The spirit of these amendments is reflected in new European guidance on licensing medicines in children which came into operation in September 19971. The United Kingdom played a major role in developing this new guidance which strongly encourages the pharmaceutical industry to develop medicines for use in children. It states that clinical trials in children should be submitted to the regulatory authorities as soon as possible if a product is likely to be of benefit to children or widely used in that age group.

  In the European Union there is no legal requirement to conduct studies in children although a change to the Directives may be considered if companies do not respond to the new guideline. There is no extra market exclusivity in the EU for applicants who conduct studies in children.
  1CPMP/EWP/462/95: Note for Guidance on clinical investigation of medicinal products in children.

  Action Zones
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the initiatives undertaken by his Department since 1 May 1997 which have involved the establishment of(a) action zones and (b) pilot schemes limited to particular geographical areas, indicating the name of the programme and the action zone or pilot scheme areas covered in each instance. [47060]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies he has commissioned into the role of pharmacists in the National Health Service. [48231]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]A number of pilot projects have been funded by the Department to appraise the value to the National Health Service of community pharmacists providing a wider range of services. There were 17 pilots on prescribing advice during 1995–96 there are currently six pilot projects on repeat and instalment dispensing (whereby patients receive certain medicines dispensed in instalments) and a further six pilot projects evaluating services to help various patient groups to obtain best outcomes from their medicines. In addition, the Department has commissioned specific pieces of research relevant to the role of community pharmacists from university departments. The results will inform decisions on which if any of these services proceed to implementation.

  We propose to publish a document in the autumn setting out proposals for the future role of community pharmacy within the NHS.

  Family Planning
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list, by health authority, the number of nurses waiting for a place on the ENB family planning course; [48966]
  409
  (2) if he will list, by health authority, the number of places available for nurses to take the ENB family planning course. [48967]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested for the number of nurses waiting for a place on the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting family planning course is not collected centrally in the format requested.

  There are currently 3,952 approved places per annum on education programmes in family planning and reproductive sexual health. This is broken down by region as follows:

  Region

  Number

  Anglia and Oxford

  407

  Northern and Yorkshire

  550

  North Thames

  715

  South Thames

  607

  North West

  330

  South and West

  428

  Trent

  560

  West Midlands

  355

  Source

  English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many formal complaints were made to the Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [48950]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is in the table:

  Table: Number of written complaints for Essex Rivers Healthcare National Health Service Trust 1992–93 to 1996–97

  Year

  Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust

  1992–93

  388

  1993–94

  609

  1994–95

  563

  1995–96

  431

  1996–971

  492

  1Department of Health publication, Handling complaints: monitoring the NHS complaints procedure, England 1996–97

  Source

  Department of Health publications, Written complaints by, or on behalf of, patients, England, 1992–93 to 1995–96.

  Social Service Provision (London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what additional costs are incurred within London in the social service provision of adult care(a) in residential establishments and (b) in the community; and what allowance is made for this in the funding of London local government; [49441]

  (2) what additional costs he estimates are incurred within London in the social service provision of children's care; and what allowance he makes for this in his Department's funding of such provision. [49419]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government's estimates of the costs of providing social services are reflected in local authorities' standard spending assessment (SSAs). SSAs for 1998–99,410
  per head of population of the relevant age-group, for London authorities, non-London authorities, and all English authorities, are shown in the table.

  £ per head

  London

  England outside London

  England

  Residential services for the elderly

  485

  343

  361

  Non-residential services for the elderly

  270

  206

  213

  Services for adults aged 18 and 64 years

  80

  46

  51

  Children's services

  346

  162

  132

  Chiropody
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each relevant NHS trust(a) the number of patient contacts with the chiropody service, (b) the number of chiropody staff employed and (c) total expenditure on community chiropody services in each of the last three years. [49551]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]Information about the number of patient contacts with their chiropody services for each National Health Service trust is contained in the Department of Health publication "Chiropody services, summary information, England". Copies of the summary information for 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97, the latest year available, are available in the Library.

  Copies of the information about the number of chiropody staff employed in each NHS trust in the last three years up to 1996–97, the latest year available, will be placed in the Library.

  NHS trusts provide figures for total expenditure on community chiropody services in the annual financial returns. Analysis of these data by individual trust in England for the years 1994–95 to 1996–97 are available in the Library.

  Mental Health Challenge Fund
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the cases of misuse of Mental Health Challenge Fund moneys which have been uncovered by(a) audit and (b) other means; and if he will make a statement. [50074]

  Ms Jowell
  We are not aware of any misuse of Mental Health Challenge Fund moneys.

  NHS Magazine
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the National Health Service, net of advertising, sponsorship and sales, of the production and distribution of the NHS Magazine in each month since its introduction; and what its budget is for the next 12 months. [50130]

  Ms Jowell
  The "NHS Magazine", which was first published in June 1995, acts as a vehicle for sharing best practice within the National Health Service. It also carries
  411
  the most up to date quarterly data about NHS performance, helping to ensure the service remains accountable to those it serves.

  The new costs of production of each issue of the magazine, all of which have been met from the communications budget of the NHS Executive, were:

  Date

  Net Cost (£)

  Costs per issue (pence)

  Summer 1995

  33,711

  1.12

  Autumn 1995

  31,276

  0.89

  Winter 1995

  27,611

  0.79

  Spring 1996

  30,169

  0.86

  Summer 1996

  26,812

  0.72

  Autumn 1996

  33,154

  0.95

  Winter 1996

  35,536

  1

  Spring 1997

  29,815

  0.85

  Summer 1997

  32,491

  0.90

  Autumn 1997

  29,959

  0.83

  Winter 1997

  40,285

  1.15

  Spring 1998

  41,468

  1.18

  Summer 1998

  50,030

  1

  Distribution costs of the magazine were met from a central Departmental budget and cannot be readily identified separately. There is no separately identified budget for the future production costs of the magazine, which will continue to be met from within the NHS Executive's overall budget.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data his Department has collated on synergetic or potentiating effects of exposure to organophosphates to an individual taking the H2 inhibitors Cimetidine and Ranatidine. [50417]

  Ms Jowell
  We are not aware of any data on possible interactions of organophosphates and human medicines containing H2 inhibitors.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has evaluated into the effects on pulmonary, immune, neurological and psychoneurological functions of infants and young children exposed to organophosphates used domestically; and if he will make a statement. [50530]

  Ms Jowell
  The Pesticides Safety Directorate, an agency of the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, is responsible for the registration and safety evaluation of pesticides for amateur garden use in Great Britain. The Department has not evaluated any research into the effects on pulmonary, immune, neurological and psychoneurological functions of infants and young children exposed to organophosphates used domestically in gardens.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the correlation between the incidence of asthma in children of sheep farmers and(a) sheep dipping and (b) spraying of crops with organophosphates. [50529]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department's policy research programme (PRP) and the central National Health Service research and development programmes are not currently supporting any research into the correlation between the 412
  incidence of asthma in children of sheep farmers and sheep dipping and spraying crops with organophosphates. The Medical Research Council, which is funded by the Office of Science and Technology, commissions most of the Government's research into bio-medical and clinical issues. The Council is always open to new sound scientific proposals in competition with other applications. The Department's PRP supports the formulation of health and social care policies and the NHS programmes support the needs of the health service. Records are not held centrally of all research carried out in the NHS.

  Antidepressants
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost to the NHS of antidepressants prescribed by community pharmacists in England in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997; and what proportion of this was attributable to SSRIs. [50444]

  Mr. Milburn
  Pharmacists do not prescribe any medication. The information on prescriptions written by doctors is shown in the table.

  The net ingredient cost of prescription items dispensed in the community for antidepressant drugs and selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs), 1996 and 1997 England

  1996

  1997

  £ million

  percentage

  £ million

  percentage

  SSRIs

  142.3

  74

  183.0

  77

  Other antidepressants

  49.0

  26

  56.2

  23

  Total for antidepressant drugs

  191.2

  100

  239.1

  100

  Notes

  1. Antidepressant drugs are those described in the British National Formulary (BNF) section 4.3, "Antidepressant drugs". The therapeutic classifications are based on BNF, Number 32 (September 1996)

  2. The data cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered

  3. The net ingredient cost refers to the cost of the drug before discounts and does not include any dispensing costs or fees. It does not include any adjustment for income obtained where a prescription charge is paid at the time the prescription is dispensed or where the patient has purchased a pre-payment certificate

  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what quantity of each type of antidepressant was prescribed by community pharmacists in England in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997. [50445]

  Mr. Milburn
  Pharmacists do not prescribe any medication. The information on prescriptions written by doctors is shown in the table.

  Number of prescription items dispensed in the community for antidepressant drugs, 1996 and 1997 England

  Thousand

  Drug group

  1996

  1997

  Tricyclic and related antidepressant drugs

  Dothiepin Hydrochloride

  3,357

  3,389

  Amitriptyline Hydrochloride

  2,787

  3,062

  Lofepramine Hydrochloride

  918

  894

  Clomipramine Hydrochloride

  529

  516

  Imipramine Hydrochloride

  424

  407

  413

  Number of prescription items dispensed in the community for antidepressant drugs, 1996 and 1997 England

  Thousand

  Drug group

  1996

  1997

  Trazodone Hydrochloride

  274

  324

  Trimipramine Maleate

  300

  281

  Doxepin

  171

  165

  Nortriptyline

  158

  151

  Mianserin Hydrochloride

  103

  85

  Amitriptyline Embonate

  29

  28

  Maprotiline Hydrochloride

  24

  21

  Protriptyline Hydrochloride

  12

  11

  Amoxapine

  11

  9

  Mirtazapine

  —

  8

  Desipramine Hydrochloride

  8

  6

  Viloxazine Hydrochloride

  1

  1

  Total for Tricyclic and related antidepressant drugs

  9,106

  9,358

  Monoamine-Oxidase Ihibitors (Maois)

  Tranylcypromine Sulphate

  50

  45

  Pheneizine Sulphate

  47

  44

  Moclobemide

  48

  43

  Isocarboxazid

  9

  8

  Total for Monoamine-Oxidase Inhibitors (Maois)

  153

  140

  SSRIs and related antidepressants

  Fluoxetine Hydrochloride

  2,514

  3,036

  Paroxetine Hydrochloride

  1,692

  2,287

  Sertraline Hydrochloride

  727

  905

  Venlafaxine

  176

  364

  Citalopram

  126

  264

  Nefazodone Hydrochloride

  88

  101

  Fluvoxamine Maleate

  77

  63

  Total for SSRIs and related antidepressants

  5,400

  7,021

  Other antidepressant drugs

  Flupenthixol Hydrochloride

  298

  293

  Reboxetine

  —

  7

  Tryptophan

  4

  4

  Total for other antidepressant drugs

  302

  304

  Total for all antidepressant drugs

  14,961

  16,823

  Notes

  1. Antidepressant drugs are those described in the British National Formulary (BNF) section 4.3, "Antidepressant drugs". The therapeutic classifications are based on BNF, Number 32 (September 1996)

  2. The data cover all prescriptions dispensed in the community, ie by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered

  Bristol Royal Infirmary
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the public aspects of the public inquiry into cardiac surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary will start; what factors will determine the start date; and if he will make a statement. [50479]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is our intention to begin the public inquiry as soon as is practicable. Following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's oral announcement on 18 June 1998,Official Report, columns 529–39, Professor Ian Kennedy is currently considering all aspects of the inquiry which he will be leading, including the terms of reference and the selection of other panel members. We will be making a further announcement shortly.
  414
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Her Majesty's Government will meet the costs of group legal representation for families bereaved following malpractice at Bristol Royal Infirmary. [50478]

  Mr. Milburn
  Issues concerning the terms of reference of the Inquiry and participation in it are still be decided.

  Benzodiazepines
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what quantity of each individual type of benzodiazepine was prescribed by community pharmacists in England in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997. [50446]

  Mr. Milburn
  Pharmacists do not prescribe any medication. The information on prescriptions written by doctors is shown in the table.

  Benzodiazepines: number of prescription items dispensed in the community England, 1996 and 1997

  Thousand

  Drug group

  1996

  1997

  Temazepam

  5,540

  5,252

  Diazepam

  3,600

  3,798

  Nitrazepam

  2,539

  2,426

  Lorazepam

  785

  758

  Chlordiazepoxide

  428

  423

  Oxazepam

  304

  306

  Lormetazepam

  234

  249

  Loprazolam

  221

  215

  Clonazepam

  180

  196

  Clobazam

  74

  74

  Triazolam

  0

  0

  Totals

  13,905

  13,698

  Notes

  1. Date cover all prescriptions dispensed in the community, i.e. by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered

  2. An "O" indicates less than 500 prescription items

  3. Figures may not add up due to rounding

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to provide financial assistance for people with haemophilia infected with the hepatitis C virus. [50436]

  Ms Jowell
  We are considering the representations which have been made to us on this subject and will announce the outcome as soon as we are in a position to do so.

  Cancer
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money his Department spent in each of the last three years on research into(a) breast (b) lung and (c) prostate cancer. [50206]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 14 July 1998]We are committed to encouraging research into the causes, prevention, early detection and treatment of all cancers.
  415
  Departmental expenditure on research into (a) breast, (b) lung and (c) prostate cancer is:

  £000

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Breast cancer

  Department's policy research programme (PRP)

  849

  637

  304

  National Health Service research and development programme

  123

  316

  528

  Total

  972

  953

  832

  Lung cancer

  Department's PRP

  144

  231

  0

  NHS research and development

  27

  197

  187

  Total

  171

  428

  187

  Prostate cancer

  Department's PRP

  20

  21

  17

  NHS research and development

  49

  47

  12

  Total

  69

  68

  29

  In addition, the Medical Research Council (which is funded by grant-in-aid from the Department of Trade and Industry and is the main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research) invested in 1997–98: £3.3 million in breast cancer research, £691,000 in lung cancer research and £18,000 in prostate cancer research. Cancer charities and industry are also major investors, spending an estimated total of £122 million and £115 million per year respectively on cancer research.

  NHS resources also support the NHS service costs of projects funded by non-commercial funders of research and development. This could include cancer research projects in the above areas.

  Departmental resources going into cancer research complement these other funders, and the fluctuating spend stems from the cycle of commissioning as projects and programmes start and finish rather than any established policy to change funding levels.

  NHS Trust Boards
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women he has appointed to National Health Service trust boards since 1 May 1997. [50731]

  Mr. Milburn
  Since 1 May 1997 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has appointed 469 women and 451 men as non-executive directors of National Health Service trusts, including chairmen.

  Health Visitors
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of ending the separate registration of health visitors on public safety and quality of nursing care. [50829]

  Mr. Milburn
  This is an issue which was raised during the consultation stage of the current review of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979. United Kingdom Health Ministers expect to receive the review report shortly and will be considering its recommendations over the summer.

  Nursing Students
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to implement the increase to non-means-tested nursing student bursaries announced at the recent Royal College of Nursing Congress. [51208]

  Mr. Milburn
  1 September 1998.

  General Practitioner Lists
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) in total and (b) aged over state retirement age, were removed from their general practitioner list in 1997. [51146]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the number of people removed from their general practitioner's list is collected annually and is published in the GMP Census Additional Data Collection, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The latest published information relates to the year 1995–96.

  No information is held centrally analysing these figures within age bands.

  Medical Records
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has taken to ensure that patients are not obstructed from access to their medical records by general practitioners. [51043]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]All general practitioners are bound by the provisions of the Access to Health Records Act 1990 and the Department has issued clear guidance on the operation of the Act. When instances of apparent flagrant violation of the Act are brought to our attention (for example excessive charging), we have written to the record-holder concerned reminding them of their responsibilities under the Act. Further, since 1 April 1996, patients have been able to pursue complaints about any aspect of how an application under the Act has been handled under the National Health Service Complaints Procedure. This provides an opportunity for the complaint to be heard by an independent review panel if local complaints officers are unable to resolve the matter satisfactorily.

  Linear Accelerators
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Royal College of Radiologists' recent report, if he will assess the cost to public funds of(a) providing 48 new linear accelerators and (b) replacing 44 existing linear accelerators. [50949]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]Linear accelerators cost around £1 million each depending on local circumstances such as the model selected and optional extras. The pair of reports from the Royal College of Radiologists will provide valuable information for local planning of services; the National Health Service Executive, health authorities and trusts will find them useful for formulating and assessing proposals for radiotherapy services.

  Residential and Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Burst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage increase in charges to service users for(a) domiciliary care services, (b) day care and (c) meals on wheels for the latest year for which figures are available for each local authority. [51508]

  Ms Jowell
  Information on charges made to individuals for social services provision is not collected centrally. However, the total amounts reported by local authorities as having been received from clients in the form of fees and charges, in 1996–97, for different services are collected centrally, and are available in the form of computer tables on the DH World Wide Web pages for all local authorities in England (Internet reference http:\\www.open.gov.uk/doh/public/pss—stat.htm).

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons his Department has not issued guidance under section 7 of the Local Government Act 1970 to local authorities on the provisions of section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983. [51503]

  Ms Jowell
  Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 places a duty on health authorities and local social services authorities to provide after-care services to a specified group of patients. It is a responsibility imposed on both authorities. Guidance on section 117 is contained in the Code of Practice to the Mental Health Act 1983.

  Spinal Cord Injuries
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the incidence of spinal cord injury; [49724]

  (2) how many people with spinal cord injury were awaiting admission into a spinal injury Unit in each year from 1990 to 1997; [49725]

  (3) what is the total number of beds in spinal injury units; [49726]

  (4) how many people with spinal cord injuries waiting for a bed in a spinal injury unit were (a) dealt with in the community and (b) admitted to a district general hospital in each year between 1990 and 1997; [49727]

  (5) what assessment he has made of the protocol for the treatment of spinal cord injuries drawn up by the Spinal Injuries Association. [49898]

  Ms Jowell
  Information on the incidence of spinal cord injury is not held centrally. However, estimates based upon the number of hospital admissions suggest that there are about 400 new cases of spinal cord injury in England each year. We know this figure is an overestimate, since spinal injury patients who are transferred to Spinal Injuries Units in other trusts will count as two admissions.

  Data on waiting times for individual procedures are not collected centrally. Information on people waiting for a bed in a spinal injury unit and where they were treated is not available.

  1995–96 was the last financial year in which bed data were collected separately for spinal unit wards. In 1996–97, beds in spinal units were added to beds in other units and classified as "Younger Physically Disabled". The information is given in the table. Information on beds is
  418
  contained in the publication "Bed availability and occupancy for England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Table: Average daily number of available beds in Younger Physically Disabled wards, open night and day (ie 24 hours) England, 1995–96 and 1996–97

  1995–96

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1996–97

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Younger Physically Disabled

  1,364

  100

  11,294

  100

  Spinal Unit

  221

  16.2

  —

  —

  Other

  1.143

  83.8

  —

  —

  1Figure includes spinal units and other units

  Source

  1. Bed Availability for England, 1995–96

  2. Bed Availability for England, 1996–97

  The Department is aware of the protocol drawn up by the Spinal Injuries Association. At present, the drawing up of guidelines for good practice in any area of medicine, including spinal injury, is a matter for the Medical Royal Colleges.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the funding provision of NHS dentistry in Herefordshire. [51249]

  Mr. Milburn
  The amount spent on general dental services is dependent upon the activity of National Health Service dentists. Dentists providing general dental services receive payment from the NHS for the dental treatment and care they provide.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide guidance to local authorities on the funding responsibility for residential accommodation for elderly people who have chosen to move from a residential home in one council's area to a residential home in another council's area. [51225]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) on 7 July 1998,Official Report, column 453.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled Student Allowance
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if local education authorities are required to follow national criteria when allocating disabled student allowance; and if he will make a statement. [51427]

  Dr. Howells
  Disabled Students Allowances can be paid by local education authorities to students who can prove that they have a disability or medical condition which affects their ability to study. These allowances are payable as part of a mandatory award. The Mandatory Awards Regulations therefore provide the legal framework under which LEAs administer the allowances.
  419
  They have written guidance from my Department available to them on how to assess a student's eligibility for these allowances within that framework.

  Education Action Zones
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if businesses contributing in cash or in kind to education action zones will be prevented from entering into any form of preferred trading agreements with the schools in those zones, or with the Education Action Forum; and how such arrangements will be monitored. [51307]

  Mr. Byers
  Education Action Forums must secure best value in any contract they enter into. We will be issuing guidance to them on how to do this.

  Each Forum will be under a legal duty to send its accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Comptroller and Auditor General will report on them to Parliament.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria he has set for the receipt of contributions in kind from businesses involved in the education action zones. [51303]

  Mr. Byers
  Each zone will raise £250,000 a year in cash or kind from the private sector.

  Contact Sports (Gum Shields)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice his Department provides to schools on the use of gum shields in contact sports. [51389]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not issue advice to schools on the use of gum shields in contact sports.

  The National Curriculum for physical education requires schools to ensure safe practice and to teach pupils why particular protection is worn for different activities.

  School Meals (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost of the fixed-price school meals provided by Gloucestershire and South Gloucestershire education authorities for the most recent five years for which records are available. [51125]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Industrial Accidents and Illnesses
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average estimated cost to public funds of an industrial accident or illness resulting in(a) death, (b) serious injury incapacitating the victim from further employment, (c) other serious injury and (d) minor injury; and if he will make a statement. [50627]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The costs to public funds of work-related accidents or work-related ill-health arise principally through social security payments and medical provision. However, the
  420
  records maintained do not enable the costs to public funds of injury accidents or ill-health arising from work activities to be separately identified.

  Students (St. Helena)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial help has been given in each of the last five years towards the education costs of young people from St. Helena studying in the United Kingdom. [50707]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1993 the overseas aid programme to St. Helena has provided the sum of £659,542 towards the education costs of St. Helenians studying in the United Kingdom which is broken down in each of the last five years as follows:

  1993–94: £144,365

  1994–95: £102,740

  1995–96: £143,472

  1996–97: £166,804

  1997–98: £102,161.

  Easternside Primary School, Middlesbrough
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria were used in determining the need for an OFSTED inspection of Easternside Primary School in Middlesbrough within three years of the previous inspection. [50874]

  Mr. Byers
  The timing of school inspections is a matter for Ofsted. Easternside Primary School, Middlesbrough, was inspected in July 1995 and I understand that HM Chief Inspector has arranged for the school to be inspected in October 1998. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend, to explain the reasons for that decision, and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Beacon Schools
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what procedures are in place to assess the effectiveness of the investment of extra resources in beacon schools. [50910]

  Mr. Byers
  Each beacon school will be required to produce an annual report accounting for the additional expenditure and assessing the impact of its activities on raising standards in other schools. Those schools receiving support and advice from beacon schools will also be asked to evaluate its impact.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what basis beacon schools were selected; and what involvement local education authorities had in the process. [50954]

  Mr. Byers
  The beacon schools were selected from those commended in Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools' latest Annual Report as the best performing during 1996–97. Local Education Authorities were not involved in the process.
  421
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of beacon schools on the planning of school admission limits and the management of empty places in schools. [50911]

  Mr. Byers
  Beacon schools will have no impact on the planning of school admissions limits or the management of empty places in schools.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 7 July 1998,Official Report, column 490, what was the education standard spending assessment for (1) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98 and (g) 1998–99 for Hereford and Worcester local education authorities in (i) cash terms and (ii) 1998–99 prices for the categories (1) primary education, (2) secondary education, (3) post 16 education, (4) under-5 education and (5) other education. [50431]

  Mr. Byers
  The following tables set out the five education SSA sub-blocks for Hereford and Worcester local education authority for each year since 1992–93 in cash terms and in 1998–99 prices. It is not possible to calculate underlying year-on-year changes, adjusted for all local authority changes of function, at the level of individual SSA sub-blocks.

  Hereford and Worcester local education authority

  £million cash terms

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Post-16

  Under-fives

  Other

  1992–93

  81.9

  94.0

  46.7

  9.3

  10.0

  1993–94

  82.6

  95.7

  13.7

  9.4

  10.2

  1994–95

  86.0

  97.1

  13.6

  10.6

  9.2

  1995–96

  88.3

  96.9

  14.1

  11.0

  9.6

  1996–97

  94.0

  99.7

  14.2

  11.8

  9.3

  1997–98

  98.3

  100.8

  15.3

  8.2

  8.2

  1998–99

  104.7

  105.6

  15.5

  11.7

  7.5

  £ million at 1998–99 prices

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Post-16

  Under-fives

  Other

  1992–93

  95.6

  109.7

  54.5

  10.9

  11.7

  1993–94

  93.8

  108.6

  15.6

  10.6

  11.6

  1994–95

  96.1

  108.5

  15.2

  11.8

  10.3

  1995–96

  96.0

  105.4

  15.3

  12.0

  10.5

  1996–97

  99.3

  105.4

  15.0

  12.5

  9.8

  1997–98

  101.1

  103.7

  15.7

  8.4

  8.5

  1998–99

  104.7

  105.6

  15.5

  11.7

  7.5

  Notes

  1. All figures in table 1 are in £ million cash terms

  2. All figures in table 2 are in £ million at 1998–99 prices

  3. The figures for 1998–99 represent the aggregate totals for Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  Schools (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money local education authority schools in Worcestershire held in reserves(a) as a total amount (cash), (b) in real terms at 1998 prices and (c) as a percentage of the total available to be spent on schools in each year since 1991–92. [50920]
  422
  Mr. Byers
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Key Stage 2 and 3
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will make a statement about the problems which delayed the provision of Key Stage 2 results to certain schools this year; [50385]

  (2) what measures are being undertaken by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to ensure that the problems in making available this year's Key Stage 2 results do not occur again. [50386]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 13 July 1998]The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) are responsible for the collection and notification of Key Stage 2 results to schools. The problems affecting this year's exercise also apply to Key Stage 3 test results.

  The Department was informed by QCA that there were significant problems, primarily relating to delays in the completion of the necessary work. On being informed we immediately told QCA to take action as a matter of urgency to both minimise disruption to schools and to ensure the accuracy and quality of results.

  On 14 July QCA wrote to all schools explaining that it would not be possible to notify all results before the end of the summer term but that all schools would receive a complete set of accurate results by the end of August at the latest.

  Ministers regard this whole episode as being an unacceptable state of affairs and an inquiry will be conducted to find the cause of the difficulties and to make sure this does not happen again.

  The Chief Executive of QCA has written to all schools to apologise.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many schools will not receive their Key Stage 2 test results before the end of the summer term; [49508]

  (2) how many schools have not received their (a) Key Stage 2 test results and (b) Key Stage 3 test results; [49509]

  (3) what is the nature of the technical problems which have prevented the contractor employed to process and notify Key Stage 2 and 3 test results from completing the work on time; [49511]

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 2 July 1998, Official Report, column 268, concerning Key Stage 2 and 3 test results, if he will identify the contractor and place a copy of the contract in the Library. [49513]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 8 July 1998]I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) today.

  The contract is commercial-in-confidence and not available for general inspection.

  Charity Collectors
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 12 November 1997,Official Report, column 557,

  423
  concerning charity collectors, what studies he has undertaken of the effectiveness of the precautions against jobcentres assisting recruitment of collectors for bogus charities; and if he will make a statement. [50398]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Adrian Sanders, dated 20 July 1998 The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning studies he has undertaken into the effectiveness of the precautions against Jobcentres assisting in the recruitment of collectors for bogus charities. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Since you last raised this issue, in November of last year, we have taken action to strengthen our guidance to Jobcentres in consultation with the Charity Commission.
  As I explained in my reply to you in November 1997, our guidance already told Jobcentres not to accept vacancies from or on behalf of any charity unless it was registered with the Charity Commission or, in Scotland, the Financial Intermediary Claims Office (FICO). Where any doubt arises about the registration, or the actions of a charity, the local Jobcentre is now instructed to forward details to a team in the Employment Service Head Office in Sheffield for investigation. This team will check the organisation's registration with the Charity Commission or the Financial Intermediary Claims Office, as appropriate, and advise the Jobcentre whether or not to accept the vacancy. Where necessary we will ask the Charity Commission or the FICO to investigate the organisation. This will confirm whether the organisation is registered and whether the Commission or FICO, through their Investigations Division, are aware of any other information about them which would lead us to doubt whether their vacancies were suitable for display in Jobcentres. If the organisation is not registered, or the Commission expresses any doubt about them, the team will instruct Jobcentres not to display any vacancies from them.
  These strengthened processes mean that a single team at our Head Office is now able quickly to tell Jobcentre staff about the steps they should take to safeguard jobseekers, and seek the advice of the Charity Commission or FICO about organisations whose activities are causing concern to staff or jobseekers. It also allows us to inform all our Jobcentres quickly of any organisations about which the Charity Commission or FICO have concerns and thus stop them accepting any vacancies from them.
  You ask what studies we have undertaken on our precautions. We have not undertaken any specific research, although our Head Office team will themselves monitor carefully any feedback from our Jobcentres and from our clients about charities which appear to have doubts attaching to them. If you have any examples or problems of which you would like us to be aware we would of course, be very happy to investigate them.
  I hope this is helpful.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army centres have been identified for(a) closure and (b) sale as part of his Department's efficiency savings. [49591]

  Dr. Reid
  Prior to the announcement of the Strategic Defence Review, and following its normal annual assessment of the usage of its assets my Department had identified 18 Territorial Army centres for closure and subsequent sale. In addition, and as an element of the 424
  Strategic Defence Review, we have already announced that the Duke of York's Headquarters in Chelsea will be sold and its Territorial Army occupants re-accommodated as necessary. Further closures will arise from the forthcoming restructuring of the Territorial Army, but we do not expect to be in a position to announce these until the autumn.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the likely effects of the measures announced in the Strategic Defence Review on the effectiveness of the Territorial Army. [49576]

  Dr. Reid
  The aim of the Strategic Defence Review has been to ensure that our forces are more capable of performing their primary defence tasks. The conclusions we have reached are designed to increase the utility and efficacy of our Armed Forces, of which our Reserve Forces are an important and fully integrated part. The improvements made by the Review will, therefore, enhance the effectiveness of the Territorial Army in the new strategic setting.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Strategic Defence Review, if he will make a statement on the future of the Territorial Army in Chorley. [51030]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]Following the announcement of the results of the Strategic Defence Review, work has now commenced to establish the future organisation and structure of the Territorial Army. It is too early to say how this work will affect TA units in any particular area, but we expect to be in a position to make detailed announcements by the Autumn.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate how many fewer men and women on current retention rates will have served in the Territorial Army by the end of the year 2015 under the Government's plans for the future establishment of the TA compared to the current establishment. [49578]

  Dr. Reid
  We estimate that, based on current retention rates, some 68,000 fewer individuals will have served in the Territorial Army by the end of 2015 under our plans for the future establishment of the TA compared to the current establishment. This will represent a decline of no more than around 6 per cent. in the number of people who will have had some experience in the forces—excluding those gaining experience with the Combined Cadet Corps in schools.

  Army (Recruitment)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Army's most recent recruitment figures. [49592]

  Dr. Reid
  Recruitment is one of our highest priorities and we are therefore actively pursuing a number of recruiting initiatives. Reversing the problems we have inherited will take some time, but we are making promising headway. I am pleased to be able to report that as at 1 June we have 1,500 more people on the total strength than there were at 1 May last year.

  Royal Navy (Anti-submarine Warfare)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the anti-submarine warfare capability of the Royal Navy. [49593]

  Dr. Reid
  The Royal Navy continues to have a world-class anti-submarine warfare capability. However, the nature and scale of the submarine threat has changed since the end of the Cold War, towards a wide range of operations in coastal areas. We have decided therefore as part of the Strategic Defence Review to focus more on this threat and reduce the emphasis on open ocean operations.

  United Nations Operations
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to enhance the UN's ability to mount peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. [49594]

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to enhance the UN's ability to mount peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. [49605]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Strategic Defence Review has reaffirmed that the UK will continue to make an important military contribution to the United Nations. We are planning a significant UK initiative to underline the Government's commitment to support UN operations by declaring a much larger proportion of our front line capabilities as potentially available to the UN, including all of our rapidly deployable forces; and by incorporating this declaration in a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the UN.

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of the strategic defence review on the tri-service medical services. [49595]

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for the Defence Medical Services. [49596]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Strategic Defence Review included measures to address current personnel and equipment shortfalls across all three Services as a matter of priority and to provide an acceptable level of medical support for deployed operations. These measures include recruiting approximately 250 hospital specialists, nurses, technicians and other personnel to bring the Defence Secondary Care Agency up to its manpower establishment.

  As part of this major new initiative, we intend to enhance our arms control programme, including restoration of our 'Open Skies' air inspection capability; expand our Outreach and wider military assistance programmes, including greater use of attachments and short term training teams; revitalise our pool of defence attaches; and introduce new education and training initiatives, including a new defence diplomacy scholarship scheme. These measures will greatly enhance the British contribution to conflict prevention.

  Diplomacy and Conflict Prevention
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to promote defence diplomacy and conflict prevention. [49597]

  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to promote defence diplomacy and conflict prevention. [49598]

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to promote defence diplomacy and conflict prevention. [49607]

  Mr. George Robertson
  A key decision of the Strategic Defence Review was that defence diplomacy should become one of the eight core Missions of our Armed Forces. As part of this major new initiative, we intend to enhance our arms control programme, including restoration of our 'Open Skies' air inspection capability; expand our Outreach and wider military assistance programmes, including greater use of attachments and short term training terms; revitalise our pool of defence attaches; and introduce new education and training initiatives, including a new defence diplomacy scholarship scheme. These measures will greatly enhance the British contribution to conflict prevention.

  Armed Forces (Training)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) men and (b) women in the armed forces are at present undertaking training which will lead to a formal qualification. [49600]

  Dr. Reid
  Formal qualifications are taken to mean civilian qualifications. The information requested is not held centrally by my Department and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, considerable numbers of Service personnel are studying for a variety of civilian qualifications at any given time.

  Additionally, a large and growing proportion of Service training is now accredited by civilian award bodies.

  As part of the Strategic Defence Review and our `Policy for People', our new 'Learning Forces' initiative will make further improvements to education and training provision in the Armed Forces, helping Service personnel to gain recognised qualifications.

  Joint Service Co-operation
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the Government are taking to increase joint service co-operation in Britain's armed forces. [49601]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Increasing Joint Service co-operation and integration is a major theme of the Strategic Defence Review. We had already announced the creation of a Joint Services' Command and Staff College at Watchfield. As a result of the Review we will create a pool of Joint Rapid Reaction Forces to include all of our readily available capabilities, bring the Royal Navy and RAF Harriers together in a 'Joint Force 2000' and enhance the role of the Chief of Joint Operations. We will set up a Joint Helicopter Command and new joint arrangements for ground-based air defence and nuclear, chemical and biological defence. We will create a new tri-Service four-star Chief of Defence Logistics and
  427
  significantly expand joint integration in the support area. Finally, we will set up a Joint Defence Centre to develop tri-Service doctrine and planning.

  Colchester Garrison
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated value of the private finance initiative for the re-development of Colchester Garrison; when he expects to announce the name of the chosen contractor; and when he expects work to start. [49602]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have made no estimate of the value to prospective contractors of the private finance initiative for the re-development of Colchester Garrison. Tenders for the PFI project at Colchester were received on 8 July and will now be subject to a full technical and commercial evaluation. The information contained within the tenders is commercial in confidence and is being withheld under section 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. If it is decided that the PFI route represents a viable way forward, a preferred bidder should be announced early next year. I would expect any contract to be awarded in mid-1999 with work starting on a phased basis during the year 2000.

  Armed Forces (Commitments)
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what change there has been in the level of total commitments falling on the armed forces since 1 May 1997. [49603]

  Mr. George Robertson
  On 1 May 1997, 24,359 personnel were involved in major operational commitments in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, the Gulf region and Zaire and in UN deployments in Cyprus, Kuwait and Georgia.

  On 1 June 1998, 24,183 personnel were involved in operational commitments. The operation in Zaire had been completed by this date.

  Armed Forces (Readiness)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current level of readiness of the armed forces. [49604]

  Dr. Reid
  The readiness of the Armed Forces is sufficient to enable them to meet the demanding range of operational tasks they currently undertake. However, some shortfalls have been identified and are being addressed in the Strategic Defence Review.

  Airborne Forces
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the role of airborne forces. [49606]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of state for Defence made on 8 July 1998,Official Report, columns 1073–76, on the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review.

  Duke of York's Headquarters
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Duke of York's headquarters in Chelsea. [49608]

  Dr. Reid
  We have announced, following the Strategic Defence Review, that the Duke of York's Headquarters will be sold. Further work is needed on the disposal arrangements. Units currently occupying the site will be re-accommodated as necessary.

  Suspected War Criminals (Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards the detention of suspected war criminals in the former Yugoslavia. [49585]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Nine people indicted for war crimes have been detained in Bosnia by SFOR. Seven of these detentions took place in the British-commanded sector, and involved British SFOR forces, either directly or in support. A further fifteen indictees have surrendered voluntarily to the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague.

  Armed Forces (Personnel)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the impact of the strategic defence review on the personnel strengths of the armed forces. [49599]

  Mr. George Robertson
  As a result of the Strategic Defence Review, we will increase the size of the Army establishment by 3,300 personnel. Once full manning has been achieved, the net effect of the Review on the Royal Navy's Regular manpower will be a reduction of some 1,400, and the net effect on Regular RAF manpower will be broadly neutral. We intend to achieve full manning in the Royal Air Force by 2000, in the Royal Navy by 2002 and in the Army around 2004.

  The Territorial Army will be reduced from around 56,000 to around 40,000 but we will make it more relevant and usable. The Royal Naval Reserve will increase by 350 personnel. No change is planned to the strength of the Royal Marines Reserve. The Reserve Air Forces will increase by 270 posts.

  RAF Scampton
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of RAF Scampton following the Strategic Defence Review. [50453]

  Dr. Reid
  Detailed options for the future use of RAF Scampton are currently being considered taking account of the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review. An announcement on the future of the site will be made as soon as the work is concluded.

  Royal Military Police (Army)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current security classifications of the newsletters produced for the staff of Royal Military Police (Army); how often each newsletter is produced; and when each newsletter was first produced. [51129]
  429
  Mr. Spellar
  The Royal Military Police (Army) have one newsletter the RMP Journal. The Journal, which has no security classification is published three times a year and is received by serving and associated members of the RMP. It was first published in March 1950.

  Research and Development (Universities)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many research and development contracts and agreements are currently being funded by his Department in universities; how many of these research projects are classified; and from which of his Department's research establishments these research projects have originated. [51131]

  Mr. Spellar
  A complete list of all research and development contracts and agreements funded by MOD is not kept. However, in 1997 there were over 450 contracts and agreements, involving about 60 UK academic institutions, for extramural research, funded through the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. Fewer than 25 of the 450 projects are classified.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on 25 June 1998,Official Report, column 569, if he will list the names of the 11 directorates which currently exist at AWE, Aldermaston. [51134]

  Mr. Spellar
  The 11 Directorates currently existing at AWE Aldermaston are:

  Assurance

  Commercial

  Communications

  Finance

  Performance Management

  Personal

  Physics Research

  Programmes

  Sites Development

  Systems Engineering

  Technology.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what volume of sludge containing(a) plutonium and (b) uranium is presently held at AWE Aldermaston; how this is presently stored; what plans he has to (a) reduce the volume held and (b) improve storage safety of the material; and if he will make a statement. [51156]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are at present some 761 cubic metres of sludge stored at AWE Aldermaston. This material contains both plutonium and uranium. It is safely stored in tanks above ground within bunded areas. These tanks are regularly inspected and maintained.

  A feasibility study is underway, with the aim of reducing the volume of this material.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funds have been earmarked in years(a) eight, (b) nine and (c) 10 of his Department's long-term costings for the replacement carriers. [50960]
  430
  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]The Long Term Costings represent projections and assumptions which inform advice to Ministers on the affordability of constituent elements of the Defence Programme. It has been the position of successive Governments that advice to Ministers, and hence LTC information, should not be published. I am therefore withholding this information under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Procurement
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the basis for his Department's assumption that Smart procurement will achieve savings of two per cent. or £2 billion. [50958]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]The estimate of Smart procurement cost savings over the next 10 years, amounting to £2 billion, has been compiled in consultation with industry and is based on the progressive application, to a range of existing and planned equipment procurements, of the acquisition reforms announced as part of the Strategic Defence Review. The greatest impact of the reforms will be achieved on procurements which are currently in their early formative stages and therefore most open to change.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he intends to implement the Treasury's proposal for least cost procurement. [50955]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]The term "least cost procurement" is not recognised; the Ministry of Defence pursues a policy of value for money procurement. The Strategic Defence Review included a radical reappraisal of the ways in which we carry out defence procurement. The resulting package of measures, grouped under the banner of "Smart Procurement", aims to make defence procurement faster, cheaper, and better.

  Stockholdings
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the means by which industry will meet the stockholding requirements of his Department for weapons, equipment and clothing following the disposal of current stocks. [50964]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]As part of the Strategic Defence Review the Department is assessing the stockholding requirements needed to be retained in house and what may more effectively be provided from industry within agreed readiness times. Each equipment area will be examined in detail and a decision taken on stockholding policy requirement. Following this detailed work the Department will invite expressions of interest from industry.

  RAF Chilmark
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to whom, on what terms and in what numbers are buildings available at the former RAF Chilmark for use as a fireworks factory. [51053]
  431
  Mr. Spellar
  No buildings at the former RAF Chilmark are let or available for use as a fireworks factory. Four buildings have been let on the Ladydown Site on short term leases for fireworks storage and agreement has been reached in principle to let one further building.

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the figures for total defence spending for the years 1996–97 and 1997–98 on an outturn basis and 1998–99 to 2001–02 on an estimated or planned basis(a) in cash and (b) at 1996–97 prices using the actual and estimated GDP deflator to make the adjustments. [50843]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The information requested is as follows:

  £million

  Year

  Cash

  1996–97 prices

  1996–97

  22,345

  22,345

  1997–98

  21,554

  20,987

  1998–99

  22,240

  21,045

  1999–2000

  22,295

  20,562

  2000–01

  22,830

  20,542

  2001–02

  22,987

  20,179

  The figure for 1996–97 outturn is that shown in Table 1 (Cash Plans) of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1998–99 Ministry of Defence" (Cm 3902) which excludes the element of receipts arising from the sale of the married quarters estate that were appropriated onto Defence Votes in that year. The figure for 1997–98 represents the provisional outturn as set out in the Public Expenditure 1997–98 Provisional Outturn White Paper (Cm 3988) adjusted to exclude a further receipt from the sale of the married quarters estate.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish detailed Defence Estimates for(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [50842]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The details of the Government's planned expenditure on defence for the years 1999–2000 to 2001–2002 will be presented to Parliament in the Supply Estimates, in the usual manner, by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at the start of each financial year; eg, April 1999 for 1999–2000.

  Torpedo Testing Facilities
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 1998,Official Report, columns 261–62, if he will make a statement on the implications of the Strategic Defence Review for operations at the British Underwater Test Evaluation Centre. [51429]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is too early to assess what implications the Strategic Defence Review may have for the overall operation of the British Underwater Test and Evaluation Centre. However, with regard to the testing of torpedoes, the answer given to the hon. Member on 25 February 1998,Official Report, columns 261–62, still applies.

  Surplus Property and Land
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sites included in his Department's432
  Forward Disposal Programme referred to in part 16 of Supporting Essay II to the Strategic Defence Review; and if he will provide for each such site an estimate of market value. [50950]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on 17 July 1998,Official Report, column 330.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the costs of United Kingdom participation in the Bosnia peacekeeping operation for 1998–99 will be charged to the Reserve. [50841]

  Mr. George Robertson
  As in previous years, it remains open for my Department to make a claim on the Reserve, should it not prove possible for the cost of UK participation in Bosnia peacekeeping operations in 1998–99 to be accommodated within the Defence budget without detriment to the underlying defence programme and the delivery of defence outputs.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to paragraph 151 of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee's Review of the MOD's Radioactive Waste Management and Practice, what action he plans to take in respect of the storage facilities identified as not constructed for long-term use. [51157]

  Mr. Spellar
  There were two stores at AWE Aldermaston which were identified as not constructed for long-term storage of Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. The waste from these two stores will be checked, overpacked and transported to one of the existing purpose built stores by the end of 1999. It remains the intention to construct the new ILW store referred to by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee in paragraph 151 of their report on the Ministry of Defence radioactive waste management to deal with future waste arisings.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantity of radioactive liquid has escaped from nuclear submarines held at (i) Rosyth, (ii) Devonport and (iii) Faslane in each year since 1980. [51155]

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

  C-17 Aircraft
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the competition for leasing of C-17s indicating the criteria set by his Department. [51502]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 27 April 1998,Official Report, column 23, and to the Strategic Defence Review White Paper, Chapter 5, paragraphs 96 and 147. Requests for Proposals are currently being finalised to meet both the short term strategic airlift requirement announced in the Review and the long term air transport requirement, in parallel

  433
  competitions. The lease of aircraft is one of the contract options that could meet the short term requirement. C-17 is not the only contender in either competition.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the capacity of the European Fighter Aircraft to be used on the new aircraft carriers announced in the Strategic Defence Review. [51438]

  Mr. Spellar
  A 'navalised' Eurofighter is one of the possible solutions currently under consideration to meet the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft requirement.

  Ordnance Manufacturing
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the ordnance manufacturing capability of the UK for the supply of UK armed forces requirement. [51500]

  Mr. Spellar
  UK industry has extensive capability for the development and production of the guns and ammunition required by the Armed Forces. Most requirements are now subject to international competition. However, the principal recent orders for guns, including the AS90 howitzer, the gun for the Challenger 2 tank and the SA 80 small arm, have been awarded to UK industry. UK industry also continues to supply the great majority of the Armed Forces' ammunition needs.

  Joint Services Command and Staff College
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on providing temporary accommodation for the Joint Services Command and Staff College at Bradwell. [51297]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The decision to accommodate the Joint Services Command and Staff College temporarily at Bracknell (not Bradwell) was taken by the previous Government. The accommodation at Bracknell consists of existing buildings previously used by the former RAF Staff College, supplemented by temporary accommodation units. The total spend on providing the temporary accommodation is now estimated to be some £8.9 million, which compares favourably with the original estimate of £10.2 million. This figure includes the provision and maintenance of the temporary units until 2000, the provision of IT and relocation costs.

  Bilderberg Meeting, Turnbern
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his attendance at the Bilderberg Conference in Ayrshire on 14 and 15 May. [49581]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I attended part of the Bilderberg Conference in Ayrshire last May to contribute to one of the discussions relevant to my Ministerial responsibilities.

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

Lord Clement-Jones
Timothy Francis Clement-Jones, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Clement-Jones, of Clapham in the London Borough of Lambeth, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Hamwee and the Lord Razzall.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate
Brian Mackenzie, Esquire, OBE, having been created Baron Mackenzie of Framwellgate, of Durham in the County of Durham, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Dormand of Easington and the Baroness Hilton of Eggardon, and made the solemn Affirmation.
Lord Lovat Lord Lovat—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

Palace of Westminster: Peers' Office Accommodation
2.50 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux Lord Randall of St. Budeaux asked the Chairman of Committees:
What are the main impediments to providing reasonable accommodation for Peers in the Palace by October.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the House has been increasing steadily the amount of space for Peers' office accommodation and negotiations are under way to acquire further accommodation for the House. However, the large increase in the number of Peers in the past two years has meant that the House has been unable to provide desks for all those who have requested them. However, I am hopeful that we shall be able to occupy new accommodation in 2000.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many Peers now regard the problem of desks and telephones as very serious? It is causing all sorts of difficulties. It is felt that there is a desire for some short-term solution. Does my noble friend accept that problems of this kind tend to require a number of smaller solutions rather than one "big bang" solution? Is he further aware that there is a considerable level of concern that not all the options have so far been fully considered by the House authorities in order to minimise this wretched problem? Will my noble friend
574
raise the matter with the House authorities and the usual channels with a view to examining all options in order to make as big a dent in the problem as possible? In addition, will he prepare a report as soon as possible after the House returns from the Summer Recess and place a copy in the Library?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am well aware, as are your Lordships' committees which deal with these matters, of the serious need for additional accommodation for your Lordships. I have to some extent to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux. I cannot offer an immediate, short-term solution by October, but your Lordships' committees and the other authorities of the House have been searching for new accommodation, and, as some of your Lordships will know, accommodation has been found in Millbank, which is relatively close to your Lordships' House.
A point which will, I think, not be known to many of your Lordships is that at the last meeting of the Administration and Works Sub-Committee of your Lordships' House a working group was set up consisting of the usual channels, the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers and one or two others, assisted by Black Rod and the Clerk of the Parliaments, to go into the question of the allocation of the new accommodation which we hope will become available with the conclusion of the negotiations. I hope that we shall have adequate accommodation for your Lordships through the acquisition of the new accommodation in Millbank.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there will be any extension to the car-parking facilities at your Lordships' House?
The Chairman of CommitteesMy Lords, strictly speaking, that is a different question. It is one of the two most thorny questions which exercise the minds of your Lordships, the other one being the Question on the Order Paper. It is a matter which is constantly being considered.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on these Benches we have introduced the principle of desk-sharing? If other parties were to introduce that, the problem would be substantially alleviated. I do not say that the system is an overwhelming success all the time, but I believe that my colleagues behind me appreciate the effort that is made to ensure that we use the available space as wisely as possible.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Opposition Chief Whip, for that point. That is a way of easing the accommodation problem to an extent, and I believe it is a practice that is followed in other parts of your Lordships' House.
I know there is concern in all parts of your Lordships' House that some of the desks that have been allocated through the various usual channels and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers are not fully used.

575
That is unfair to the usual channels, to the Convenor and to your Lordships generally. I suggest that that is something that needs to be looked at more closely in the hope of tightening up the system and relieving the pressure on desk space.
Lord Milner of Leeds: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how many desks are occupied by hereditary Peers?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I shall need notice of that question. I shall write to the noble Lord with the Answer. I venture to observe that noble Lords who happen to be hereditary Peers play a considerable part in the service of this House and, speaking of them as, for example, Deputy Speakers, I do not know what I would do without them.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, invented the system of desk-sharing, which works very well among the Cross-Benchers?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the Convenor, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for instancing yet another way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, has helped us in the service of the House.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, could the noble Lord encourage noble Lords not to leave their papers and books on desks when they are absent for a number of hours?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples. I think she overestimates the powers which I have. I have no doubt that others of your Lordships will have taken note of what the noble Baroness has helpfully suggested.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, would it be possible to ask the usual channels to consider whether this is the obvious, ideal way of dealing with a problem of this kind, in keeping with the dignity of the House?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, no doubt many of your Lordships will feel that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has made a valid point. I am, as always, at the service of your Lordships. I have to accept what your Lordships say and try to answer it if I can.

Social Security Benefits: Means-testing
2.57 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the statement made by the Minister of State, Department of Social Security in a broadcast regarding means-testing of social security benefit on Sunday 31st May represents government policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I confess that I am somewhat baffled by the noble Lord's Question. Of course, my right honourable friend Mr. Frank Field always speaks for the Government, although there may be occasions when the thinking of the rest of us has not quite caught up with that of my right honourable friend.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that courteous and somewhat ambiguous reply. Is it not extraordinary that, since the Minister for Welfare Reform gave his Jonathan Dimbleby LWT interview, his pensions Green Paper has been delayed yet again by the Chancellor and that last week the Chancellor himself pre-empted a major part of it by announcing changes in the national insurance pension scheme which must involve means-testing, something which the Government said they would not do? More important, is it not clear that, following the evasive answers given by Mr. Field in the interview, the Government have now completely reversed their declared policy of paying for increases in the health and education budgets by cuts in the social security budget? Is it not the case that all three budgets are now planned to increase, with very serious implications for the PSBR, for interest rates, for employment, for the exchange rate and for the economy generally?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I think there were nine questions there; I shall try to deal with the two substantive ones. The first question the noble Lord raised was whether the changes on pensions announced by the Chancellor, repeated on Friday in the Statement by my right honourable friend Harriet Harman, represented a change in the national insurance pension system to a system that will be means-tested. No, that is not the case. The national insurance basic state pension remains, as our manifesto made clear, the basic building block of our pensions policy. However, we are saying that pensioners need a second pension. It is desirable that that second pension should be an occupational or personal pension, but pensioners would have needed to start building that many years earlier when they were young people. We have the problem now that the poorest pensioners, mainly women, did not have that opportunity to work. We are seeking to ensure that they receive an increase in the income support premium and that they are guaranteed access to it. That was the purpose of the Statement last week: to ensure that the poorest pensioners see an increase in their pensions of a minimum of £5 per week.
The noble Lord asked also whether that represented a U-turn on government policy and whether we were failing to cut social security expenditure and divert it to health and education as promised. Again, that is not true. If the Government look at their expenditure figures, in the last Parliament social security expenditure rose by 3.9 per cent. annually. This year and for the rest of this Parliament it will rise not by 3.9 per cent., but by 2 per cent. annually; in other words, the rate of increase that was exponential under the Conservatives has been capped under Labour. What is more, the percentage of social security expenditure is falling from 12 per cent.

577
to 11 per cent., falling also as a percentage of GDP. In relation to both questions asked by the noble Lord, he is incorrect.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, another topic covered in Mr. Field's interview was benefits integrity in relation to, among other things, disability living allowance. Can the Minister confirm that in the Benefits Integrity Project, not a single case of fraud was found in relation to disability living allowance? Can she also give an assurance that the Government's action and rhetoric regarding benefits fraud will be matched by similar zeal in regard to tax fraud so that the poor do not feel that they are pursued while the rich are let off?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is broadly right about the BIP. The Benefits Integrity Project is designed to ensure that the right benefit goes to the right people. We know that with disability, fortunately, people sometimes get better and, unfortunately, sometimes get worse. The benefit therefore needs to be checked. We found that around 20 per cent. of all awards were incorrect; in other words, people got better and got worse.
The noble Baroness is right to say that virtually no deliberate fraud was found. Only 40 cases out of 95,000 were referred for consideration for possible prosecution. However, disability is not an either/or benefit; that is why we need continually to check entitlement. In relation to tax law, I share the view expressed by the noble Baroness that it is unreasonable for the state not to pursue those who evade, avoid or in any sense behave illegally towards their tax responsibilities while at the same time the state properly takes an interest in those who avoid, or improperly draw, social security benefits.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, perhaps I may turn to pensions. At the moment there is the opportunity for the poorer pensioner to top up a pension income by bringing it up to income support levels, but few people do that. Now that the level for pensioners is to be increased, has the department made any estimate of what the take-up is likely to be?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, yes. Around 2.5 million pensioners are entitled to income support. The noble Lord is correct in that only 1.5 million take that up and 1 million—just over 40 per cent.—fail to claim the money that they should. As a result, on average they go without £17 a week. We know from our pilot scheme that we cannot wait for pensioners to initiate a take-up campaign; we must take the money to them. We are doing that primarily through data matching—for example, piggy-backing on the fact that they are often claiming housing or council tax benefit—and through personal advisers and the work of voluntary agencies. At the moment there is around 60 per cent. cash compliance. We hope to achieve 85 to 90 per cent. and that will be a reasonable success measure. Of course, if we can achieve higher than that, we shall be delighted.

Prison Population: Expenditure
3.3 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the planned expenditure in real terms per prisoner for 1998–99 compared with that in 1995–96.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, planned current expenditure in 1998–99, including the additional funds which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced in February, is forecast to be £23,933 per prisoner at today's prices, on current population projections. That compares with £25,752 in 1995–96. Converted to real terms, at 1992–93 prices, the figures are £20,494 in 1998–99 and £23,987 in 1995–96.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I understand that an important Statement is to be made tomorrow. In advance of that I can only say that, if some increase is projected, everyone who cares about the rehabilitation of prisoners will sing a song of joy for the sinner who repenteth. When this all-important Statement is made tomorrow will there be some repudiation of the Government's policy of cutting the Prison Service, including the education and probation services? At a time when the prison population is increasing greatly will that policy be totally repudiated?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend is correct that it would not be proper for me to attempt to anticipate anything that is to be announced by my right honourable friend Mr. Straw within the next few days. We are looking to improvements; for instance, we shall be looking to increase the hours per week spent in purposeful activity from 22.5 to 24. Targets have been set. Plainly, the situation is not satisfactory at present. The noble Lord is also correct in that on Friday, 17th July, we saw our highest ever prison population, standing at 66,102.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, does the Minister agree with Sir David Ramsbotham in his latest annual report on the vital importance of education for the prison population if we are to have any hope of rehabilitating prisoners? Does he further agree that, in view of the very welcome £19 billion extra money for education announced last week and given the desperately low levels of education among prisoners—two-thirds are sub-literate and sub-numerate—it would be nice if a due proportion of the new money could be ring-fenced for education in the prison population?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, again, perhaps I should not anticipate the precise terms of what may be stated. I entirely agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, that low levels of education lead to low levels of self-esteem and therefore low levels of opportunity or prospect of work on release. It is not simply academic education at which we need to look; we need to look at, for instance, the useful pilot scheme on welfare to work, which properly lays stress on

579
employment opportunities on release rather than simply the acquisition of academic qualifications which may be inappropriate for some prisoners.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister agree that non-custodial alternatives are better forms of sentencing disposal? Does he also agree that we remand too many people in custody; that mentally ill offenders should not be in prison; and that there are better ways of dealing with people for non-payment of fines than sentencing them to a term in custody? Are not those the categories of people that should be seriously looked at so that, to an extent, we can reduce the extremely high prison population?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I gave the precise figures of the prison population, as I always do on these occasions, despite the fact that they make gloomy reading. Undoubtedly, non-custodial alternatives are extremely important provided that they are constructive and have public support. Public confidence in the judicial system is absolutely vital. It is commonplace to observe that there are too many people in prison. Sometimes the difficulty is in knowing which people in prison ought not to be there, which is a serious and fundamental question.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, will the Minister confirm the evidence in the latest Prison Service business plan that, in terms of running costs, privately-managed prisons are up to 15 per cent. cheaper to run than those in the public sector—to the same standards, of course? What plans have the Government to develop private sector-run prisons, or do they intend to stand by the Home Secretary's promise made to prison staff before the general election that privately-managed prisons will be taken back into the Prison Service as soon as contractually possible?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, undoubtedly, in some circumstances, privately managed prisons may offer a cheaper regime. It is not a perfect equation because, for instance, one wants to look at the higher cost of high security prisons which will, in the nature of things, be extremely expensive to run. Two DCMF competitions were launched in 1997–98; the first is at Agecroft and the second at Pucklechurch. Both prisons are planned to open in 1999. The second competition is for two 600-place prisons, one at Marchington in Staffordshire and one at Onley near Rugby. Those prisons are planned to open in the year 2000.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one call on any extra resources for the Prison Service would be funding the transfer of the prison medical service to the National Health Service, thereby improving the standard of medical care?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that alternative has certainly been put forward in your Lordships' House on a number of prior occasions. There is some virtue in it. Equally, some well-informed minds
580
have the view that a global national health provision in the particular circumstances of the prison estate will not always be appropriate.

The Global Environmental Facility
3.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the progress of the Global Environmental Facility; and what is their response to the criticism from developing countries that the facility ignores the most crucial issues affecting the third world.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are satisfied with the general progress of the Global Environmental Facility so far and strongly supported its recent replenishment and related actions to improve its work. It has to be recognised that the GEF has a particular role—to help developing countries and countries in transition play their part in global environmental issues such as climate change and the loss of biodiversity. It does not seek to address national environmental issues. That is why our contributions to the GEF are separate from our development assistance which focuses on the national development priorities of poorer countries.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is the Minister aware that an independent report produced by 25 independent consultants, which was considered at the Delhi conference in April, made some fairly strong criticisms of the way the facility is being run and suggested that some projects have been misconceived and misdirected? Is he further aware that the report suggested and the conference accepted that GEF activities should be based much more on national priorities and that the facility should promote genuine country ownership of projects and should incorporate consultation with local communities and the involvement of NGOs? Does the Minister accept that those are serious criticisms? Will the Government use their influence to try to persuade the facility that it should move in that direction?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are well aware of that report. The council considered both the independent report and the report from the agencies—the World Bank and so on—which carry out the Global Environmental Facility. They indicated that there were problems in some of the projects undertaken under GEF auspices. On the biodiversity projects, one figure suggested that roughly 12 per cent. were unsatisfactory. Of course, put another way, that means that 88 per cent. were progressing satisfactorily. We take these criticisms seriously but we have to recognise that the role of the GEF is incremental, directed at global environmental concerns. Some of the criticism—certainly the press criticism—has failed to recognise that difference.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is no necessary link between the two prongs of the

581
noble Lord's supplementary question? Would it not be perfectly possible for the GEF to continue to direct itself to global concerns, which it was set up to do, and yet at the same time to listen a little better and to listen a little lower down the heap on each specific project in each specific country?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, some of the recommendations of the two reports to which I referred are in that direction. The council has accepted many of those recommendations. An action plan is now being drawn up which will be considered for full implementation in the autumn.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the 12 per cent. figure which he quoted of unsatisfactory projects comes from the internal report and that much more dissatisfaction is being expressed by people looking on from outside? With regard to the final question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will the Minister say how the Government propose more thoroughly to involve NGOs so that they can use their expertise more directly?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the recommendations to which I referred in response to my noble friend Lord Kennet involve closer co-operation lower down the line, including with NGOs, which are already making an important contribution on many of the GEF projects. With regard to the criticism, there was an independent report and an internal report, both of which pointed to some deficiencies. However, some of that criticism—certainly some of the criticism which followed in the press—is due to a misunderstanding of the role of the GEF itself.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in his first reply the noble Lord appeared satisfied with the progress made since the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, replied to my questions on this subject a year ago. However, does he sympathise with the dissatisfaction expressed by some of the developing countries concerned, in particular that the individual interests of countries do not appear to be taken fully into account?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in part I sympathise with that and in part the action taken will be in order to involve developing countries to a greater extent and, indeed, down the line to local communities. However, some of the criticism is because of a misunderstanding of the role of the GEF and what it is there to fund.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, can the Minister advise us as to whether he is satisfied with the extent of the Government's influence over the policy of the Global Environment Facility and how they exercise that influence?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the British Government are one of the 30 or so members of the council of the GEF. We are satisfied that we have strong influence. We
582
accept that some of our expertise could be brought to bear on some of the criticisms that have been voiced in these reports; and we shall do so.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one of the lessons to be drawn from some of the projects which have not done so well is the importance of doing the science beforehand so that one can accurately determine what should be done and measure what has been achieved afterwards? Could not this lesson apply equally to the DfID, which is presently reducing rather than increasing its spending on science, on global positioning and on other such data?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that that criticism applied to a few of the projects that were conducted under GEF auspices. I do not accept that that in any way cuts across the priorities which the DfID has enunciated in its White Paper and which have received general support in development agencies both here and in developing countries.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, in view of the criticisms that have been directed at the facility from all parts of the House, I hope that the noble Lord may perhaps reflect on his initial Answer in which he declared himself satisfied with the work and recognise that there are indeed shortcomings here which need to be addressed.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thought that both in my first Answer and in my subsequent answers I indicated that I was very satisfied with the general progress of the GEF but that there were serious concerns which needed to be addressed. If anything, it shows that the monitoring process of the GEF and of the agencies is working in that it throws up these difficulties. We are determined, through the council and directly, to ensure that these shortcomings are addressed.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Transport White Paper: New Deal for Transport. This will be followed by my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on an International Criminal Court.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
Read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I am sure the House will wish to join me in expressing appreciation for the work on this Bill both of the Law Commissions and also of the noble and learned Lord,

583
Lord Clyde, and the other members of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. As the noble and learned Lord has said, the Bill produces a welcome thinning of the statute book.
In its report to the House the committee suggested that greater use should be made of provisions repealing superseded legislation in particular Bills before Parliament and that this would reduce the need for general Bills such as this. I agree. It would undoubtedly be desirable for every Bill to repeal material that it renders obsolete. In practice, however, this is not always possible because there is often insufficient time to do the necessary research. This is particularly the case where provisions which are spent, as opposed to provisions which are clearly replaced, are concerned. But our policy of consulting on draft Bills should improve such technical aspects as repeal provisions and I have certainly taken note of the Joint Committee's report.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord puts the Question, perhaps I may make two comments. Some of your Lordships may not be aware of the extent of the noble and learned Lord's achievement in cleaning up the clutter of the statute book. I refer particularly to the first two measures involved. The first dates back to 1533 and an Act concerning the attainder of John Wolfe, his wife and others. The second, which is only 280 years out of date, refers to an Act to inflict pains and penalties on Francis, Lord Bishop of Rochester.
I am sure that your Lordships will now appreciate the extent and value of the work achieved by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
There is just one question that I would wish to ask him. Both of these measures are repealed as they apply to the Isle of Man. I wonder what is peculiar about the Isle of Man in this context. I would very much like to know whether these measures were repealed as regards the rest of the United Kingdom before this or whether they remain extant on the statute book. In that case I suggest that it is time they were got rid of.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in the interests of avoiding any offence to the Isle of Man, I had better write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

National Minimum Wage Bill
3.22 p.m.
Report received.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
EXCLUSIONS
(" .—(1) If it appears expedient to the Secretary of State, he may, by order made by statutory instrument, provide for the total or partial exemption from the provisions of this Act of—

(a) any area, sector of employment, trade or industry;

(b) undertakings of different sizes;

(c) persons of different ages; or

(d) occupations or categories of persons.

(2) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to make such incidental, supplemental or transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.
(3) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under this section includes the power to vary or to revoke its provisions or to limit its operation for a specified period of time by means of a further such order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 6, 8 and 10. I find myself in the strange, and possibly unique, situation of proposing, as an Opposition spokesman, that the Secretary of State should have more powers than she is asking for in the Bill—indeed, powers that she is positively trying to deny herself. In Clauses 2(7), 3(3) and 4(2), she absolutely declines the discretionary power to make exceptions to the national minimum wage in cases of different areas, sectors of employment, undertakings of different sizes, persons of different ages and persons of different occupations.
In fact, the whole of the Government's philosophy is contained in the Title, the National Minimum Wages Bill. The Minister confirmed that to me in reply to a question I posed when he made a Statement about the report of the Low Pay Commission on 18th June. That is because of what they said in their party manifesto. What it amounts to is that, in the interests of political dogmatism, the Government are denying themselves a safety net in case anything goes wrong with their theories. The trouble is that it will not be the Government who actually need to use the safety net, but the people whose jobs and businesses may be ruined by the national minimum wage as it applies to them.
As I pointed out in the debate on Second Reading, the United States of America, which is held up by the Government as the vanguard of the minimum wage, allows many exceptions which, so far, the Government have refused to agree to. Again, in his reply to another of my questions, the Minister conceded that there were exceptions to the national minimum wage in the United States of America for small businesses whose annual turnover was less than 500,000 dollars. He said that this exception did not apply to businesses engaged in, "interstate commerce". He claimed that it meant the exemption is much narrower than it may appear. Much narrower? I wonder how many flower shops or hairdressing salons are engaged in interstate commerce.

585
In any case, a narrow exemption is undoubtedly better than no exemption at all. European countries also allow exceptions depending on their national circumstances and, as I understand it, they are frequently lobbied to allow derogations, sometimes not just unilaterally by employers.
As regards this country the concept of a national minimum wage is a new one, being far removed from the old Wages Council orders. During the passage of this Bill through the other place the Government made concessions from their original concept of absolute universality with no exceptions. Share fishermen have been excepted before what is left of our fishing industry sets sail for more congenial waters. The Armed Forces have been excepted, not only because it would be impossible to define how long, say, a soldier was actually working, but more importantly, the Treasury discovered that the wages bill for the Armed Forces was likely to double.
Lastly, the Secretary of State has, somewhat grudgingly, taken a discretionary power to exempt persons under the age of 26. I say "grudgingly" because instead of biting the bullet and simply making the exception, she has merely given herself the power to do so and even then it is hedged around with the unnecessarily restrictive conditions contained in Clause 4(2), which is one of the provisions I am now seeking to remove.
The minimum wage being a new concept, it is possible that the Government may come to realise that in some respect or another they have made a mistake. I realise that with the atmosphere of omniscience, coupled with the mantra of "We have a mandate" that currently pervades the Government, this is something that they may not yet realise. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, at Committee stage said, in replying to Amendment No. 48 that he spoke,
"as a Member of a Government with unshakeable confidence in its own infallibility".—[Official Report, 11/6/98;col. 1270.]
Before the noble Lord rises, I hasten to acknowledge that this was as a result of some provocation from me and was intended, of course, to be a joke. But I really do believe that it was one of those jests in which many a true word is spoken. I really believe that the Government's obstinate refusal to consider many of our amendments is based purely on the same "We-know-best" attitude which has led to the complaint that they are trying to create a nanny state.
The fact is that, so far as the Opposition are concerned, the whole Bill is a mistake. However, since we accept that the Government are entitled to have their Bill, my present amendments seek to protect the Government and, more importantly, employers, employees and the economy alike from the folly of not having a discretion should unforeseen circumstances require it.
I am not going to take up time at this moment by giving hypothetical examples. However, when I speak to Amendment No. 4 I shall tell your Lordships about a whole industry, employing some 3,000 staff and providing important facilities for 200,000 children every year, and at the same time making an important contribution to the deprived communities in which those businesses are situated. That industry and all its facilities
586
will be totally destroyed unless the Secretary of State agrees to adjust some of the administrative provisions in the Bill. It is not for me to argue that industry's case—and certainly not during the passage of this Bill.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that an unanswerable case is presented to the Secretary of State for some exception of some sort to the comprehensive, sweeping and universal rule that is currently proposed. That case might be in favour of any of the categories covered by this amendment. What will happen?
The Secretary of State will say to her postulants, "Yes, I entirely agree with you, something should be done, but unfortunately my hands are tied, because the Act does not give me powers to do what we both agree is right in this case. It will take an amending Act of Parliament, and unfortunately the legislative calendar is full up for years to come". In other words, the Secretary of State has a perfect get-out from doing anything, even if she conceded that something needs to be done. In fact, she is erecting a sign saying, "Don't bother me with your problems because I can't help you".
I do not know the philosophical reasons that motivate the Secretary of State declining to give herself the power to adjust the working of the Act in the light of future experience or changing circumstances. It cannot be that she believes that what she is proposing is so perfect that, like the Laws of the Medes and Persians, it is to be unalterable. It cannot be that she believes that she is possessed of power to see into the future, and knows that there will never be a need to modify the parameters of the national minimum wage. It surely cannot be that her attitude is that, no matter how cogent the arguments may be for introducing some flexibility, no matter how much she agrees that there should be a variation—permanent or temporary—in a particular case or cases, she positively does not want the power or discretion to act.
The Opposition feel that the Secretary of State should have the power to correct anomalous or harmful situations should they arise at any time in the future, despite all the Government's confidence that they cannot and will not. The discretionary power—it is only a discretionary power—that we wish the Secretary of State to have is to make exceptions, not by new primary legislation, but by statutory instrument. The power we propose is so flexible that it can be limited in time, or be subject to further amendment or, indeed, revocation by the Secretary of State.
More important than all of this is the fact that this is simply an enabling power. It means that the Secretary of State will actually have to take the time to listen to those who wish to present a case to her, but that duty goes with the red boxes and the ministerial car. You do actually have to listen to what people are saying to you. You do have to listen to points of view that do not emanate just from Transport House.
Perhaps the Secretary of State might consider, for example, the articles that appeared in the Sunday Times on 31st May, reporting that research by the Forum of Private

587
Business showed that a national minimum wage of £3.60 an hour would have a severe effect on small businesses. I quote:
"Worst hit would be sectors such as retail, catering and care homes, and regions such as the North, Northwest and Southwest.
It will affect the ability of 63% of small firms in the north to take on workers, compared with 15% in London.
It is bound to affect small firms whether by reducing the number of new jobs that would be created or by shedding jobs".
Small firms are the engine for the creation of new jobs. Small and medium-sized companies, employing fewer than 250 people are estimated to provide 10 million jobs and to generate 40 per cent. of the national total of sales. Large firms, including many members of the CBI, have been shedding jobs for years.
The Secretary of State may not agree with one word of that survey. She may also not agree with the report published in June by the House of Commons Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which has severely criticised the Government's failure to give proper support for small businesses. In fact, her spokesman arrogantly dismissed the all-party report by saying,
"the Committee is entitled to its views".
Nevertheless, in case the Secretary of State is wrong about the need for exemptions to be made from the national minimum wage and the Forum of Private Business' survey is right, she needs the power to correct the mistake that we feel she is making.
The Secretary of State does not have to exercise her discretion if she does not choose to do so. We find it inexplicable that she is adamantly against having the right to adjust the national minimum wage if circumstances demand it as, indeed, happens in other countries where there is a minimum wage. There is no reason except, as some people might suspect, a deal with the TUC that there will never, never, never be any exceptions, no matter what the circumstances.
There is, however, no justifiable reason why the Secretary of State should impose this self-denying ordinance on herself, by declining the power to think again without having to come back with an amending Act.
Finally, before leaving this amendment, I would like to remind the Minister that throughout the Committee stage he and his noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General repeatedly professed the Government's desire for what they called "flexibility" in the operation of the Act. In fact, in rejecting no fewer than six amendments, they did so on the grounds that the Bill as drafted provided greater flexibility. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, actually used the word "flexibility" on five occasions; and the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General used it twice.
In this amendment, which must be the mother of all Henry VIII clauses, we propose that the Secretary of State shall have the power to amend the Act by order in no fewer than five separate ways—one for each of the flexibilities sought by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, if, but only if, she chooses to avail herself of it. That is real flexibility. So much flexibility,
588
in fact, that as well as being the Ministers' "right honourable friend", in the words of a well known credit card advert, she will also be their "flexible friend".
I now turn briefly to the other amendments in this group, Amendments Nos. 6, 8 and 10, which seek to delete the provisions of Clauses 2(7), 3(3) and 4(2) respectively. Those are the provisions which inhibit the Secretary of State from exercising any discretion over the application of this legislation. If the proposed new clause to which I have just spoken—that is, Amendment No. 1—is accepted by your Lordships, each of the subsections to which I have just referred will be inconsistent with it and will need to be removed. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as Amendment No. 6 has also been spoken to, I must point out to your Lordships that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 7.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to "flexibility". Is she seeking flexibility for employers simply to employ vulnerable people as sweated labour? Is that what the noble Baroness is seeking? This is a human rights issue.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Baroness should know me better than that and should know that I am seeking flexibility—
Baroness Turner of Camden: I hope so!
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that she hopes so. We are seeking some flexibility for certain circumstances that may arise in the future. At the moment, for example, it seems that the manufacturing sector of the economy is suffering badly as a result of the high value of the pound. I am not saying that that in any way relates specifically to what we are considering now, but it could be that within two or three years the small business sector is suffering equally badly although perhaps in a different way.
The Secretary of State—the President of the Board of Trade—does not have to exercise the discretion. It is up to her. It is not up to the employers. Indeed, that is exactly what we are seeking. We are seeking to give the Secretary of State the power and the discretion, if she thinks it fit—not if the employers think it fit. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, shakes her head, but we are seeking to give the Secretary of State a discretionary power which the Secretary of State may exercise, should she decide that she needs it. Nobody else could apply to use the discretion because nobody else has the power.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, as the Minister is well aware, the Liberal Democrat Benches have taken a fundamentally different approach to this Bill from the Opposition. We believe, in common with the Government, that it is time for the cowboy practices of many employers to be put to an end by the operation and implementation of minimum wage legislation. We have disagreed with the Government on one or two areas. We have consistently disagreed with the

589
Government about the possibility of allowing regional variations to the national minimum wage, as happens in a number of other countries. I accept that as to the first stage of the minimum wage the fox has been shot. The Government were elected on a manifesto which committed them to a national minimum wage. Regional variation has been examined to some extent by the Low Pay Commission. The report of the Low Pay Commission—I commend it to noble Lords, if they have not already read it—deals in considerable detail with the arguments for and against regional variation. I accept that the case for regional variation has not been made out. However, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, in that I am not entirely certain why the Government wish to restrict themselves in future.
We part company with the Government on the question of what happens if, for example, in the year 2000, 2004 or 2008 the economic circumstances of this country change, bearing in mind the significant alteration in the economic structure of this country that may result from our entry into European Monetary Union. Is it to be said that if the Low Pay Commission in future recommends a regional or sector variation the Government must promote primary legislation to achieve that? Do the Government have to have a new Bill to obtain a minimum wage with the variations that are contemplated? I do not believe that it is in the interests of any party in government in favour of the concept of a minimum wage to constrict themselves to such an extent that they are forced to seek primary legislation to introduce what at that stage will be regarded as a detail. For the reason that we do not want the Bill to be prescriptive but want to give it the widest possible powers in future. Although not for the arguments advanced by the noble Baroness, we support this amendment.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I believe that in tabling this amendment which effectively introduces an exemption, the noble Baroness poses the wrong question. Only a minority of workers in this country suffer low pay to the extent that they require a national minimum wage. The Low Pay Commission has examined all the circumstances and made recommendations.
It is not a question of ensuring that small businesses are propped up by low wages. The exercise is to ensure that those in employment who are the most vulnerable are protected. To a very great extent, though not invariably, those workers are already subsidised by state benefits because of their low wages. We should not continue to tolerate that. Firms, whether they be small, medium or large, are in business to make profits, which is perfectly sound. Those profits can be made in a number of different ways: increasing productivity or re-arranging business operations. Perhaps they can sell more goods or charge higher prices for them, but profits should not be as a result of paying sweated labour rates which subsequently become subsidised.
If it is said that by this amendment we give the Secretary of State power to make exemptions it sends out the wrong message. We have been arguing about
590
this matter since the abolition of the wages councils. Not only would the amendment send out the wrong message but it would mean that Parliament did not determine the terms on which the national minimum wage should be paid. There is no need to provide the Secretary of State with an opportunity to change it. The national minimum wage has not been set so high that it will damage jobs. The unanimous recommendation of the Low Pay Commission composed of representatives of small businesses and workers has reached a conclusion and by and large, the Government have accepted it. To accept this amendment would send out the wrong message.
3.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, before I turn to the new clause and the other amendments to which the noble Baroness has referred, perhaps I may comment briefly on the remarks just made by my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. The noble Lord has tabled his own amendment with which I shall deal in more detail later. I believe that my noble friend has put his finger on it. This is not a tremendously revolutionary Bill, or it should not be. It is a radical Bill which represents an important change.
The Bill is all about ensuring that those who are in employment and are most vulnerable are protected, and that is absolutely right. It is also about improving morale in the workplace and ensuring that people feel that they are not being exploited but have a role to play in an enterprise.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in her Second Reading speech this afternoon reiterated her root and branch opposition to the concept of a national minimum wage, and she has not been chary of saying so. Her comments about election commitments were a little wide of the mark. When she referred to political dogmatism, perhaps she was referring to the dark days of the poll tax. The fact is that this was a very clear manifesto commitment on which we were elected. It does not mean that we have got everything right as a consequence. But this is such a fundamental part of our election platform that we are entitled to say that this is something that the electorate accepted. I understand perfectly well that the Opposition are unlikely ever to accept it. Despite that we are proceeding with the fundamentals of this Bill.
I remind the noble Baroness that the Labour Party has not resided at Transport House for many years. I recommend that she looks in the telephone directory to see where we are. Maybe the noble Baroness will come over to us. Lots of people are joining. She puts forward a rather ramshackle case. Our approach is diametrically opposed to the direction that she takes. We want an inclusive policy whereas she wants exception after exception to the point of neutering the Bill altogether. Therefore, we have here a whole series of wrecking amendments, which is essentially what Amendment No. 1 is all about. This amendment is not concerned with providing a limited range of exemptions or modifications. We want a single

591
national minimum wage which is universal in its application. There have been some minor exceptions to it, but the fact is that we are not in the business of excluding whole swathes of people which is what the noble Baroness seeks to do.
We want to get rid of poverty pay and have a level playing field so that companies can compete fairly on the basis of quality, not excessively low wages. I have made that position clear over and over again in the course of these debates and in the responses to the Statement that I made in this House not very long ago about the report of the Low Pay Commission.
The Bill has been designed in such a way that the possibility of exemptions according to sector, region, size of firm or occupation is excluded. It permits in specific circumstances exemptions or modifications according to age. The limitations we placed in Clauses 3 and 4, which this new clause would effectively remove, are in our judgment necessary limitations. What they do is to defend the integrity of the national minimum wage. That is something which the noble Baroness rejects entirely. We made clear in previous debates, when the noble Baroness moved somewhat similar clauses, that those amendments or new clauses fail, not only on conceptual grounds but on the grounds that they are wholly impractical.
I shall give an example of the exemptions that the noble Baroness has in mind. Why should it be possible to exempt a firm in Surrey rather than a firm in Cheshire? Why should a hairdresser at one end of the street be exempt rather than its competitor at the other end of the street, perhaps in a different county? Why should these low paid workers, likely to benefit from a minimum wage, be exempt? The noble Baroness has not come within a mile of answering those points which have been raised on previous occasions.
I move to Amendment No. 6, to which the noble Baroness also spoke. The amendment would remove all the limitations, which we have deliberately provided, on the powers of the Secretary of State to make key regulations on the way in which a worker's hourly rate of pay is to be calculated for minimum wage purposes. These amendments would not allow the Secretary of State to set more than one rate. Clause 1, rather than Clause 2, prescribes that the national minimum wage shall be a single hourly rate and thus establishes this fundamental principle. Clause 2 is concerned with how an hourly rate of pay is to be calculated; what will count towards the worker's pay for minimum wage purposes; what will be excluded; and how benefits in kind and one-off bonuses will be treated. Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State the power to determine matters within that category.
This is a complex matter. That is why we asked the Low Pay Commission to make recommendations on it. We have indicated that we are accepting those recommendations subject to consultation on the detail.
Subsection (7) of Clause 2 prevents the minimum wage calculation being applied differently in certain circumstances. That is what the noble Baroness
592
seeks to amend, as attempted previously on several occasions in this place and elsewhere. The amendment proposes to do away with all the limitations in Clause 2 in one fell swoop so that we could have variations by region, sector, size of firm, age or occupation. It seeks to remove all such restrictions for the purpose of calculating if the rate has been paid. I think on further reflection that the noble Baroness might agree that we would end up with an absurd position, completely negating the purpose of the Bill, unless, as I indicated, that is the purpose of the actions being taken by the noble Baroness and her colleagues. I shall not go into the detail of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, until later unless he wishes me to deal with it at this stage. He indicates to the negative.
I believe that what is proposed is not the right way to proceed. What is more, if we were to go down this route it would be a heavy vote of no confidence in our belief in the way in which the Bill will work out when enacted. I do not think that that is right. We have confidence in the Bill. We thought a lot about it before the election and since the election. We have had the help of the Low Pay Commission. It turned down the idea of regional variation. That was a sound conclusion.
I turn to Amendment No. 8, also touched on by the noble Baroness. Although we have not discussed the amendment previously, we have gone over similar ground at great length. This is an important area. I listened carefully, as I have done on previous occasions, to the noble Baroness. Clause 3 is drafted to permit us to take account, within certain limitations, of whatever the report from the Low Pay Commission recommended. I made clear when I repeated the statement in this House on publication of the report that we propose to use the Clause 3 power in a limited way by setting a modified rate for those aged from 18 to 21 and also to provide a modified rate for workers starting a new job with a new employer and where there is an accredited training scheme in operation and being applied.
Each of these outcomes reflects the importance that we attach to young people and trainees. The amendment seeks to alter the way in which the whole clause operates. It would provide the Secretary of State with a wide-ranging power to make exemptions whenever he or she felt it expedient so to do. It would remove all the limitations which currently prevent differentiation by region, sector, size of firm or occupation for persons below 26 provided for under Clause 3. It would undermine, in my submission, the whole purpose of the Bill as it relates to the category of workers below 26. I know that the noble Baroness is extremely persistent. I admire her for that, but I think she is wrong.
I turn to Amendment No. 10. The effect of this amendment is to remove all the limitations currently preventing differentiation by region, sector, size of firm or occupation for persons aged 26 and over who might potentially be added by regulations under Clause 4 to the candidates for exemption under Clause 3. The amendment constitutes, once again, a

593
direct attack on the principles of the Bill. We have all along made clear our commitment to the principles which I have adumbrated today. While I understand that it is difficult for the noble Baroness and her colleagues to accept those principles, they are essential as far as this Bill is concerned. For those reasons I would ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
There is one other matter to which I should refer. It concerns small firms. I shall quote, for the benefit of the noble Baroness, two passages from the report of the Low Pay Commission. The noble Baroness expressed the view that small businesses were opposed to the national minimum wage. I refer to the comment at page 106, paragraph 6.41:
"We made great efforts to canvass their [the small firms] opinion and held many meetings with employers in small firms and their representatives. There were differences between such firms, but we recognise that many do not have the same margins or management resources as larger competitors. We were sensitive to this in making our recommendations".
The report continues at page 135, paragraph 7.11:
"Written evidence from trade associations representing small stores indicates that although there will be some substantial increases in wage bills for some companies, the majority of stores will be able to cope with our recommendations".
The issues were firmly and comprehensively dealt with by the Low Pay Commission. I think that those are relevant quotations.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps I could ask one specific question which follows on from the points made by my noble friend Lord Razzall. It is in relation to areas. He chose the example of shops at each end of a street in Surrey. However, if my memory is correct, and perhaps he can confirm this, the Scotland Bill makes the national minimum wage a reserved matter. Consequently, in future, on a larger scale, as between England and Scotland, if Scotland wish to have a different rate or a different application of the Bill—and if I were lucky enough to be elected to the Scottish parliament it might be a higher rate than the one proposed but it might equally be a lower rate—would Scotland have to return, under those circumstances, to England, to primary legislation, to achieve its objective? In that circumstance, would it not be possible for some exception to be available to the Secretary of State so that she might at least be able to act by order for Scotland?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I believe that primary legislation would be required. But this would not be the only situation of that kind. We are dealing with the Low Pay Commission report; and with the text of this Bill as drafted at present. The philosophy underlying that is as I have indicated.
I do not believe that there is reason to deal with the matter on the regional basis that the noble Lord implies he supports. However, we shall come to that on a later amendment.
4 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I was disappointed with the Minister's remarks on two counts. First, it is a pity that between Committee and Report stages the compliments I received from the other side of the Chamber about the eloquent way in which I presented the amendments have now become references to a ramshackle Second Reading speech. I found that disappointing.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it was the case presented, not the speech.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, clearly it was not effective, as the noble Lord described my speeches in Committee. However, that is a mild comment which caused me disappointment.
My second disappointment is that the Minister's mind is closed to what I have been saying. It is true—I accept it—that we do not like the national minimum wage but we accept that we shall have it. My amendment attempted to save the Government from trouble in the years to come if parts of the legislation for the national minimum wage do not work properly. The Minister's first few words indicated that the Government had not got everything right. I know that politicians do not like to have their words quoted to them but that was said only a moment or two ago.
The fact is that other countries have a minimum wage, and they have exceptions. I do not suggest, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, may have thought, that we require all the exemptions provided in the amendment. The President of the Board of Trade may find that she needs certain exemptions. If so, she should be able to deal with the matter by statutory instrument and not have to come back to the House for primary legislation when there clearly would not be time for it. She does not have to exercise that power; it does not wreck the Bill. The Minster referred to a wrecking amendment. It is not a wrecking provision. It need never be used.
The President of the Board of Trade may agree with the statement from the Sunday Times that the provision might be more harmful in certain parts of the country. The Minister referred to a hairdresser in Surrey and somewhere else that I cannot recall. There are certain deprived areas in the country. She may well need the power. I believe that that was the intention of the amendments brought forward by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches. They agree with the national minimum wage but understand that there may be a need for exemptions.
The Minister states that they may not have got everything right. While countries such as the United States of America and in Europe have exemptions, I cannot understand why the Government nevertheless believe that this country does not need them. I believe that that is totally inappropriate. I was trying to save the Government, not the employers, from making a horrendous mistake. I am not satisfied with the reply and feel it only right to test the opinion of the House.
4.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 161; Not-Contents, 103.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Halsbury, E.

Aberdare, L.

Hamwee, B.

Addington, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Ailsa, M.

Harmsworth, L.

Aldington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Higgins, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Holderness, L.

Attlee, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Home, E.

Balfour, E.

Hothfield, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beloff, L.

Ilchester, E.

Belstead, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Biddulph, L.

Kimball, L.

Biffen, L.

Kingsland, L.

Birdwood, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Blatch, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Long, V.

Brentford, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Ludford, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Luke, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Lyell, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cadman, L.

MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

Calverley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McNair, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

McNally, L.

Carew, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carlisle, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Monson, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clement-Jones, L

Moyne, L.

Cockfield, L.

Munster, E.

Courtown, E.

Naseby, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Newall, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Newby, L.

Cranborne, V.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Davidson, V.

Norfolk, D.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dholakia, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Palmer, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pender, L.

Elibank, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Elles, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elton, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Exmouth, V.

Porter of Luddenham, L.

Ezra, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rawlings, B.

Fookes, B.

Razzall, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Redesdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Renwick, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Richardson, L.

Glentoran, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Gormanston, V.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Grey, E.

Sandberg, L.

596

Savile, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Seccombe, B.

Thurso, V.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Tope, L.

Sharples, B.

Tordoff, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Trumpington, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Vivian, L.

Strange, B.

Waddington, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

Westbury, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Sudeley, L.

Wigoder, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wilcox, B.

Tebbit, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Teviot, L.

Wise, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Wynford, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Barnett, L.

Jakobovits, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Berkeley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jeger, B.

Blease, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Borrie, L.

Kennet, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Burlison, L.

Longford, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Desai, L.

Nathan, L.

Dixon, L.

Orme, L.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dubs, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Rea, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Gallacher, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Gilbert, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Serota, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sewel, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gregson, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Grenfell, L.

Simon, V.

Hacking, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hardie, L.

Stallard, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Haskel, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Whitty, L.

Hoyle, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Determination of hourly rate of remuneration]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("and times at which,") and insert ("times at which, or the time for which,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 5. The amendments address a specific troublesome technicality which has only just become apparent. I have written to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, on this matter.
The general effect of the three amendments is to extend slightly the flexibility of the power to calculate the rate. We want to be confident that the clause provides us with the power we need to deliver through the regulations what the Low Pay Commission has recommended regarding the treatment of homeworkers who are paid by the piece.
Let me remind the House how Clause 2 operates. Clause 2 deals with the determination of the hourly rate of remuneration. This clause was drafted flexibly to enable us to reflect, as far as could be envisaged, whatever the Low Pay Commission might recommend in its report regarding the calculation of the hourly rate for national minimum wage purposes.
It is essentially a technical clause but one which is important to the flexible operation of the Bill. It provides for a wide range of possible permutations in determining what elements of pay can be included or excluded; for example, overtime, bonuses, benefits, holiday pay and so forth. It enables a wide range of working situations to be taken into account, including piece-work, payment of standard wages at a regular rate, and payments on commission or at different rates over different periods of time.
Since receiving the report, we have been considering the practicalities of putting into effect the Low Pay Commission's recommendations. In particular we have been looking at those workers who work away from the office and are paid by output rather than time worked. For this particular case, it has become apparent that the clause may not be flexible enough. In particular, the LPC recommendations suggest that piece-workers should be entitled to the hourly minimum wage of every hour worked regardless of the piece rate, and that employers of homeworkers should be able to demonstrate that piece rates have been evaluated to confirm compliance.
The fairest and least bureaucratic way to do that is to ensure that there can be agreement between worker and employer over the maximum hours to be worked and the output expected. We need to ensure we have the powers to do that under Clause 2. We are therefore proposing three amendments to the clause, the third of which is purely consequential.
Amendment No. 2 addresses subsection (3), which relates to how working time is to be treated for minimum wage purposes. The amendment ensures that the regulations can prescribe those times for which a
598
worker may be treated as working. The amendment is a technical rewording to ensure that we have the powers to prescribe in regulations that, where piece-workers work at home with no agreed hours, the worker and employer may together agree the maximum hours which are to be worked and to be claimed.
Amendment No. 3 addresses the same subsection and makes explicit the power to prescribe that an agreement may be reached regarding the maximum or minimum time that a person shall be treated as working. As with Amendment No. 2, this change is necessary in the particular case of the piece-worker working at home with no present limit on the hours to be worked.
In the interests of legal certainty, it ensures that we have sufficient flexibility to implement the Low Pay Commission's recommendations regarding piece-workers and homeworkers through the regulations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("(3A) The provision that may be made by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) above includes provision for or in connection with

(a) treating a person as, or as not, working for a maximum or minimum time, or for a proportion of the time, in any period;

(b) determining any matter to which that paragraph relates by reference to the terms of an agreement.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert ("and such valuation in relation to food or accommodation shall stipulate a maximum amount determined by the Secretary of State that may be added to wages paid in cash, taking into account any information that is reasonably available to him of the average cost of food and the average value of staff accommodation (including Council Tax and the cost of utilities) in different areas of the United Kingdom").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I regret having to move this amendment at this stage of the Bill, but it arises from a recommendation contained in the report of the Low Pay Commission. As your Lordships are aware, although the report was in the hands of some trade union leaders several days before its official publication, it was not available to Parliament until two of the three sessions of the Committee stage had taken place. At the Committee stage, the matter of yet another leak of the document was raised and subsequently inquiries were made by my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. I regret to say that he has received a far from satisfactory reply from the Minister.
However, having had the opportunity to read the report, I am concerned by the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission as regards benefits in kind. The recommendation is contained in paragraphs 4.27 and 4.30, commencing on page 59. It provides that with the exception of accommodation, benefits in kind shall be

599
excluded from the calculation of the national minimum wage. The Low Pay Commission concedes that:
"Benefits include a wide range of cash and non-cash items, including paid holidays, occupational sick pay, paid maternity leave, pensions, life assurance, company cars, private health insurance, shares and share option schemes, and subsidised restaurants, free meals and luncheon vouchers".
That is a formidable list and a costly one to employers. The Low Pay Commission contends that:
"Few low-paid workers receive much in the way of benefits",
apart from retail discounts. I certainly believe that to be true. But we are concerned about those low-paid employees who receive benefits in kind from their employers as part of their remuneration package. Although it may cost the employer a considerable sum to provide those valuable benefits, the Low Pay Commission proposes that all but one of them—the cost of accommodation—should be ignored. It also goes on to put an arbitrary and totally inadequate figure on the maximum to be allowed as the cost of that accommodation.
I shall return to that point, but, first, I wish to tell your Lordships about the industry which, as I mentioned when I spoke to Amendment No. 1, is in danger of total destruction if the provisions of the Bill are not modified, in particular the provisions concerning benefits in kind. This industry employs more people than there are share fishermen, whom the Government have made a special case under Clause 43. Yet I am not pleading for a special exemption for this industry alone. There are other types of businesses in similar circumstances which are affected in the same way by the provisions concerning the valuation of board and lodging provided by the employer. The commission recommends that nothing should be allowed for the value of board and a derisory £20 a week for the lodging. Even that is to be phased out in the longer term.
In order to explain the problem in relation to various industries, perhaps I may first tell your Lordships about the activity holiday trade. It runs what are commonly called "summer schools". In the United States of America they are called "countrywide summer schools". In this country, there are 30 activity holiday centres affiliated to one trade federation. There may be other similar unaffiliated concerns in the country, but, between them, those 30 businesses employ some 3,000 staff at any one time. They provide activity holidays for some 200,000 children a year, most of them sent on package visits by their schools. The children have to pay their own fees, or the schools raise the money by appeals, jumble sales and similar means for those children whose parents cannot pay for them to go.
This means that the charges must be kept to the barest minimum, otherwise the schools could not afford to participate. The charges are limited, despite the fact that apart from the facilities which the activity centres have to provide they also supply board and lodging for the pupils and any of their own teachers who accompany school groups. The activity centres must also, rightly, comply with the stringent safety requirements imposed by the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act 1996.
The staff of these centres are involved in work experience towards National Vocational Qualifications in catering, leisure activities, sports training and customer care. They receive pocket money and full board and lodging as well as their work experience, to say nothing of having, in effect, a working holiday. And your Lordships should bear in mind that there are far more applicants for staff places than there are vacancies. With the training they receive and the benefits they enjoy, I am not at all surprised.
If the value of their board and other fringe benefits is totally disregarded, as the Low Pay Commission recommends, and the value of the living accommodation is limited to £20 a week, none of these businesses will be able to stay in business. I stress that I am not pleading a special case either for this industry or one firm within it, but merely trying to illustrate the problem. As an example, I should like to show your Lordships what the effect of the Low Pay Commission's proposals would have on an activity centre in Bude, Cornwall.
Apart from pocket money of between £50 and £75 a week, and the value of training for nationally recognised qualifications, the staff also receive a package including full board, uniforms, laundry, equipment and other benefits worth at least another £44 a week. To supplement the cash paid to the employees because of the items that the Low Pay Commission recommends should now be disregarded will cost the centre an extra £120,000 a year. But its profits, which it would normally expect to plough back into the facilities, amount to only £80,000. Despite the fact that this centre operates only seasonally from April to October, it contributes £1¼ million a year to the struggling and hard-pressed local economy.
In the United States, the originator of the summer camp, the exception where applicable is given to small businesses with a turnover of less than 500,000 dollars a year. That is one exemption, refused by the Government, which at a stroke would solve many of the problems created by the Bill. But another exemption in the United States applies to the seasonal camps, which are also exempted from the national minimum wage; another example of how the national minimum wage is adapted to the needs of particular trades. That is the flexibility to which the Government pay lip service, but refuse to concede.
I refer again to the recommended ceiling for accommodation. It is £20 a week—what a ridiculous figure! If the employee uses it only for five days or nights a week it works out at £4 a night. If he is there for seven nights a week—for example, a resident caretaker—it is under £3. Where can anyone find accommodation at that price? A night's stay in the city of Bath YMCA costs £11 a night in a dormitory and at least £14 in a single room, breakfast included. The YMCA could hardly be called a profiteering organisation. The Youth Hostels Association, depending where its facility is situated, charges about £9.75. My recollection of the YHA is that the facilities were pretty spartan.
I am not suggesting that the value of the accommodation should be equated to the cost of staying at the Ritz. But the information which I have given to

601
your Lordships was obtained in fewer than 10 minutes as a result of two simple telephone calls. I have to wonder what kind of research the Low Pay Commission conducted before coming to its extraordinary recommendations about the items of benefits in kind to be excluded from the calculation of the national minimum wage.
The Low Pay Commission conducted a painstaking inquiry before it wrote its report. I do not agree with many of its conclusions or recommendations, but I cannot fault its methodology on most aspects. However, in respect of benefits in kind, particularly over the value of accommodation, its work has been perfunctory and slapdash. Hence, I believe that its recommendations are neither credible nor acceptable. I quote from its report:
"It is difficult to estimate and monitor the value of many benefits … On grounds of simplicity and enforceability, therefore, we recommend that, with the exception of accommodation, benefits should be excluded from the calculation of the National Minimum Wage".
There are two reasons why the Low Pay Commission is wrong to suggest that the value of the benefits is difficult to calculate or to monitor. The first is that the Inland Revenue has considerable expertise, built up over generations of defeating tax evaders and closing up tax loopholes, in valuing benefits in kind and enforcing the payment of tax on them.
In its report, the Low Pay Commission actually recommends that enforcement of the national minimum wage should be left in the hands of "an existing Government agency". The commission particularly and enthusiastically recommended the Contributions Agency, which is to combine with the Inland Revenue just as this Act will come into force because, and again I quote:
"It analyses payroll data, and for benefit fraud reasons checks for apparently abnormally low wages. It has compliance investigation teams, allied to fraud teams".
I submit that the Contributions Agency, combined with the Inland Revenue, will have absolutely no problem in valuing the benefits in kind and preventing fraud by employers. In addition, the Low Pay Commission has recommended that,
"employers should be required to display on pay slips both the national Minimum Wage and details to enable workers to claim readily whether they have received the statutory minimum".
The model pay slip that is shown as an example in the 12th schedule to the report could just as easily require the employer to state the value of the benefits that he or she is claiming should be taken into account. The onus of proving their value in case of dispute will of course be on the employer. It should be noted that the Secretary of State has taken powers under Clause 12 to prescribe by regulations the contents of an employee's wages statement.
The second reason that the Low Pay Commission is wrong to say that the value of benefits is too difficult to calculate is that it was the commission's responsibility and duty to recommend a framework to do so. I have never heard of a commission of inquiry such as this abdicating its responsibilities and saying, in effect, "It is much too hard. We just can't do it. Instead, we will
602
allow employers who may be providing benefits that are costing them hundreds of pounds a year to bear the expense without being given a single pennyworth of credit for it". I believe that that is a monstrous and totally unacceptable concept.
What I expect to hear from the Government in reply to my amendment is that, when the Secretary of State makes the regulations under Clause 2, particularly under subsection (4), she will not arbitrarily ignore and disregard benefits which have a real value to the employee and a real cost to the employer—that is to say, a value in cost which can both be measured and verified by the tax or other enforcement authorities, and which the employer will have to declare in writing under other regulations which the Secretary of State is going to make—a value and cost which it will be up to the employer to prove if challenged.
This amendment is not about the problems of the activities centres' industry; indeed, it is just an example of the problems that will afflict every employer who provides benefits in kind as part of the remuneration of his workers. Simple justice demands that they should get credit for them and that they should not be ignored just because the commission and the Government find it difficult to check them. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this amendment raises the issue of what benefits should count towards pay for the purpose of the national minimum wage; and how they should be valued. The noble Baroness prayed in aid a quotation from the report of the Low Pay Commission, which states:
"with the exception of accommodation, benefits should be excluded from the calculation of the National Minimum Wage".
However, what the noble Baroness did not mention was that the commission then went on to say:
"An offset should be allowed where accommodation is provided as a benefit-in-kind. In order to protect workers from unreasonable charges, however, a maximum figure of £20 per week should be set for any deduction for the cost of the accommodation. The operation of this offset should be monitored and consideration given to phasing it out in the longer term".
So the Low Pay Commission did take the matter most seriously and, indeed, gave it serious consideration. The Government have said that they accept these recommendations in principle, subject to consultation on the detailed regulations. Those regulations are of course important. The point is that the primary legislation—that is, the Bill—already provides the flexibility to allow particular benefits in kind either to be included or excluded. It is the secondary legislation which will determine the details. As I indicated, we envisage that this will be done in line with the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission.
In my view, if the amendment of the noble Baroness were accepted, it would mean a degree of considerable complication. It would require the Secretary of State to set a maximum amount for the value of food or accommodation; and, in setting that maximum, to take account of the different cost of food, accommodation and other living costs in different areas of the United

603
Kingdom. So we are back to the argument that arose when we discussed the first group of amendments; namely, that the cost will vary in different parts of the country.
The amendment therefore goes beyond the Low Pay Commission's recommendation which excludes all benefits from the calculation of pay for national minimum wage purposes, except accommodation, on which, as the noble Baroness said, it puts a maximum of £20 a week. If the amendment is intended to provide an offset for food, I do not see why we need to depart from the commission's recommendation in the way suggested. As I have said, the Bill enables the regulations to provide for offsets for any kind of benefit in kind and, if it is right, to impose a maximum on the amount that may be offset in respect of the benefit in question. Therefore, by regulation, the Minister has the flexibility to deal with it. Thus I believe the amendment to be unnecessarily prescriptive.
The whole point of the amendment is that it would overcome the feeling that the Low Pay Commission has that we should discourage payments in kind. The whole purpose of the National Minimum Wage Bill is to set a fair and reasonable minimum wage; indeed, it is not to set a wages policy.
The noble Baroness raised a question about activity centres. I cannot deal with individual cases, but I would refer the noble Baroness to Clause 44 which deals with the question of volunteers. There may or may not be a contract of employment between people who work in such activity centres and those who run them. That may be a matter for an employment tribunal, but it is not one for the Inland Revenue. I cannot deal with that particular case. Nevertheless, if the noble Baroness were to look at Clause 44, I believe that she would find some part of an answer.
The noble Baroness was rather critical of the Low Pay Commission and said that it was really not very diligent and had not carried out its work properly. Perhaps I may remind her that the commission visited 61 cities, towns and villages around the country. Members of the commission spoke to many people; they consulted existing studies and carried out their own research. In the view of the Government, the work of the commission was very well carried out and I do not accept the noble Baroness's criticism of its work. I believe that what we have put in the Bill is a sensible approach at the start of the minimum pay legislation. There is some flexibility there to review it if necessary, so I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he tell us whether he knows of anywhere in London or in the south-east of England where a single person could rent a room for as little as £40 a week, let alone £20?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this is not about the price of accommodation; it is about what a minimum wage should be. If one was discussing the benefit in kind in a wages policy as to what the maxima should be, then of course
604
that would enter into the argument. However, it does not enter into the argument when we are deciding what a fair and decent minimum wage should be.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have to confess that I did not exactly understand everything that the Minister said in his response. He quoted certain parts of the report by the Low Pay Commission, but they were exactly the same quotes as I used in my opening remarks to promote my amendment. It seems to me that the noble Lord read out exactly the same quotes in order to counteract my argument. I find that quite extraordinary.
As far as concerns the Low Pay Commission, I actually complimented it on the methodology that it used in every other part of the report and on the very careful work that it accomplished. In no way did I suggest that the commission was not careful and meticulous in its work, except in this particular instance. I read out the part of the report which says:
"It is difficult to estimate and monitor the value of many benefits … On grounds of simplicity and enforceability we therefore recommend that, with the exception of accommodation, benefits should be excluded".
The grounds the commission gave was that it was difficult to work out and enforce. The point I was making is that it was asked to look into the matter and in my view it ought to have come up with a formula. However, I shall read again what the Minister has said because, as I said, I found it extraordinarily difficult to understand. At a quick glance I cannot see that Clause 44 has any benefits at all in this regard but I shall examine it again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 32, after ("(2)") insert (", (3) and 3A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, before we discuss the Statements on the Transport White Paper and the International Criminal Court, I take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

The New Deal for Transport
4.40 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on transport policy. A White Paper, New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone is published today and has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
"This White Paper delivers on our manifesto commitment to develop an integrated transport policy to assist mobility and economic growth, to fight congestion and pollution and to help create a fairer society. It will widen choice, providing people with a real alternative of a decent, modern and reliable public transport system.
"The public mood has changed. The previous government's Green Paper, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the Select Committee and our own consultation exercise demonstrated that there is now a consensus for radical change. Everyone now agrees that no change is not an option.
"Privatisation and deregulation in the 1980s and 1990s produced a public transport system which was fragmented, lacked investment and attracted fewer passengers. It led to more congestion and did more damage to the environment and public health.
"Last year, two records were broken: a record 1 million rail passengers complained and a record number of rail millionaires were created. What an indictment of privatisation. Bus passengers have fallen by 25 per cent. since deregulation. Car drivers sit in traffic for hours. The CBI complains of the £15 billion cost of congestion. Walking and cycling are often unpleasant and dangerous. Many women fear for their own safety on public transport and for the safety of their children going to school.
"If we do nothing, traffic will grow by 30 per cent. in the next 20 years with more traffic jams, longer rush hours and a 10 per cent. increase in CO2 emissions at a time when the Kyoto accords require us to cut emissions.
"The core of our approach is integration, to allow people to switch from bus to train, from their cars to park and ride. But it is also about integrating transport with environment policy and land-use planning and with our economic, health and education policies and the creation of a fairer society.
"People need better information to achieve a seamless journey. Today I can announce a revolution in information to the passenger. We will introduce a comprehensive integrated national public transport information system by the year 2000. A passenger will be able to access information on all forms of transport to a single point by phone, teletext or Internet.
"Through better planning policies we can reduce the need to travel as we are showing with our Millennium Village in Greenwich. Homes should be close to shops, schools, health and other services so that people can walk rather than drive. We will revise planning guidance to take account of our new integrated transport policy. We have given more emphasis than any previous government to making it easier to walk and cycle. I endorse the target to double cycling within six years.
"Rural areas have their own specific needs; 75 per cent. of rural parishes now have no daily bus service. We have already committed £150 million to
606
improve rural public transport, doubling the support in many rural areas. Proposals are in the final stages of preparation.
"Better public transport, particularly rail and bus, are the cornerstone of our approach. A better, modern, reliable bus presents the best opportunity for leading a renaissance of public transport. Quality partnerships, which already exist in a handful of local authorities, have proved popular with the public and passenger numbers have increased by up to 40 per cent. and people are using their cars less. I want to see more of them.
"The bus must have priority on the road. This will lead to faster, more reliable services which attract more passengers. Stiffer penalties and tougher enforcement will deter bus lane road hogs. We can transform the economics of the bus industry by adding just two extra passengers per bus journey, improving revenues by some £400 million. More revenue will lead to more investment, better buses, more frequent services and proper training and conditions for bus drivers. The one I met this morning could benefit from a visit to charm school—probably the same one I attended.
"Bus operators must help spruce up bus stations, provide better information at bus stops and co-operate on ticketing with other bus and rail operators. In addition the Government are prepared to give statutory force to exclusive quality contracts on particular routes. The days of the cowboy bus operators are over. For too long the bus has been seen as the workhorse. I want it to be a racehorse. Today I issue a challenge to bus companies and manufacturers to create a new bus fit for the 21st century in design, operation and comfort; buses which are more accessible to elderly and disabled people and to mothers with children and heavy shopping.
"Transport policy needs to pay special attention to the 13 million people in homes without a car. Pensioners in particular rely on good quality services at affordable prices. I am therefore pleased to announce for the first time a national minimum concessionary fares scheme guaranteeing at least a half fare for every pensioner in Britain. This will benefit 3 million pensioners currently denied the benefits of such a scheme.
"Our proposals for railways are in line with the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee, the response to which I am issuing today as Cmnd 4024. There will be tougher regulation of train companies. Spearheaded by our new strategic rail authority, enforcement will be speeded up and strengthened with tougher penalties. If these companies continue to fail the passenger, they will lose their right to operate. In the short term, OPRAF will remain the operator of last resort. British Rail will retain the ability to be a train operator. The functions of both will become part of the strategic rail authority.
"The rail industry needs a stable framework to deliver long-term investment and better services for passengers. Seventeen of the existing franchises come

607
up for renewal within the next six years. Some train operators want early renegotiation of their franchises. I stand ready to consider their requests. But I make one thing clear. If any application is to succeed, it will have to guarantee better performance, more investment, improvements for the rail passenger and value for the taxpayer.
"An independent rail regulator will remain but there will be clear demarcation from the new responsibilities for the strategic rail authority. Railtrack will be tightly scrutinised to ensure it invests sufficiently in the rail infrastructure. The rail regulator has been critical of Railtrack's investment record as recently as last week. I intend to see that these criticisms are addressed. I have asked the rail regulator to carry out a review of both the level and the structure of the charges, including the mechanisms for payment. We will set up new rail funds with £100 million to lever in additional leading edge investments in the rail network.
"The House is aware that the National Audit Office condemned the scandalous sale by the previous government of the rolling stock leasing companies, known as Roscos. I asked the rail regulator to investigate the failure of the Roscos which he has completed. I have asked him to negotiate a new concordat with Roscos on the leasing and re-leasing terms of rolling stock. If that is not effective, I will consider bringing Roscos into formal regulation.
"Rail freight is a better environmental option and we endorse the rail freight industry's target to double traffic carried by rail within five years and treble it in 10. We have already doubled rail freight grants. We will increase them by a further one-third this year and extend them to coastal shipping. It is my intention to use the proceeds from the part sale of NATS to reinvest in transport improvements, such as a Euro-gauge freight rail system from the Channel Tunnel right through to Scotland if terms can be agreed.
"This Government will invest in rail freight but we recognise that over 90 per cent. of goods will continue to be moved by road. From January 1st next year, European law requires us to raise the maximum gross weight of lorries from 38 to 40 tonnes.
"I am concerned about the cost of road and bridge maintenance with an increase in five axle heavy lorries and I therefore want to send the strongest possible signal to encourage six axle lorries. I have therefore decided to allow 41 tonne lorries on six axles from January 1999. I am not convinced of the case for going to 44 tonne lorries but I will ask the new commission for integrated transport, which I will describe later, to review the evidence and make recommendations.
"Everyone now acknowledges that we cannot build our way out of congestion. The days of 'predict and provide' are over. We will give top priority to maintaining and managing the existing roads. I propose to transform the Highways Agency into a network operator rather than simply a road builder.
608
I am pleased to announce the signing today of an historic agreement between the Highways Agency and Railtrack to work together on developing integrated solutions.
"We will allow the Highways Agency to operate a number of pilot charging schemes and use the income stream to re-invest in the road network. For example, I am looking at how to redirect toll revenue from the Dartford crossing to improve traffic management on the M.25.
"Like millions of my fellow drivers, I know that sitting in traffic jams at all times of the day robs driving of its convenience. It is not pro-car to allow congestion to escalate. It is not pro-car to allow smog and pollution to increase. The car driver is breathing in air around three times more polluted than the air outside. The most anti-car policy is to do nothing. Pro-public transport does not mean being anti-car.
"I am pleased to announce today a new deal for the motorist. The Highways Agency will have specific responsibility to reduce delays. We will establish regional traffic control centres to help traffic flows and improve information to motorists about road works and delays. We will also act against cowboy wheelclampers. And we will use the DVLA's databank to provide better information and protection for drivers when buying used cars.
"As school holidays begin, everyone notices the differences in traffic. Parents driving their children often short distances to schools has increased congestion significantly at peak times. Some schools have already shown that safe and secure routes, with adult supervision, can reduce unnecessary car use. Parents welcome this as an extension of choice and a safer alternative.
"No transport issue is more important than safety. We intend to issue new road safety strategy and targets later this year. And in response to the Select Committee, we propose to carry out a thorough review of the institutional arrangements for transport safety.
"The key to the success of our new approach to transport is partnership. Let no one say we are not putting our money where our mouth is; £1.7 billion increase in public investment for transport over the next three years; £7 billion public-private partnerships for the Underground; £6 billion partnership for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
"Together with new revenue streams for local authorities, commercial freedom for local authority airports and private investment in buses and trains, this represents the biggest ever investment in public transport, and, as the Chancellor said, doubling the total transport investment over the next seven years.
"Partnership will also be important at local level. Local councils will consult with all the main interested parties to draw up local transport plans. These plans will set targets and actions to develop public transport, improve air quality, enhance road safety and reduce road traffic.
"This is a major new initiative and will be backed by £700 million which will enable 150 local transport strategies over the next three years. There will be new powers for local authorities to levy charges for the use of congested roads, and on workplace parking. The revenue from this will be used to improve local public transport and traffic management.
"These will be local schemes decided by local people, defined by local needs. The proceeds will be reinvested in local transport through a ring-fenced fund. All such plans will be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. This White Paper establishes the principle. I intend to issue a consultation paper in due course on its implementation.
"I am grateful to my right honourable friend the Chancellor for allowing the courage to establish such a radical reform of public finances, allowing hypothecation of this income. This Government are ending decades of under-investment, modernising our transport system and investing for the future.
"Transport must be publicly accountable. I intend to give real power to the passenger: public hearings on rail and bus franchises; stronger bus and rail consumer bodies joining forces with real powers; a strategic rail authority with real teeth to improve standards for the passenger.
"Madam Speaker, this White Paper is the start, not the end, of the debate. It is almost 20 years since the last comprehensive transport White Paper. The speed of change means that we cannot wait another 20 years.
"Members will appreciate that I have touched only on the main points of the White Paper, which covers all forms of transport. There will be a number of 'daughter documents' similar to today's rail document, on roads, freight, aviation, shipping and others.
"Transport policy is not just a matter for government. The debate needs the involvement of all sections of society. The Government therefore propose to establish an independent commission for integrated transport which will monitor targets, provide a forum for debate and make regular reports to Ministers and to this House.
"Madam Speaker, the White Paper is based on a real consensus for change. No change is frankly not an option. The country wants a better transport system which does not continue to damage our health, industry and environment; a transport system which improves the quality of life for everyone without passing on a poorer legacy to future generations.
"Radical change is necessary. This White Paper is about that radical change and how to achieve it. I commend this White Paper to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating her right honourable friend's Statement. We have waited a long time for the Statement. It was promised in the spring of this year.
610
I know that spring came late and that that was not the Government's fault. We now have the Statement on what I hope is the first day of summer. I understand the reasons for the delay. My first question therefore is: whose White Paper is this? Is it the Deputy Prime Minister's, or is it the policy from the No. 10 Policy Unit with money from the Treasury?
Of course, we welcome some aspects of the Statement. However, do the Government accept that the previous government's 1996 Green Paper, referred to in the Statement, had already set out some of the proposals announced today—quality partnerships with local authorities in relation to buses and bus lanes are already happening. I also welcome the apparent disappearance of a proposed tax on parking at supermarkets. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is no longer on the agenda.
Will the Minister confirm that the increase in spending on transport, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, was a matter of creative accounting within the existing departmental budget and that the real increase is not the £600 million a year announced by the Chancellor but £7 million a year as calculated by the British Road Federation? Is it not the case that the so-called extra funding of £1.8 billion is made up largely from the proceeds of reducing subsidies to the privatised railways? Will the Minister confirm the Government's conversion to the cause of privatisation, given the benefits that our policy is affording them? Is it not a fact that all the money announced in the White Paper comes from the benefits of privatisation—from both the reduction in rail subsidies and as a result of the proposed privatisation of National Air Traffic Services?
Will the Minister confirm that all subsidy to London Underground is to be removed by the year 2000? Will she tell the House what assumptions have been made as to likely private investment in London Underground by the year 2000, and what contingency plans have been made if that investment fails to appear? What would be the effect on fares and overcrowding? Whose responsibility will that be? Will it be for the new mayor to pick up the tab if it all goes wrong?
Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to fund their plans for improvements in transport infrastructure by imposing more taxes on road users? By how much will that taxation increase? How soon will the improvements be in place?
Will the Minister confirm the statement in an article in today's Financial Times that,
"The new charges will begin to provide funds from 2000–2001 but will not really bite until after the next election. They are expected to raise about £1 bn a year from 2005–2006"?
That seems a very long time to wait for the improvements.
How will the Government guarantee 100 per cent. hypothecation of these taxes, and what system will be put in place to ensure their transparency? The Deputy Prime Minister apparently said on the "Breakfast with Frost" programme yesterday that the Treasury had assured him that any money raised from these new incomes would now be channelled directly to transport policies. Can we be assured that that will be the case?

611
Can we further be assured that VAT will not be added to these charges and that, if it is, it will not go straight to the Treasury?
What of the fuel-tax escalator? Will that now end or will it go on and on at 6 per cent. above inflation year on year, further increasing the money to the Treasury without bringing any improvements from that source to the transport system?
Do the Government accept that higher taxes for motorists will affect disproportionately women, the elderly, disabled people and people in rural areas, all of whom regard the car as a necessity and for all of whom safe and secure travelling by car is a major consideration?
Can I have an assurance from the Minister that when a local authority wishes to bring in congestion charging it will at least take into account the considerations of other local authorities? To give one example, is the noble Baroness aware that the vast majority of traffic to and from the Isle of Wight has to travel through the city centres of Portsmouth and Southampton? Can we be assured that any congestion charging by those two councils will not further add to the burden of a fragile economy which already has to bear the cost of the ferry journey?
On the question of the school run, much referred to, there is much to be welcomed in the proposals. But does the Minister recognise that for many parents—working mothers and indeed working fathers—the school run is only part of the journey to work? I hope that the Minister will take that factor into account in the proposals.
Can the Minister confirm that there will be an exemption from non-residential car-parking charges for health and education establishments? What other exemptions are planned? What about the car park outside this House? Who will pay non-residential car-parking charges for that? Will Members of another place be able to reclaim anything they are charged from the taxpayer?
How will the income streams generated by the new taxes and charges on motorists affect the department's assumptions for the distribution of other local authority finance in the form of the rate support grant and standard spending assessments?
Is the Minister aware that the increasing differential between United Kingdom and Continental diesel prices will, according to the Road Haulage Association, lead to the loss of 26,000 jobs in this country during this Parliament? What do the Government intend to do about that?
I give a cautious welcome to the statement that 41-tonne lorries on six axles are to be allowed from the beginning of next year. But why not go the whole hog now to 44 tonnes, as recommended by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House? How does the Minister think that the decision to allow 41-tonne lorries on six axles but not to give a decision yet on 44-tonne lorries will affect the investment plans of transport road haulage companies?
612
Given that the privatised rail freight companies intend to treble the amount of freight carried by rail in the next 10 years, what further plans have the Government to transfer more freight from the roads? Will the Government recognise that the welcome increase in freight and the welcome target set by the rail freight companies are a direct result of the privatisation of the railway network?
Can the Minister assure the House that the strategic rail authority will not result in more bureaucracy for the industry and that it will not attempt to second-guess the commercial decisions by rail operators and thus damage the record investment taking place in both the track and operating companies?
The Statement mentions the Dartford crossing and the possible improvements to the M.25. Does the Statement mean that the bridge is no longer to become toll-free when the concession is over, as is presently enshrined in legislation? On that subject, can the Minister tell us when we can expect the other nine papers which are heralded in the White Paper, in particular the roads review which, no doubt, will contain news of the possible U-turn on the widening of the M.25?
Finally, can the Minister be more specific with the House and the nation? How will the success of these policies be measured? Will targets be set for the overall reduction of traffic growth and the increase in train and bus travel and the number of journeys made on bicycle and on foot? Or is this White Paper simply about setting new targets to tax motorists? Apparently, in another place the Deputy Prime Minister said following the Statement that no one would need a second car. Can I have an assurance that the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers will give up theirs?
5.6 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I approach this White Paper from a slightly different standpoint to that of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. It has been long awaited. It was preceded by a barrage of speculation about rival approaches to transport within government, and the usual barrage of leaks as well. It is 170 pages long and includes a most welcome index. The practice of including an index is something that all government departments might follow. It enables one to find one's way around a paper reasonably rapidly.
However, we have had less than an hour to look at the White Paper. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to use her endeavours to persuade the usual channels that we need a rather more profound debate on these major issues which affect everyone's lives every part of the day. I do not believe that the eight minutes or so that the noble Lord took are sufficient.
We have all known for a long time what the problems are: congestion, leading to pollution, severance and billions of pounds of costs to industry; excess mobility for some and reduced mobility for others. We have all recognised for some time that we cannot just build our way out of these problems. Local government has tried to respond many times in England and has made excellent efforts to cope with the problems of

613
congestion. York is an example and Truro is another; one could cite Birmingham and Manchester and towns of different sizes. What has been lacking is an overall envelope of government policy to sustain and give long-term direction to the efforts of local authorities.
Another problem has been the arbitrary allocation of government financial support between transport objectives or even its total diversion to other heads of government expenditure whenever things become difficult for the general budget. The fact that the Government have recognised the problem and have committed themselves to an integrated transport policy should be praised; and I have often done so. But what does the paper tell us about the reality, or even the realpolitik, of this commitment? Does it pass the test? Some of the tests are matters such as whether we are really going for integration of modes and for better access for people with mobility problems. On the whole, the White Paper is quite good on that aspect. I like the commitment to a half-fare ticket for all pensioners which will help to reduce the inequalities between the provision in neighbouring local authorities, particularly odious to those who live around London some of whom have to pay full fare whereas Londoners do not.
The strategic rail authority is a good idea. We need to improve public transport. Anything that can be done to put the public interest back into the privatised rail companies should be supported by all of us. I hope that it can be done efficiently and without unnecessary bureaucracy. The point is to get public interest and public importance back into decision-taking with regard to rail.
Another test is whether there are traffic reduction targets. There are some targets, not so much for traffic reduction, but for freight growth, which other people have to satisfy. I do not see quite what the Government intend to do to facilitate that; perhaps the noble Baroness can respond. There are targets for accidents, which is not a new idea. I am disappointed that among other targets—including those for walking and cycling—the targets for road traffic reduction are still to be considered. Perhaps the noble Baroness can say for how long that consideration will continue.
There is some sign of another important aspect; that is, better enforcement of speed rules and HTV road worthiness rules. Those are welcome as part of an effort to make roads safer. Vulnerable road users will not use roads which are perceived to be or are in reality—there is little difference between the two—unsafe. Action must be taken to make roads seem safer. There are some signs of that. I confess that I have not read the entire report. I cannot be sure how far it goes.
I am delighted to welcome a commitment to improved planning policies to reduce the need to travel. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether, taking the speed and planning policies, the Government are proposing to encourage low speed areas where children, residents and so forth, either on foot or on bicycle, have an absolute priority over cars which will be kept to a low speed limit.
Another question concerns where the money is going. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, was concerned about where it was coming from. As one reads the paper there
614
are doubts as to whether the figures reflect new money, money that has already been announced, money that is added up from a number of sources and put into a box labelled, "This is something good", or whether we are getting new funds, particularly funds diverted from road building into road maintenance, cycle schemes, pavements and that sort of thing. I would welcome a response from the Minister in that regard.
There is some evidence of a willingness on the part of the Government to use elements of tax policy to support their transport policy. I welcome the ability on the part of local authorities to tax non-residential parking, to retain the fines from traffic infringements and to put them into ring-fenced funds for the use of local traffic schemes. On the other hand, the Government trumpet 150 traffic schemes funded from central sources. That does not sound to me an enormous number. I am interested to know whether it is a significant increase over the numbers funded in recent years.
The variable vehicle excise duty is welcome, particularly the higher rates for heavy goods vehicles that cause a great deal of damage. We would have suggested a lower lowest level because if VED were reduced far below the £100 minimum being considered at the present time, people in rural areas would be able to combat the increase in the cost of petrol. It would give a strong indication that the Government were taxing the use of the car rather than the ownership, which is another important point.
There are many subjects which other Members of your Lordships' House will wish to mention. I conclude by saying that I am glad to welcome the evidence in the report that this is not just a one-off Statement. Quite apart from the additional bodies mentioned—for example, the commission for integrated transport—there are elements of action which will carry us forward down the years so that the pressure upon a number of co-operating partners such as local government, industry and so forth, will continue to be led by government.
The devil in such a report is always in the detail. I feel that some of that detail is good. I am sure that there will be parts with which we disagree. As I said at the start, I hope that we shall be given an opportunity to debate it in greater detail at a later stage.
5.14 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both Front Bench speakers for their welcome, to a greater or lesser degree, for many of the proposals outlined in the White Paper, although the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, was perhaps a little half-hearted in some respects. I make clear from the start that this is the Government's White Paper. It comes from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but when one reads through the amount of interactions with other government departments it is clear that we recognise that transport and transport policy must evolve as a whole government policy.
The paper came out later than originally suggested—but a lot sooner than the 18 years during which the party opposite had time to create a White Paper and never

615
achieved one at all. The fact that it has arrived within 18 months is not something for which I apologise. Also, the decision taken to publish it after the Comprehensive Spending Review was sensible. It allowed for some transparency and for the sorts of searching questions in relation to funding which came from the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas.
Perhaps I should make clear in talking about figures—the noble Baroness asked me about those—that we are talking of £1.8 billion of extra money over the CSR period. We are talking of £700 million more for local authorities to establish 150 new local transport plans and to restore the cuts in maintenance to their principal roads. We must recognise in that sum of money and in the £400 million extra spending on the trunk road network that we have, sadly, a backlog of disinvestment that must first be put right. There will also be £300 million more for local bus services in addition to the £50 million a year for rural transport announced in the Budget.
There is to be £300 million additional resources for the rail industry, including support for the Channel Tunnel rail link, on top of the annual subsidy of over £1 billion to rail operators for existing franchise contracts. Those new resources will allow for extra freight grants and extra funds will be available from two new sources—the infrastructure investment fund and the rail passenger partnership scheme.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, that that does not represent a conversion to privatisation; it represents making the best of a very bad job which we inherited. It represents also some value for the travelling public from the reductions that are at last being seen in the amount of subsidy going to the rail operators. What is different about this Government is that, unlike the previous government's plans, that money will not go straight back into the Consolidated Fund; it is being recycled into support for public transport.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, suggested that the British Road Federation's £7 million was the increase. I suggest that he looks a little more closely at the real new money that is coming in, rather than taking sums that are bandied about by a lobbying group on behalf of investment in road building.
The noble Lord asked also about the taxation plans and the plans for congestion charging. On the issue of the fuel duty escalator, about which he asked specifically, we intend to continue the Government's commitment to increase road fuel duty by 6 per cent. above inflation every year. That is because its impact in the long run should not be too great when it is combined with the other measures in the White Paper to improve the fuel efficiency of vehicles. This work is taking place in the "CO2 from cars programme" and in the cleaner vehicles task force to encourage better public transport and to give people a real choice as to how they undertake their journeys.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked about other fiscal incentives towards environmentally friendly transport policies. The Chancellor announced a raft of
616
measures to encourage people to use their cars and to make their choices about buying cars in ways that reflect the need to reduce pollution, emissions and congestion.
I was asked about the funding of local transport plans. The 150 local transport plans in the CSR period will be funded through the additional money from the Chancellor under the Comprehensive Spending Review. In addition, we are looking at the possibility of local charging for private non-residential parking at workplaces or congestion charging. I was asked for an assurance that those would reflect local needs and that the money would go back into local transport schemes. That is precisely the agreement that has been reached. It is important to recognise that we are not talking about new national taxes. We recognise that different areas have different transport needs. The local transport plans will have to deal with both income and expenditure and they will not be approved unless we can see—and the public and the local community can see because they will be involved in drawing up the plans—that there is a clear correlation between any charging strategy and any strategy for investment in public transport. It is important to understand that point.
I was asked about the effect of our proposals on particularly vulnerable road users. The noble Lord referred to disabled people. The particular needs of disabled people and the details of any exemptions for, for example, hospitals will have to be looked at in the consultation document on congestion charging which we hope to issue very soon. While we recognise the needs of women who are worried about using public transport, of disabled motorists and of elderly people, it is important that we provide public transport that is safe and secure and is accessible for disabled people. We must look not only in terms of the car. We have to recognise that 30 per cent. of households in this country—some 13 million people—have no access to a car. They are already excluded. For them it is crucial that we improve public transport so that their mobility and their ability to participate in society to the full is increased.
I was asked about the strategic rail authority and it second guessing commercial decisions. That is not what the strategic rail authority will be there for; it will be there to provide clear, coherent and accountable planning and regulation to ensure that the railways are run firmly in the public interest and that rail freight is considered alongside the passenger railway.
I was asked specifically about rail freight. It will benefit from the investment fund that will be created to address pinch-points in the network. The commission for integrated transport will look at rail freight issues. However, the Government's record in improving both the amount of money available for rail freight and the take-up of it is a significant one.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, asked why we had not gone for 44-tonne lorries immediately. We were looking in the round at the freight industry. It is important that we give a clear message about six-axle vehicles. In terms of the investment decisions that the road haulage industry will make, the point is made clearly in the White Paper that we are looking, through

617
incentives, to encourage re-equipping on six axles. That is why we made the decision to go to 41 tonnes next year. The case for 44 tonnes will be looked at by the commission for integrated transport. We have to consider what would be gained by having fewer lorries on the road because of their having higher payloads if that were to be lost by the effect that had on the rail freight industry. That is a complicated calculation and one on which we need advice.
I was asked about the role of targets. Targets are a significant feature of the White Paper. There are local targets for air quality. We have targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in the UK by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012. The report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution said that targets for road traffic reduction nationally must have a clear and specific justification. The transport commission will be looking at that. Meanwhile, these issues will be taken into account locally when local authorities are putting forward their local transport plans. I can assure the House that the CSR White Paper assumes that the funding of local authority packages from public funds will be broadly at current levels and that the new charges will be additional to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked about vulnerable road users and about the potential for creating areas in communities that are sometimes called home zones. We have asked local authorities whether they would like to put proposals to us for such schemes. These schemes would not need a change in legislation. One of the important considerations is the review of speed policy set out in the White Paper. That is important because it reflects not only a concern with speed as an issue in safety but also as a consideration in terms of people being less willing to cycle, less willing to walk and less willing to allow their children to go to school by themselves and in terms of CO2 emissions because of the speed at which vehicles are travelling and also in terms of noise. We are looking at the review in the round.
I have spoken for too long and have probably reflected the noble Baroness's view that a Statement is not the best way to deal with this matter. I, too, would welcome an opportunity to speak at greater length.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I very much welcome the White Paper of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. He hit the nail on the head when he said that 13 million people do not have access to cars and that that has to be provided for.
As chairman of the Rail Freight Group, I welcome what the Minister and the Statement say about rail freight and, in particular, about the Euro-gauge project, where I think they probably mean piggy-back. That is a great step forward. The Statement says that the Highways Agency intends to operate a pilot charging scheme to re-invest in the road network. I find that very interesting. As the Highways Agency and Railtrack have made an historic agreement to work together for integrated transport, does my noble friend see any
618
means by which some of the revenue from such a scheme could be invested in an integrated transport scheme?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is right in terms of Euro-gauge meaning piggy-back. The opportunities are extremely exciting. The White Paper looks at the possibilities for pilot schemes for charging on the trunk road and motorway network and for recycling that revenue. Within the new remit for the Highways Agency we have a new strategic aim and objective. We are looking at its role as a provider within an integrated transport framework. That money can be spent on performing that role rather than on the more traditional roadbuilding role as in the past.
There are many exciting things that we can do in terms of traffic management, regional control centres, better information for motorists and to encourage modal shifts from road to park-and-ride and then on to rail. There are opportunities. We need to look at pilot schemes very carefully because we also have to recognise that we do not want diversion on to unsuitable local roads. Therefore we have to assess schemes carefully.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, the noble Baroness is to be congratulated not only on repeating the Statement but on having the stamina to do so over 15 minutes. I warmly support the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, in requesting that the usual channels consider together so that we get some time to debate. This document contains 162 pages even if one disregards the index. One cannot hoist it all in in an hour. The document contains a great deal of very important information and very important ideas. I ask the Minister to try to make the best overtures she can in that respect.
In the interests of the House and speed, I have one general and two specific questions. As regards the general question, can the Minister advise the House when we can expect to receive what are delightfully described as the "daughter documents?". I do not believe that I have ever come across that expression in these circles before. It is rather nicely put. Can she advise us when those documents will be available?
I have two specific points. When discussing the tougher regulation of train companies and the strategic rail authority, the Statement says most interestingly,
"If these companies"—
by that I assume is meant the train companies—
"continue to fail the passenger, they will lose their right to operate".
Does that mean within the period of the franchise or at the end of it? That could set all kinds of warning bells ringing within franchise operators.
My second specific question to the Minister concerns the part of the Statement which says,
"We have already doubled rail freight grants. We will increase them by a further one-third this year and extend them to coastal shipping".
Does "coastal shipping" mean what I believe is termed "short-sea shipping" or does it mean "coastal shipping?" To put it more succinctly, does it include trans-North

619
Sea or simply include around the coast of the United Kingdom? I hope that the noble Baroness can enlighten me.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I have to confess to the noble Lord that I was trying not to say coastal shipping and short-sea shipping for very good reason. I can assure the noble Lord that it will apply to both. In the interests of completeness we shall look at encouraging the take-up of freight grants which are available for inland waterways and which do not need an extension. They are not well taken up at the moment.
As regards the franchises, it is important that we make quite clear the standards that are expected of franchisees and also the standards expected of those who wish to renegotiate their franchises. As the noble Lord said, there are important messages here. I want to be absolutely clear. I shall write to the noble Lord with the detail.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, can the Minister say anything about the timing of the "daughter documents?"
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thought that that was a European phrase and I would expect the noble Lord to be well acquainted with it. The daughter documents will be out very soon; the first one on rail came out today. I hope that we shall see the document on roads before the House rises. There is a document on buses which it is important to get out soon. There is another on sustainable freight and distribution. Within the next weeks and a couple of months we shall see a great many of these documents appearing.
It is slightly more difficult as regards airports. A large-scale Statement on airport policy will have to await the outcome of the Terminal 5 inquiry because we do not wish to prejudge it. So there are issues of timing, but the main daughter documents will be out soon. The consultation document on the detail of congestion charging will also be out soon.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, can the Minister tell us more about the thinking on integrated ticketing, particularly for single journeys? It is most welcome that the White Paper refers to the matter, but the Statement does not. Nor, curiously, does the report on consultation.
A great deal of the debate is on macro issues such as investment. But the micro issues on subjects such as ticketing have a big impact on the willingness of people such as those being asked to leave their cars at home on some days and not the whole week. Does the Minister accept that for London—which is the area I know—the people who do not travel enough to justify a travelcard find the Underground arrangements totally inadequate? We need solutions like strip cards and carnets if people are to be persuaded to travel on a one-off basis.
Can the Minister also try to dissuade London Underground enforcing its deeply resented £10 penalty fare until it can guarantee ticket machines that work and do not show "Exact money only" when one has queued for five minutes or those which say "closed"? There are
620
also platform ticket machines and the question which arises when one changes one's mind about the destination between Zones 1 and 2. There should be carnets for Zones 1 and 2 and other convenient flexible arrangements. I believe that that is referred to in the White Paper. There is also the ability to pay by cash on horrible one-person operated buses. One cannot even buy a one-day travelcard on a bus. All these matters have a very big impact on the willingness of people to undertake single journeys. Can the Minister say more about that and whether the commission on integrated transport will look into these matters.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to identify these issues as important. In London the specifics will be a matter to which the mayor and assembly should give their attention very early on in the process. There are many things that have to be ironed out. We expect local authorities, when preparing their local transport plans, to consider the arrangements for through-ticketing and for travelcards. We shall be publishing advice on good practice because that is available. The necessary powers should be available locally to require operators to promote and participate in joint ticketing and travelcard schemes. There have been difficulties with different bus operators in some areas. It is important to get them to participate. We shall make sure that they do, so that multi-operator ticketing schemes will be available.
We are also looking to the bus industry to introduce simpler fare structures and through-ticketing, where necessary, in conjunction with local authorities. There are opportunities available because of technology. We should make the most of smart cards. We are looking with the key players in the industry both to identify the potential benefit for integrating journeys and to see exactly what role the Government should play in helping to bring forward the kinds of applications we need.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is a contradiction at the heart of the Statement between its accent on safety and its encouragement of the use of the bicycle? As an elderly and infirm pedestrian, I am not troubled that a motor vehicle may mount the pavement and knock me over, but I am constantly in fear of cyclists on pavements. Would it not be a good idea to insert into criminal justice legislation a provision that cycling on the pavement is a major criminal offence?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that frantic cycling is an offence and one on which the police can issue on-the-spot fines and tickets. I appreciate the concern of pedestrians about frantic cycling and their feeling that they are vulnerable road users in relation to cyclists. However, it is important to give cyclists, who are themselves vulnerable in relation to motorcyclists or car drivers, proper safe cycle routes where they will not be a danger to those using the pavement and where they will not themselves be in danger.
The noble Lord says that there is a contradiction at the heart of the White Paper. He raised a conundrum that we must address. I refer to the fact that we do not

621
want to see increases in cycling and walking at the expense of higher casualty rates. However, we also recognise that we shall not see those wished-for increases unless we provide a safe and secure environment in which people can use other modes of transport. That is particularly true when it comes to parents encouraging their children to walk or cycle to school. Parents will not do that unless we have made proper, safe arrangements. I mean "safe" in the broadest sense—not only in terms of road safety, but in terms of community safety also. That is why it is tremendously important to look carefully at the question of safe routes to school. It is not simply a question of lecturing people about leaving the car at home but of enabling people to do what they recognise is for the benefit of themselves and their children—and they do not do that at the moment because of the downsides.
There are some shining examples around particular schools and in particular local authorities which show that we can square the circle between safety and increased cycling and walking. We must do so, however, with the appropriate engineering and enforcement measures in place. There must also be attention to local detail.
Lord Desai: My Lords, as one who does not have a car, I greatly welcome the White Paper. Perhaps I may draw my noble friend's attention to the fact that those of us who use the buses have very different needs at different times. When travelling to work, we need speed and reliability, whereas shoppers using the buses do not need speed quite as much as they need comfortable buses on which it is easy to load their shopping and their children. Will my noble friend draw the attention of the commission on integrated transport to the fact that differently shaped buses are required at different times of the day and in different areas? I believe that that is possible with the new technology. Anyone who has seen a mother with two children and two shopping bags trying to get on to a single-operator bus will know what I mean.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I must advise my noble friend that when I shop, I certainly need speed—and not only when I go to work. But that may simply reflect the reality of women's lives! I take my noble friend's point. His concerns lie behind the challenge which my right honourable friend put today to the bus industry. There are wonderful examples of buses which are accessible to people in wheelchairs, with pushchairs or with large amounts of shopping. However, investment is needed to ensure that such buses are available to everyone and, as my noble friend pointed out, they are reliable, whatever the journey. That means giving buses priority. It means more bus lanes and better enforcement of those bus lanes.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister realise that I am "allergic" to cyclists and that it is not a question merely of providing cycle lanes, but, as my noble friend Lord Beloff said, of preventing cyclists riding on the pavement and jumping the traffic lights?
622
With regard to taxation on non-residential parking, does the Minister agree that if such a charge is levied on Members of both Houses of Parliament, that will amount to taxpayers making direct payments? Presumably, for businesses, any such charge will be allowable for taxation purposes, which means that the taxpayers again will pay for that loss of corporation tax on the profits of the business. Will the Minister explain whether the money allocated to the new fund—"ring-fenced" as the Minister said—will be the gross amount or the amount net of tax?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, that detailed question shows why there has to be a consultation document on the proposals and on, for instance, the question of possible exemptions, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. On the general principle of workplace parking, I do not think that it is right that we should talk about government exemptions—quite the opposite. The Government should be leading by example. The main government departments have already been consulted on "green commuting" plans. They will be expected to draw up such plans and to consider how their workplaces can encourage sustainable transport policies. Such plans are expected to be in place by next year. All government departments will be expected to have such plans in place by the year 2000. It would be foolish of me to talk in detail about parking charges for your Lordships' House—and even more foolish to do so in connection with another place. However, any exemptions would have to be very well argued.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I welcome the Statement, and especially the fact that my noble friend has laid down the foundations for the long-awaited integrated transport policy. Does my noble friend accept that, as a cyclist, and as somebody who has never—or hardly ever!—ridden on a pavement, I feel something of an endangered species in your Lordships' House? Does my noble friend accept that although we should be encouraging cyclists to obey the law and to use the roads safely, that would come much easier if facilities for cyclists were much improved? At the moment, the behaviour of many motorists does not encourage cyclists to behave sensibly themselves.
Does my noble friend accept that her remarks on home zones have been very encouraging? I refer particularly to the fact that local authorities are being encouraged to consider whether they could adopt home zones in some of their districts. That adoption would be welcome as it would encourage parents to allow their children to play out in the neighbourhood of their own homes again rather than being cut off and not allowed to go out. If local authorities say that home zones are difficult to implement without legislation, will my noble friend consider bringing forward legislation to enable such zones to be implemented effectively?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we need to look at this stage by stage. We are already facing quite a legislative programme as a result of the White Paper. A great deal can be achieved. If it emerges that there are

623
gaps in the present legislative framework which make it impossible to enjoy the sort of benefits to which my noble friend referred, we would have to address them.
With regard to my noble friend's comments about cycling, it is a shame when something is always somebody else's fault. There is a shared responsibility here. Everyone has to behave responsibly. Pedestrians, cyclists and drivers all need to behave responsibly. In our review of the driving test and of the question bank for the written driving test, we are trying to ensure that more emphasis is given to alerting drivers to be aware of the needs of vulnerable road users, whether cyclists, horse riders or pedestrians. In the past, that has sometimes been neglected.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am glad that cycling has been mentioned. Will the Minister consider making cycling policy one of the daughter documents? At the moment, it does not appear on the list in Annex A. Cycling policy is most important. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Beloff feels that it is at the heart of the White Paper; my worry is that it is not. However, there is much scope in the White Paper and there is much that could be done. Perhaps I may remind the Minister of the words of one of the most effective Ministers of Transport we have ever had, Mr. Ernest Marples, when we were young—some of us very, very young—that it is action, not words, that counts. It is what you do, not what you say, that matters.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the White Paper provides a long programme of action as well as a good number of words. The Cycling Strategy Group drew up targets to increase cycling and they are endorsed in the Statement. Very much in line with what the noble Lord has said, when we look at the advice given to local authorities in terms of outputs from local transport plans, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Wherever a holistic approach has been taken to transport needs in a particular area the encouragement of cycling in a safe environment has had enormous benefits both for individuals and communities. As to the role of the Highways Agency a lot more can be done to make cycling safe, even on trunk roads. That is one of the responsibilities to be taken on by the Highways Agency.

International Criminal Court
5.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the International Criminal Court which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, it has been the policy of this Government to back the creation of an effective International Criminal Court. I am pleased to report to the House that in Rome on Friday Britain was part of the overwhelming majority that agreed to set up
624
such a court. It has been a paradox of our century that those who murder one person are more likely to be brought to justice than those who plot genocide against millions. The International Criminal Court will put on notice the Pol Pots and the Saddam Husseins of the future that they may be held to account personally for the crimes against humanity that they instruct others to carry out. And it will offer justice to the victims who have no means at present of bringing their suffering before any court. I ask the House to place on record my appreciation of the hard work by the British team through five weeks of difficult and intensive negotiations. The firm support given by Britain to the principle of an International Criminal Court and the leading role played by our delegation in brokering a consensus contributed to the successful outcome of the Rome conference.
"The result is a strong court with wide powers. The court will have the power to try cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. These will include crimes of sexual violence, such as the use of mass rape as an instrument of ethnic cleansing of the kind practised in Bosnia. It will also be an offence liable to prosecution before the court to conscript children under 15 into military service.
"The British delegation played a key part to secure a definition of war crimes which embraces internal conflict, not just wars between states. This is of great importance, as most of the violence of the past two decades has arisen from internal not external conflicts. The British team also took the initiative in proposing that the court should have power to order those who are guilty to pay reparations to those who were their victims. This is a new power which is not available to the current tribunals on the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and reflects the fact that those who abuse their power to commit crimes against others often also abuse their power to make themselves wealthy. We consistently rejected attempts by other countries to give the court the power of the death penalty and were successful in maintaining a majority against an international body having the power to order the death penalty.
"Much of the debate in the period running up to the Rome conference revolved around the independence of the prosecutor. I am pleased to report that with British support the prosecutor will have the power to initiate investigations leading to prosecution on his or her own authority. States which are party to the treaty can also refer alleged crimes for investigation, but the prosecutor can take the initiative without waiting for such a referral.
"It has been our objective from the start to secure maximum support for the International Criminal Court. To be credible such a court must command substantial support in the international community. I have to say to the House that the final vote in support of the court by 120 votes to seven exceeded our expectations. The large number voting in favour was in part a reflection of the comprehensive international presence at the Rome conference, which was helped by the financial support Britain and others provided to the costs of attendance of 50 smaller and

625
poorer states. In order to build that overwhelming support it was necessary to meet the concerns of a number of countries who supported the International Criminal Court in principle but had reservations about its proposed procedures. In particular, it was necessary to agree that countries signing up to the court should have the right to claim immunity from prosecution from war crimes for a period of up to seven years. That immunity is time-limited; it does not extend to the rest of crimes within the remit of the court such as crimes against humanity; and it can in any event be overridden by a resolution of the Security Council. It is much more restricted than the initial bid by a number of countries which wanted an indefinite right to opt-out from any of the crimes within the remit of the court.
"I understand the regrets of those who would have preferred there to be no such reservation, but I firmly believe that it was right to make a limited compromise in order to secure wider support for the court and thereby achieve greater credibility for its authority. I am sorry that at the end of the Rome conference the United States felt unable to support the compromise proposals. I understand the concerns of the United States over the security of its servicemen who are posted abroad, but we believe that those concerns are misplaced. Britain also has a large number of servicemen in posts abroad and we and other major NATO allies are satisfied that the safeguards built in to the International Criminal Court will protect our servicemen against malicious or politically motivated prosecution. In particular, it is a clearly established principle of the court that it will be able to prosecute only when there is no remedy in national law. We are confident that we can demonstrate that there is a remedy in British and, for that matter, in United States justice for accusations made in good faith against our servicemen. The screening of cases by the pre-trial chamber of the International Criminal Court will provide a safeguard against accusations brought in bad faith. We will continue to seek, through close dialogue with our United States partners, to bring them on board for this improvement to international justice which has gained such overwhelming support from the rest of the international community.
"Later this year the world will celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There can be no more fitting way for us to mark that anniversary than by this agreement which, for the first time, creates an international court to enforce the most fundamental of those rights. I hope that it will secure support in this House as overwhelmingly as it has already done in the international community".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on bringing the negotiations in Rome to a successful conclusion. In doing so, they have increased my already considerable admiration for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. Many
626
noble Lords will recall that on 9th June this year the noble and learned Lord initiated a debate on the Rome negotiations. Six weeks later we find that 120 countries have agreed with nearly all that he proposed—almost in the manner of a Mexican wave.
I am also very pleased for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, who began this campaign when he was Attorney-General at the time of the Nuremberg trials. That it has at last reached fruition must give him enormous satisfaction.
There are many aspects of this agreement that represent a remarkable achievement. The Minister has referred to some of them. In particular, I emphasise the fact that the agreement will apply to internal conflicts. So many of the modern conflicts in which atrocities are committed are internal. That the law will now apply to such conflicts represents a massive advance. Those states which have signed up to this aspect of the agreement are to be warmly congratulated. I know that the United Kingdom negotiators played a leading part in that.
It is also extremely good news that the prosecutor in proceedings before the court will act entirely independently of the influence of individual states. There was a fear earlier that no prosecution could be initiated without the permission of the state on whose territory the alleged atrocity was committed or by whose nationals the atrocity was alleged to have been committed. It is a great achievement to have got round that problem.
It is also a great achievement to have put in plan a pre-trial inquiry to wash out of the system any bogus allegations. I had hoped that this pre-trial inquiry would have been sufficient to allay the fears of the United States. We all regret that that country is not participating in this.
Speaking personally, although not everybody in your Lordships' House will agree, I am pleased that the Government resisted pressure for the death penalty.
There is, however, one immense drawback and one matter which will need the most careful consideration by Her Majesty's Government over the next few years. The drawback is that there is a seven year prohibition on the instigation of any prosecution for war crimes. The great strength of the Nuremburg trial was the fact that it caught the big fish; it did not just catch the "bit part players". That is what gave the Nuremburg process its real credibility. That is what enabled Germany to reconcile itself to what happened during the war.
The great failure of the War Crimes Tribunal in Bosnia is that the big fish have not been caught. The feelings in that country are as bitter as ever about what happened. Unless the big fish can be caught in a country where these awful crimes have been committed, the major object of an international court against war crimes—which is to reconcile the victims to the awfulness of what has happened to them—will never be achieved. The failure to arraign Mr. Milosevic for what has happened on the former territory of Yugoslavia is perhaps the chief reason that there are still tensions in that area. Until we can find a way of achieving that, those tensions will continue.

627
I should like to ask the Minister what plans the Government now have to initiate a series of procedures which will ensure that war criminals and those who commit acts of genocide are brought to justice. Will the Security Council, for example, be given powers to require member states which are hiding or harbouring alleged war criminals to extradite them and bring them to justice? What sort of provisions will be made to ensure that witnesses can come freely to give evidence without fear of the consequences? What guarantees will there be that the trial will be fair and above board? The devil is in the detail and there is much detail to be decided before we can be confident that this new mechanism will work.
I have one final thought and it is this. The work of an international criminal court is inevitably ex post facto. The crimes have already been committed. The main aim of international society must be to prevent those crimes happening in the first place. Sometimes that requires the application of force at the right moment. The great tragedy of the former territory of Yugoslavia is that the Security Council and NATO have not had the courage and the vision to use force at the right time. We now have another opportunity to take that decision at the right time for Kosovo. I hope, following the example of the excellent work Her Majesty's Government have done in establishing an international criminal court, that they will take the lead in this matter as well.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friends Lady Williams of Crosby and Lord Avebury cannot be here to say what I am now going to say from these Benches. It gives me enormous pleasure to be able to agree both with what has been said by the Minister and what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I agree with everything they have said.
Perhaps I may begin by expressing gratitude to the Government for having made this Statement to both Houses. In a very crowded parliamentary timetable it seems to me to show a civilised sense of priorities that on this historic day both Houses of Parliament have been informed.
As the Minister said, this is an historic occasion, particularly opportune during the year of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 100 years after the International Red Cross first proposed that there should be an international criminal court. We had thought, after the Second World War and Nuremburg, that we would put behind us gross violations of human rights, crimes against humanity. But, as the Secretary-General of the United Nations reminded us:
"Our time—this decade even—has shown us that man's capacity for evil knows no limits".
That is the importance, I think, of setting up this independent new powerful International Criminal Court.
I should like to pay tribute to the hard work done by an outstanding British negotiating team in Rome, including two remarkable members of the Government's legal service, the Foreign Office legal adviser,
628
Sir Franklin Berman QC and Mr. Christopher Muttukumaru, the former legal adviser of the Ministry of Defence. I should like to pay tribute also to the tireless efforts of human rights NGOs which have pushed and prodded governments over these past many years.
I think that the statute is a fair and reasonable compromise and I agree with the Government as to why it is necessary to reach that compromise to obtain the widest possible consent among the countries of the world. It is regrettable that among the handful of countries that have not signed should be three great democracies: one of the oldest, the United States; the largest, India; and one of the smallest, Israel. It is particularly regrettable because none of those countries has anything to fear or to hide in relation to this jurisdiction.
The United States taught the rest of the world a great deal about the principles of due process and the rule of law. India has a great independent judicial system, as has Israel. Indeed, many Jews were among those who after the Second World War fought tirelessly for the creation of an international criminal court. I therefore very much echo the words of an editorial in today's Financial Times expressing the hope that the super-power of the United States—and I would add India and Israel—seeing itself as a guardian of the world's conscience should think again otherwise, in the case of the United States, it could jeopardise its claim to the high moral ground in international affairs.
Perhaps I may say that it was useful to have been able to obtain a copy of the statute on the Internet this morning. It is a fascinating document. I hope that the Government will ensure that hard copies are made available with an explanatory memorandum before there is full parliamentary scrutiny and debate.
I should like to ask one or two questions. The first is on the timetable for ratification. I gather that 60 states need to ratify before the statute can come into force. Will the Government do everything they can to ensure that there is no unreasonable delay in ratification either by us or by the rest of the world? Secondly, does the Minister agree that the role of national courts is of critical importance, as well as that of the International Criminal Court, in providing effective domestic remedies so that there is no hiding place for those who commit crimes against humanity or war crimes? Does the Minister think that the example set by Denmark in prosecuting alleged war criminals accused of crimes in former Yugoslavia is a model that might be emulated elsewhere?
Will the requirement in the statute that a state must have consented to the court's jurisdiction be a serious hindrance to the universality of its jurisdiction?
Finally, perhaps I may say a word about the judges. Obviously the quality of the 15 judges is crucial. The statute uses fine language about the quality of the judges. They must be of high moral character, impartiality and integrity, with qualifications required for appointment to high judicial office in their own countries, and so forth. The statute says the right thing. Will the Government do whatever they reasonably can

629
to ensure that the 15 judges will be of the highest quality so that we have a court of which the world can be proud and in which we can all have confidence?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for their support for the Statement. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said about my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell and the 9th June debate. I also thank both noble Lords for the warm words they spoke about the civil servants who have laboured hard in the past five weeks in Rome to secure an agreement, sometimes against tricky odds. The agreement was consistent with the negotiating remit that the Government had set them. It was a difficult remit which we are pleased to see they were able to meet in large measure.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for what he said about the negotiations on the internal conflicts and the independent prosecutor. We all feel that they were important points to have secured. The noble Lord mentioned the seven-year period—I think that he used the word "prohibition"—as something of a drawback. I would not describe it as a prohibition but more as an opt-out. States "may", in ratifying the statute, opt out of the court's jurisdiction for seven years, but that period is not renewable. After that, so long as they do not withdraw completely from the treaty, states parties will have to accept the court's jurisdiction with regard to all crimes included in the statute. That was an important point, because we did not want cherry-picking of the treaty.
I take the point that for some the seven-year opt-out will be a disappointment. It was a concession made during negotiations, because it was felt important to secure the maximum number of countries agreeing to the treaty. It was a different negotiation from the one which some countries had wanted, which was to be able to specify with which parts of the treaty they would comply and with which parts they would not comply. Her Majesty's Government felt that that compromise was worth making.
The noble Lord also spoke about the drawbacks in the way in which some war crimes have been dealt with as regards the former Yugoslavia. Her Majesty's Government do not believe that the ICTY has been a failure just because it cannot get hold of some of those whom we would like to see prosecuted. We are pleased with the progress that the tribunal is making, because since last summer a steady stream of indictees has been transferred to the tribunal. One contested verdict has already been handed down; seven indictees are currently being tried; and 13 more are awaiting trial. Trials are proceeding more rapidly now that the UK-funded courtroom is in operation.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised a number of interesting and important points and said some nice things about our negotiators in Rome. I shall try to cover the points that he made. Of course we are concerned about the fact that the US and other important countries were not able to support the treaty. As I explained in the Statement, the US is anxious about the vulnerability of its servicemen. The UK has worked hard with the US
630
to try to address those concerns. We are confident that the US has sufficient safeguards within the terms of the agreement. One of the matters that was important was the point that the noble Lord brought out about the position of domestic law. The main safeguard is the provision that the court could not act against our nationals or indeed against US nationals unless we or they were unwilling or unable to mount a national investigation.
We hope that the US will realise that there are comprehensive and sufficient safeguards. We in the UK will work hard to try to persuade the US to sign up to the agreement. There are also other countries—we are sorry that India and Israel are among them—which were unable to support the final package. Of course their support is highly desirable. We shall continue to urge them not to stand in the way of the rest of the world going forward on this issue. We hope that when they see the way that the international court operates many of their fears will be allayed.
The noble Lord asked also about the quality of judges. The judges are an important issue. It is one of the points upon which the leader of our delegation, Sir Franklin Berman, concentrated. He chaired the working group on that issue. We believe that we ensured a useful agreement on that point. At least half of the judges will have criminal trial experience. That is an important point. There are also provisions to ensure that only judges of the highest calibre are nominated for election. The elections must take place on merit. We hope that some good women judges may be among those whose merits are recognised.
I shall say a few words about the court being less effective than it might be because of the countries that have not signed up to the treaty. The court will be able to act if the state in which the alleged crime was committed or the state of the accused's nationality is a party to the agreement. That is an important factor: both points are important here. Some states wanted the court to have automatic jurisdiction over crimes taking place anywhere in the world, but there is a problem of legal principle in creating a court with jurisdiction over states which have not signed up to its jurisdiction. Nevertheless, as I have said, we hope that we shall persuade those states that felt unable to sign up at the moment that it is in their best interests to do so. We shall go forward on that basis. I thank both noble Lords for the warm support that they gave the Statement.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, will my noble friend accept on behalf of the Government and the negotiating team my congratulations on the positive role that they have taken and on augmenting the respect that they have built up over the past 18 months among the NGO community? Will she get a message to the US Government that not only has it cast a shadow over a significant milestone in human affairs, but it has forfeited the respect in which it was previously held by the NGO community? Will she tell the US Government that those of us in this country who have, for a long time, regarded ourselves as friends of the US, find it

631
difficult to say anything in its defence on this matter, and that unless it joins the régime it will find itself in some dubious company?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am delighted to accept my noble and learned friend's congratulations. I shall ensure that those to whom they are properly due read the appropriate passages in Hansard. My noble and learned friend then went on to say some pretty trenchant things about the US. I hope that I have explained the concerns of the US with regard to the treaty. They are genuinely felt. We do not believe that they are necessary. We believe that the treaty covers the genuine concerns felt by the US. The more constructive way to go forward on this is by persuasion rather than confrontation. We shall speak to the US as a good friend of justice throughout the world. We hope that the US will gain confidence by seeing how many countries can ratify the treaty, and that in due course it will be persuaded to take the same view as the UK Government.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, wish to pay tribute to the Government and those who have helped them in this great matter. It did not surprise me that the Minister mentioned the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. He is an old friend and has played a valuable part. I wish to endorse a question that he put about the United States. Is it not strange that the United States, which played such a vital part in establishing the United Nations and in attempting to uphold international law, should not be willing on this occasion to take a positive step towards upholding it?
Perhaps I may ask two questions about enforcement. First, I am glad that the prosecutor is to be an independent person. But he will need to have an enforcement agency, just as the Crown Prosecution Service in this country relies upon the police as an enforcement agency. I give that as an example. What enforcement agency will be at the disposal of the prosecutor bringing cases to this court?
My second question is on enforcement by the court of its own decisions. That may be too complicated a question for the noble Baroness to answer, but it is important that we know how the decisions of this criminal court are to be enforced, otherwise its jurisdiction will be not be effective.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord again for his kind remarks.
I recognise the concern in your Lordships' House about the United States not being willing to sign up at present to the provisions of the treaty. Having talked through these matters, the negotiators believe that the remaining differences with the United States are relatively few and that the gaps in the negotiating positions are already narrower than they were; and we must hope that they continue to close even further.
Of course we hope that the United States will see that the safeguards in the statute are comprehensive and sufficient and that it will be willing to work hard towards the goal that we believe is so important. Even
632
if that proves impossible, we confidently expect that the court will persuade doubters by the way in which it works in practice; and that international support for the court will grow progressively when countries which have not found it possible to sign up at this stage see the way in which it works.
The noble Lord asked a number of questions about enforcement. The court will be backed up. Three of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council support the treaty. I make that point because in the end these issues may well come back to the General Assembly of States Parties to consider enforcement if enforcement is for any reason flouted by any of the states parties to the treaty. There will of course be recourse to the states parties through the General Assembly.
However, perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord. I shall arrange for the document on the treaty, which is very detailed, not only to be available on the Internet, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said it was—and these days the Foreign Office is looking much more modern than it used to—but also ensure that a hard copy goes into the Library of the House. I hope that the noble Lord will then be able to look at a number of detailed provisions in the hard copy that I shall make available in the Library of the House.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I join with others in congratulating the Minister on what she has said. It is remarkable, and a matter for general rejoicing, that on two successive sitting days my noble friend has been able to introduce measures of one kind or another which distinctly and successfully take mankind further from the routine horrors of war. While there is still some way to go, it is an achievement.
I know that the issues of landmines and this court have been close to the heart of the Foreign Secretary and his team since the election and before. I have two questions. First, can the noble Baroness cross the t's and dot the i's about the arrest of suspected alleged war criminals who happen to be nationals of non-signatory countries? Is that absolute? If all the signatories and the full court agree that a person should be tried, and would be tried were he not American, Indian or Israeli, for instance, is there nothing more to be done about it? As a subsidiary question, let us suppose that a crime has been committed by a Trobriand Islander on the soil of the United States, Israel or India. Is there nothing to be done about it?
Secondly, when does the moratorium, the seven-year amnesty, the advance pardon—whatever we like to call it—begin? Has it begun already? Can it by any chance be interpreted to have begun a year or two ago, because that would be convenient and shorten an absurd interregnum? Alternatively, must we await some further decision before it begins?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. It has been a great pleasure to introduce legislation last Friday and to make the Statement today. The Statement is consistent with what the Government said in their pre-election manifesto. I hope that Members of your Lordships' House will be

633
as pleased on the coming Friday about what we have done on landmines as the noble Lord indicates he already is.
The noble Lord asked from when the opt-out runs. It runs from the date of the ratification of the agreement. A country that is ratifying the agreement may at that point declare its opt-out for seven years.
The noble Lord also asked what would happen to those individuals who were nationals of countries which had not signed up. It is important to be clear on this point: that the court is able to act if either the state when the alleged crime was committed, or the state of the nationality of the accused, is party to the court. It might not be that the individual was a national of a country which had signed up to the agreement. It might be that he had committed the alleged crime in a country that is a party to the agreement.
However, I must make one further point to the noble Lord. The Security Council acting under the UN charter may refer situations to the court regardless of where they occur. That is an important point for your Lordships to remember in this respect.

National Minimum Wage Bill
6.27 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 6, I should advise your Lordships that if it is accepted, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 7.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Exclusion of, and modifications for, certain classes of person]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, before continuing, I should tell your Lordships that if this amendment is accepted, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 9.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1, which was agreed to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Power to add to the persons to whom Section 3 applies]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 10 I should tell your Lordships that if it is agreed, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 11.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 18, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 1.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Clause 8 [The Low Pay Commission]:
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 7, line 3, leave out ("may at any time appoint a") and insert ("shall, not more than 12 months after this Act comes into force, appoint a permanent, statutory").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I indicated earlier, the Liberal Democrats support the Government's major objective in the Bill. We have only two reservations. The first was enshrined in the vote on Amendment No. 1. We believe that the Government should leave themselves the flexibility to vary the national minimum wage, in particular to introduce regional variations if changing circumstances prove that to be necessary.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said in Committee. However, as regards our second and more fundamental difference with the Government, we believe that they should go further and establish permanent status for the Low Pay Commission. In doing so, the somewhat unseemly ping-pong between the press, the Government and their spin doctors over the establishment of the minimum wage, and whether the Treasury or the DTI had won, would be taken out of politics. We believe that the minimum wage is an essential reform and we support the Government. However, we believe that during the next round of discussions on uprating the minimum wage the Government should have in the Bill the serious and significant status of the commission. As regards Amendment No. 14, we believe that, the Low Pay Commission having been established, the Government should require it to produce a regular report updating its data and informing debate and opinion.
The experience of other countries—the United States is a good example of the point I make—is that, where steps have not been taken to establish a permanent structure for upgrading and examining the rate, there is an unseemly political row about what the revised figure should be. The experience of the first round has not been happy for the Government. I urge your Lordships to accept the amendments in order to ensure that in future that unseemly row does not occur. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we have considerable sympathy for the amendment and would like to discover the Government's present proposal. Press reports indicate a conflict of view as to whether the Low Pay Commission should be permanent or have only a limited life. At the previous stage I was unsuccessful in ascertaining whether the Government's

635
intention is that it should be permanent. It would be helpful to understand their intentions and I should be grateful if the Minister could place them on record.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I tried earlier, perhaps unsuccessfully, to do precisely that. If the argument needs reiteration, so be it. The Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have argued in another place and in this House that the Low Pay Commission should be permanent. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.
The Liberal Democrats, notwithstanding the aberration earlier today, have shown strong support for the Government's objective as regards the minimum wage. We see the commission having a continuing and important role to play and I will go into that in a little more detail in a moment. That will be important during the running-in period of the minimum wage and possibly in the longer term, too.
We intend that the commission should undertake two tasks. The first is to review the position of 21 year-olds. The rate for them is to be set in April 1999 at £3 an hour. We want the commission to review that in 1999 following the transitional rate being imposed at that level and then to provide a further report on whether, in the light of experience, it wishes to reconfirm its advice that 21 year-olds can safely be covered by the main adult rate. That is an important and useful role and we shall await with interest its conclusions formed in the light of experience.
As I said earlier, we are also asking the commission to continue its work on monitoring and evaluating the introduction and impact of the national minimum wage. That is an important role for the commission, too, because this is the first time this country will have had a national minimum wage and we need to have a reliable assessment of its effects.
However, I do not believe that the amendment, which would require the Government to appoint a permanent body, is necessary. The commission can be required as appropriate to add to its expertise in the whole developing area. The Bill already allows the Government to call on the commission in this direction under Clause 8(9). I hope therefore that the noble Lord will examine further what I have said in that context. We provide the necessary way ahead to ensure that the commission can contribute as necessary and I hope that he will not press the amendment to a Division.
Amendment No. 14 prescribes particular issues which the commission must cover in its annual report. However, it does not limit the commission to looking only at those issues. We say that the amendment is somewhat overly prescriptive and too open ended. I would not disagree with the noble Lord in the way in which he wishes an examination and an assessment to be made in some of the important areas which need to be reviewed—for example, different sizes of business, different areas, gender, race and so on. However, I do not believe that we need to spell it out on the face of the Bill in the way that the noble Lord seeks to do. What
636
the LPC is already required to do is to look at economic and competitiveness factors in making its recommendations.
Under Clause 7(5)(b) the Government may in fact establish other factors which the commission should consider. As I said, we want the commission to continue monitoring and researching the impact of the minimum wage; indeed, that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It is also a sensible way in which we can look forward to a reassessment of the position. I believe that the noble Lord also spoke to Amendment No. 63—
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I should point out to the Minister that it was the original intention that Amendment No. 63 should be included in the grouping, but that is no longer the case.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I apologise and thank the noble Lord for that information. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel that our approach to the important issue that he raised is positive and that he will not find it necessary to test the opinion of the House. However, if he does so decide, that is a matter for him.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. The relevant clause on which the issue turns is Clause 8(9) to which the noble Lord referred. That subsection says:
"The Secretary of State may at any time appoint a body … to discharge the functions conferred or imposed on the Low Pay Commission under this Act".
As the Bill has crawled its way through the other place and also through the various stages in this Chamber, I believe I detect that the Government are getting ever closer to actually confirming that they do intend to appoint such a body. Indeed, if between now and Third Reading the Government could go just that extra mile or, indeed, that extra centimetre and so confirm, it would, as the Minister said, completely take the heat if not the sails—and that may be a mixed, strangulated metaphor—out of our amendment. I certainly do not wish to press the two amendments at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Clause 9 [Duty of employers to keep records]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 7, line 30, at end insert—
("(1A) Records kept by an employer in relation to any worker for income tax or national insurance purposes shall be deemed to satisfy in relation to such worker any requirement as to records of remuneration paid as may be provided for in accordance with subsection (1)(a) above, save for details of the number of hours worked and any benefits in kind or other items having a monetary value which in accordance with the directions of the Low Pay Commission are to be taken into account in calculating the worker's gross pay, of which employers shall keep an adequate separate record.
(1B) In subsection (1A) above, "income tax or national insurance purposes" means the purposes of compliance with—

(a) section 15 of the Taxes Management Act 1970,

(b) section 203(2)(b) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988,

(c) paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992,

(d) any regulations for the time being in force made under any of the above Acts, or

(e) any statutory re-enactment or modification of any of the above Acts or regulations.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 16. When I moved the same two amendments in Committee, I truly believed that I was proposing a constructive improvement to the Bill. The amendments would not affect in the slightest degree what the Government claim are the objects of the exercise. The amendments would not reduce in the slightest degree the right that the Government propose that employees should enjoy, nor would they reduce the obligations on an employer to maintain accessible records that would provide employees with all the information that they need to check that they are receiving the minimum wage.
What I proposed in Committee—and again propose now—is the blindingly obvious suggestion that the various records that the employer is already obliged to maintain for the purposes of PAYE and national insurance, coupled in due course with the records required to comply with the European Community's Working Time Directive, should also be sufficient for the purposes of this Act.
What a helpful suggestion that was! It would reduce the amount of paperwork required to be done by very small firms without the ability to handle more than a minimal amount of clerical work and bookkeeping. The records would be in a form which would be easily understood, especially after the Secretary of State made regulations under Clause 12 about the information to be included in their pay packets. The accuracy of the records themselves would be guaranteed under the sanction of severe financial and criminal penalties provided by the taxation and social security legislation—sanctions far more severe than those proposed under this Bill. Using the PAYE, the national insurance and the working time records would enable those responsible for enforcement to check compliance by referring to documents in a form with which they would already be familiar. How prophetical that last point has proved to be, as your Lordships will see shortly.
So what happened to my totally non-political reasonable, helpful and entirely practical suggestion? The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General shot it down in flames in a speech that was half as long again as the one that I had made. The noble and learned Lord conceded my point about what he called,
"an entirely laudable aim … to avoid undesirable duplication in the records kept by the employer".—[Official Report, 15/6/98; col. 1382.]
638
He said that that was an aim that the Government unquestionably shared. So why do the Government not accept the amendment? The Minister said that it was because they had made a commitment to consult on the draft regulations before bringing them to the House.
I am really trying to avoid making political points in this very non-partisan amendment. So I will not say that I wish I did not have this nagging feeling that the Government will simply go through the motions of consulting, and then use their rather large majority in the other place to do exactly what they intended to do in the first place. I see the noble and learned Lord is looking surprised; but I am not a bit surprised. However, I shall be interested to know what better and improved types and form and format of records the Secretary of State has in mind. Surely she must already have some idea.
On the last occasion that these amendments were debated at col. 1385 of Hansard, the Minister said:
"I cannot tell the Committee at this point exactly what type of records we shall be requiring".
In the month that has gone by since that speech was made, can the Minister say whether the Secretary of State has even begun to formulate the most sketchy of ideas? If so, perhaps the House could now be informed as to what they are. I should also be interested to know how the Secretary of State believes that it will be helpful to employers and employees—and to those who are responsible for enforcement—to require a different form of records or the same form of records written on a second piece of paper.
In any event, despite what I thought was the reasonableness of my suggestion, the Government rejected my amendment; as, indeed, they have done with every one of the 108 amendments that bore my name up until today. But luckily I am made of sufficiently stern stuff to take such rebuffs with total equanimity. Therefore, I decided to let the Government stew in their own juice over the matter. If the Secretary of State was bent on empire-building, with more inspectors and enforcement officers, then perhaps the silver cloud was that it could provide employment for the many people who will be forced out of their present jobs, or who will fail to get jobs, as a result of the adverse effects of this misconceived piece of legislation.
However, something then happened: the report of the Low Pay Commission was published. What did it recommend? This is where the prophecy to which I referred earlier comes in. The commission enthusiastically endorsed the idea of the Contributions Agency, soon to be combined with the Inland Revenue, to be responsible for overseeing compliance and to be responsible for enforcement. It spoke in glowing terms of the expertise of the agency in such matters.
I assume that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General was as much in the dark as I was on 15th June about what the commission would recommend. He did not know—indeed, he could not have known—that my proposal would fit in precisely with the recommendation about the enforcement authority. If he had known that, he would undoubtedly have agreed that it would be ludicrous to have the

639
officials of one department using a different set and form of records to perform its duties under this Act from those which it is accustomed to using.
Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are going to accept the commission's recommendation on the enforcement agency? If not, perhaps he can tell us why not. However, if the answer is yes, what is the continued objection to this amendment? I look forward with much pleasure to hearing the Minister telling us just for once that he will say "yes" instead of "no". I beg to move.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, as the noble Baroness has accurately pointed out, this matter was discussed in some depth in Committee. I made the mistake of believing that in the course of the Committee stage, I had explained the reasons for not accepting Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. At the time, I accepted that they were proposed in good faith in an attempt to try to improve and assist the enforcement of the Bill. There is much common ground between us on this matter but there are real practical problems in what the noble Baroness suggests.
I think we are all agreed on the importance of record-keeping to the success of the Bill. Without adequate records, it will not be possible to enforce the law. The worker needs to be able to see what he is being paid and the employer needs to have records in order to defend himself in case he is accused of underpaying. It is therefore in the interests of all that adequate records are available. In her Amendment No. 15, the noble Baroness proposes to limit the Secretary of State's flexibility to decide the form and content of the records by tying them to the kinds of records already required for income tax or national insurance purposes. That is driven by a perfectly understandable desire to prevent unnecessary duplication. I referred to that in the speech I made in Committee.
This Government understand and agree with the motive of avoiding duplication. We have no wish to impose unnecessary burdens on business. We have said that clearly on a number of occasions, in particular in the Regulatory Appraisal where we pointed out that most wage details will already be kept for tax purposes, which is one of the points the noble Baroness has made. I remind the House once again of what was stated in that document,
"It is in employers' own interests to know how much they are paying their staff. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that employers will already have records for the calculation of total pay that will be sufficient to calculate pay as it relates to the NMW. They will already have such records available for inspection by the Inland Revenue and Contributions Agency".
That is very much in line with what the noble Baroness said.
However, the Regulatory Appraisal went on to note that there will be differences in the kinds of records to be kept, not least as regards the number of hours worked and any non-monetary payments which may be allowed to count towards the hourly minimum wage rate.
640
Amendment No. 15 acknowledges that fact which is why it expressly allows for different requirements to be added.
It is clear from what I have said that in relation to the principle, the need for good records and the desire not to place unnecessary burdens on business, the noble Baroness and I are in agreement. However, the Government do not believe there is any necessity to make any changes to the face of the Bill. The issues raised in the amendment go to the detail of which records should be kept, and, in the Government's view, are best dealt with in the regulations. As this amendment accepts, income tax contributions do not by themselves provide adequate records. Clause 9 as at present drafted is left wide precisely because we want to identify how best to fit in with existing legislative requirements in this area.
As the House knows, the Government are committed to consulting on the regulations in draft form before bringing them to the House. There will therefore be an opportunity for businesses and individuals to make representations on the record-keeping regulations. I thank the noble Baroness again for drawing to my attention, in the retabled amendment, the various related statutes covering record-keeping for tax and national insurance purposes. That is of great assistance in determining how best to move forward in relation to the regulations.
While the noble Baroness may be right that tax and national insurance records will suffice in some cases, we cannot be sure of that. I think it would be unwise for the Government to tie their hands in the way proposed by the amendment ahead of consultation. I think it is right that we do not jump to conclusions in primary legislation. However, as I have indicated, I recognise a number of the valuable points which the noble Baroness has made. I hope therefore that I have on this occasion explained sufficiently clearly—unlike on the previous occasion—why we do not think that income tax and national insurance provide the way forward. There is something to build on there but whether it is the appropriate course will depend to some extent on the regulations.
I shall now discuss Amendment No. 16. I have absolutely no doubt that it is proposed in a desire to help rather than to hinder the Bill. Amendment No. 16 would again limit on the face of the Bill the Secretary of State's flexibility to decide the form and manner of records to be kept in respect of hours worked for minimum wage purposes, this time by tying them to records of hours worked which may be kept for the purposes of showing compliance with the working time directive.
I hope that noble Lords will welcome both these initiatives—that is, the minimum wage and the working time directive—as a sign of this Government's commitment to improving the lot of workers who are obliged to work for too long and/or for too little. These are basic matters of social justice and fairness. It is much to the credit of this Government that we are proceeding apace with making them part of domestic legislation. I do not believe that it makes sense to prescribe on the face of the Bill what kind of records

641
should or should not be required to be kept. That would in my view be too limiting an approach and too premature.
As I have already made clear, we intend to consult on draft regulations. That consultation will inevitably involve identifying the various existing record-keeping requirements. As regards records of working time, I should make it clear—as I thought I had done on the previous occasion—that the draft working time regulations, on which we have just completed a further consultation, contain a general record-keeping requirement on all employers. Employers simply need to show that the time limit of 48 hours is being complied with. They are not necessarily obliged to keep records of working time as a means of proof. For example, it might be sufficient to show simply a list of workers who regularly work no more than the 48 hours. Therefore there is no general requirement on all employers to keep records of hours worked. On this ground alone the amendment could be unsuitable because, as is clear from what I have just said, one could keep records for the working time directive but that would not indicate how many hours individuals had worked. I should have thought that hits amidships, as it were, the basic purpose of this amendment.
There is a more specific record-keeping requirement in the draft working time regulations which requires employers to keep records of hours worked, but this applies only to those employers with employees who have opted to work longer than the 48 hour limit. Therefore it would not cover everyone who is covered by the national minimum wage. Again that does not help to meet the requirements of the national minimum wage. I therefore have considerable doubts as to the suitability of this amendment in the context of the minimum wage. However, I take the general point, at which perhaps the amendments are aimed; namely, that the minimum wage records will almost certainly need to cover hours worked—however this may be defined—and there may be scope for avoiding duplication with other possibly similar records.
We shall certainly look at these issues in the context of our forthcoming consultation on the minimum wage regulations. Your Lordships will have an opportunity to debate the matter further when we lay those draft regulations before the House. I argue that the matters raised by the amendment are detailed issues on which we should not second guess the views of those who will be affected, principally business, but also workers. We shall canvass their views and then make any changes accordingly. I suggest this indicates that we should not amend the Bill but rather should leave such matters to the consultation and the regulations. Therefore I respectfully suggest to the noble Baroness—despite the fact that we agree on many of the basic principles relating to this amendment—that she withdraw Amendment No. 15 and not move Amendment No. 16.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed and helpful reply. I certainly do not wish to pursue matters much further. I am quite sure he is right when he says that there will be much discussion on the proposed regulations. However, given
642
that the Government have already decided that benefits in kind will be excluded, I am not sure how much detail will be necessary in the regulations if the noble and learned Lord is suggesting that there may be some way of working out hours that are worked. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Worker's right of access to records]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 7, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a worker shall be entitled, on written request, to be supplied by his employer with a copy of any relevant records within twenty-eight days of receipt by the employer of that request.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 to 23, 25 and 26, and 27 and 28, which are all consequential on the passing of Amendment No. 17.
We spent no fewer than 45 minutes on this amendment in Committee. I then withdrew it to give further thought to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General in opposing it. I told him then that I was not satisfied with his answer and, after further and most anxious reflection, I feel that I have no alternative but to bring it back for your Lordships' further consideration.
It is no exaggeration to say that this clause raises an issue of fundamental constitutional importance tucked away in the administrative details that it contains. Clause 10 deals with the employee's right of access to records of the pay he has received, hours worked and any other factors relevant to the question of whether he has received the full national minimum wage to which he is entitled. Let me say at once and unequivocally that we fully support the right of the employee to receive that information. Initially he will receive it from the detailed information that the employer will be obliged to provide in compliance with the regulations that will be made by the Secretary of State under Clause 12. More than that, we support the employee's right, if necessary, to verify that information from the employer's own records.
So where is the difference between us and the Government? It lies in the method by which it is proposed that the employee should obtain the employer's records. We believe that for some reason the Government have taken a gigantic hammer to crack a small and very commonplace nut.
The regime that the Government seek to put in place is one which we believe is totally and unnecessarily heavy-handed. So far as I can ascertain, it is entirely without precedent. But worse than that, in a country which revels in the fact that it has no written constitution, we believe that this provision offends against the safeguards and protection that has been accorded by the common law for centuries.
Clause 10(5) provides that the employee may serve the employer with what is termed a "production notice", requesting the production of relevant records. That in itself is not objectionable. However, the consequences provided for by the Bill are.
In subsection (8) the employee then has the right, after notice, to enter the employer's premises or some other place to inspect the records. It may be asked: what is wrong with that? It may very well be that an employer may not want to be confronted by, or to meet, his employee—or more likely, his ex-employee, with whom he is presumably in dispute.
It seemed from his intervention during my remarks in Committee that the noble and learned Lord was unaware of that extreme power. But the matter does not rest there. Subsection (4) gives the worker the right to be accompanied,
"by such other person as the worker may think fit".
Whatever the reason is for that provision, it clearly opens the door to the possible intimidation of the employer. I grant that that could not have been the Government's intention. However, it would be the height of naïvety to suggest that it may never happen. I wonder whether the Government want to take the moral responsibility for that, as frequently as it may occur, especially as the presence of the "minder" to accompany the employee is no more necessary than the need for a worker to go onto an employer's premises or force the employer to nominate some other meeting place.
Why does the employee have to go anywhere to inspect the records? Why does the Bill not provide, as does the amendment, that the employee shall be entitled to receive a copy of the relevant documents, sent to any place or any person on his behalf that the employee nominates?
As I pointed out in Committee, if I require to see records relating to me in someone's computer, if I require to see my medical records, or if I desire to see the records of shareholders held on the register of a limited company, I do not have the right to go onto the premises of the person holding the records. I have to send in a written request and, within a prescribed time, the record holder is obliged to send me a full copy. If I am involved in civil litigation and I require to see documents held by the other party, I first need a court order, which is usually granted automatically as part of a set pre-trial procedure. After that, inspection takes place in the office of either of the solicitors to the parties. There are circumstances when even in civil litigation a party can obtain a peremptory court order to go onto another person's premises. It is known as an Anton Piller order, as I mentioned in Committee. It is hedged around with very strict conditions, including the presence of an independent solicitor to protect the interests of the occupier of the premises.
There is absolutely no need for an employee to have the right personally, with or without the assistance of someone else, to go onto the employer's premises. If the other person is required to assist the employee to read and understand the records, that can be done at the
644
employee's leisure at a time and place of the employee's choice so long as what he is looking at are copies of the records. Such copies are supplied in vast quantities on frequent occasions in the course of civil litigation—which disputes and claims under the Bill will essentially be. There is absolutely no justification or need for the employee, on the strength of what can properly be called a home-made search warrant, to enter the premises of the employer to confront him, possibly accompanied by a total stranger. What if the employer is a woman and the employee and the accompanying person are both men? An Anton Piller order requires one to be present at the time the order is executed. Where is the similar protection in subsection (4)(b)? None of those problems arises if the normal procedure for supplying copies of records is followed.
I wish to examine the arguments advanced by the Government against the amendment that I moved in Committee. It is necessary to do so phrase by phrase. The Solicitor-General said:
"I think we would … all agree that it would be quite inappropriate for the employee to have a right to go into the employer's premises and look around in relation to particular records".
But that is exactly what subsection (8) provides. The place at which the relevant records are produced must be either, as stated in sub-paragraph (a),
"the worker's place of work,
or, to paraphrase sub-paragraphs (b) and (c), another reasonable place or one to which the parties agree.
So if the employer cannot provide some other place and the parties cannot agree on one, then it has to be the employer's premises. The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General shakes his head in disagreement. Undoubtedly, he will reply in detail as to why that is. But that is how the provision appears in common English. I cannot see any reason why the noble and learned Lord shakes his head. The problem would not arise if the records could be supplied as copies or photocopies.
The Minister complained that the only remedy open to an employee is to take the matter to an employment tribunal, which can inflict a monetary penalty under Clause 11. How is that relevant to the matter that we were discussing in Clause 10? The penalty for refusing access to records has no relevance to the way in which the records should be provided.
The Minister argued that the presence of a third party was necessary, who,
"might help explain to him what the records mean".
I have already pointed out that the employer's adviser can do that just as easily by going through the copy records at a citizens advice bureau or trade union office or even the employee's own home, and can take as long as he likes to do so.
The Minister justified the presence of someone accompanying the employee by saying:
"I believe this is an important entitlement which will encourage workers to exercise their rights and discourage some employers who may be tempted to use unfair tactics of dissuasion".
"Discourage some employers"? To me, that sounds like intimidation. It sounds as though the Government see the person accompanying the employee as more of a

645
bodyguard than an accountancy adviser; otherwise, why would bringing him in discourage the employer from behaving in any particular way, as the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General said to me in Committee?
The problem envisaged by the Minister will not arise if the process is handled at long distance by the employee demanding and receiving copy documents as I suggest. The Bill does not even provide for the length of any proposed personal inspection. Can the employee conduct a gigantic filibuster and keep his employer hanging around for hours?
After describing my approach as fallacious, the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General said:
"A production notice can be given. That requires the employer to do certain things including providing certain documents".
I believe it is the Minister's argument that is fallacious. The Bill does not require the employer to provide documents; that is what I say should happen. Clause 10(1)(a) of the Bill says that he should produce the documents and allow the employee to inspect and copy them himself. At column 1401 the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General said:
"I believe that it is essential to the enforcement provisions for a worker to have the right to inspect records".
We have no argument on that point. But he went on to say:
"Of course, in many cases, that right will be met by the employer providing the worker with a copy of the records as they relate to him. I imagine that will in fact be the normal way to proceed".
I thank the Minister for that remark because that is precisely the procedure which the amendment calls for and which the Government have been resisting, the procedure that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General says would be the normal one. However, two paragraphs later, contradicting himself in a U-turn that must be a record even for the Labour Party, he said:
"the replacement of the right of access with a right to a copy of records would, in my view, unacceptably weaken the enforcement provisions of the Bill".
Why and how? On the contrary, it would strengthen them.
First, the Bill provides only for the employee to make copies of the records himself. How will he do that? Will he cart his own photocopier or computer printer into the employer's premises, or will he rely on the employer to loan him his own equipment and stationery and let him use his electricity supply simply to expedite his departure from his shop or office? Suppose the employer does not have any such equipment? Many small corner shops, hairdressers, flower shops, and so on, do not. The worker will then have to copy the records by hand, with all the opportunities that that presents for clerical errors. For example, an employee is paid £220, but he writes down "£202". Even an employer without a photocopier will be able to find somewhere from which to borrow one or go to a local copy shop. He is certainly not obliged to allow the worker to take the records away, and he would be most unwise to do so.
What reason did the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General give for his abrupt change of mind?
646
He trotted out the mythical unscrupulous employer yet again. He said:
"it is a regrettable fact that some employers may fail to provide the right records or may wish to conceal relevant records".
Under subsection (9) the employer has 14 days to produce these records, plenty of time for the employer, if he so wished, to remove or conceal anything he wants to. Even the search warrant that the worker is allowed to issue under subsection (5) does not give the worker the right to ransack the employer's premises to look for the documents. The Minister himself admitted that that would be quite inappropriate. Is it suggested that the mythical unscrupulous employer will doctor his records, risking a lengthy prison sentence for forgery? There is absolutely no advantage, from the enforcement point of view, for there to be physical inspection, but the amendment prevents harassment or embarrassment of the employer by having the employee and his minder intruding on his premises.
There we have it. We both agree that an employee should have the right to check the employer's records and to supplement the data that the employer will have to supply under Section 12. There is no argument between us. The only difference is the question of how and where. "How" should be by the method which is normal in any similar situation of a civil dispute: by the provision of copy documents, which, as the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General himself admitted, he imagined,
"will … be the normal way to proceed".
The answer to the question of where the records should be inspected is that it should be at whatever address the employee asked for the records to be posted to.
I beg the pardon of the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General if he finds it embarrassing that I keep quoting from the things that he quoted to me earlier. I read them with the most enormous care. The noble and learned Lord said, at the foot of column 1402:
"the amendments are, with the greatest respect, based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the position, which is that it gave the employee the right to walk into the premises".—[Official Report, 15/6/98; cols. 1400–02.]
Perhaps I may say, with even greater respect, that it was the Minister who was labouring under a fundamental misunderstanding. Now that he has had a whole month in which to re-read subsection (8), I trust that he will agree to accept the amendment, which does nothing to diminish the right that we both agree the employee should have to see records but does not infringe the employer's fundamental constitutional right not to have his premises invaded against his will by his employee and a total stranger.
Amendment No. 28 to Clause 11 is consequential to the main amendment. As we propose that the employee shall receive the records by means of copy documents rather than by direct access to the employer's premises, it naturally follows that an offence of failing to supply a copy of the records has to be substituted for the offence of failing to give physical access to them. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 24 in this grouping, which stands in my name and that of my noble friends. When I rose to speak to a similar amendment at Committee stage, it was following the same argument that the noble Baroness has just put forward. I said then that I did not feel that I could agree with her and that, as an employer, I did not feel that there was a particular problem. Having listened to the argument again, I have exactly the same feeling. Therefore, with regard to those amendments, we shall support the Government and thus normal service is now resumed.
The effect of my amendment as it stands would be to add to subsection (9) of Clause 10 a third option: that the notice could be produced,
"during the paid contractual working hours of the employee".
I must again apologise, as I did at Committee stage. I have spotted that there is a drafting error and that the amendment does not achieve what I wish it to achieve. The amendment should be drafted so as to place in subsection (9)(a) after "notice" the words that are printed on the Marshalled List. It would thus read:
"The relevant records must be produced—

(a) before the end of the period of fourteen days following the date of receipt of the production notice and during the paid contractual working hours of the employee; or

(b) at such later time".

This has a quite different effect from the amendment as currently drafted. As I gave notice of that mistake to the noble and learned Lord, I hope that he will allow me to speak to the amendment as it should have been drafted rather than as it is drafted.
The amendment seeks to put a further obligation on the employer in respect of the production notice. It has effect only for employees who are working at night, in that the vast majority of employees work during the day and consequently the obligation for the employer to produce the notice at the time the employee is working will cause no hardship to the employer and will have no effect on the employee. However, for those who work night shifts, such as night porters in the catering industry and night security guards, it means that the employee can oblige the employer to make the production of the records during his or her contracted hours. It can be argued that that places a further and more difficult burden on the employer. I would rather argue the opposite case: that not to do so is to place an unreasonable burden on the employee.
At Committee stage the noble and learned Lord said that he was sympathetic to the principles underlying the amendment. He went on to say, however:
"as an employer, the noble Viscount might be a little irritated if a person in his personnel office had to wait until three o'clock in the morning just to give someone like a night porter his records".— [Official Report, 15/6/98; col. 1407.]
I took that point. However, most shift workers begin at 10 or 11 at night and end at six or seven in the morning. Those are times at which—certainly in the hotel industry and I suspect in most other industries—there is someone on duty of a sufficient stature, be it a supervisor or a manager, who can be briefed by the personnel
648
department and would be able to take the employee through the records. I do not believe therefore that it places too much of a burden on the employer.
Why then is it a burden on the employee to come in outside his contractual hours? There are two main reasons. The first is a simple one. If the employee works in the country, lives 40 minutes away and comes in using his own transport, then that employee is obliged to come to work at his own cost, using his own petrol or whatever it might be, at a time when he would not normally be at work. The exercise of his right therefore involves a cost and, as we know, cost for people who are on a minimum wage means a barrier.
The second reason is that it obliges the employee to come in and go through the records in his free time—either during those precious hours of daylight when he wants to sleep or, indeed, on a day off. It is a little hard and somewhat unreasonable to insist that an employee should come in to see the employer while the employee is on a well-earned break or a day off.
In effect, not allowing the employee to attend in his contracted hours discriminates between the day shift worker and the night shift worker. It gives the day shift worker advantages which the night worker does not have and gives the night worker costs and difficulties which the day worker does not have.
As a small final point, I mentioned transport. We have just had a White Paper published on transport. Anything that cuts down on the use of transport, particularly private transport, would be a good thing.
My argument therefore is straightforward and very much as I put it at Committee stage, though perhaps I take it a little further. It really concerns the balance of unreasonableness which I feel should be placed on the employer rather than on the employee. Throughout this legislation we have been talking about the bad guys because the good employers will always get these things right anyway. I suggest that my argument demonstrates that the balance of unreasonableness should be on the employer and in this case we should be supporting the employee. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the suggestion. I cannot move the amendment because it is defective but perhaps we can come together with something at a later stage which the Government will feel they can accept.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to my noble friend's main group of amendments. As was said in Committee, the introduction of the companion or minder—whatever one calls him—on the employer's premises or at some place agreed between the employer and the employee, differs from practice elsewhere and is liable to abuse.
With the greatest respect, I suggest that the Minister sees this as an ideal situation and that the provisions as presently drafted do not provide for unreasonable behaviour by either party. There is also the question of confidentiality to consider and we may get into the

649
situation that the companion says, "I want to see this and that", telling the employee what is his due to be shown. The Bill needs further safeguards.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in relation to Clause 10. With great respect to the noble Baroness, she again missed the point in relation to what is the protection for employers in this matter.
Everybody agrees that the national minimum wage will not work unless employees have the right to look at the source material; namely, what the material shows they have been paid. That right must be meaningful and provide adequate protection both to employer and employee. We believe that the provisions of the Bill as presently drafted do just that.
There are three safeguards for the employer. First, the right to look at the material can arise only if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the employee is not receiving the minimum wage. Secondly, there is no question—as the noble Baroness keeps upsetting your Lordships by saying—of the employee simply marching into the employer's premises and demanding to see records. He or she must give notice specifying a period at which he or she wishes to inspect the records.
Thirdly, the employer can determine where the inspection takes place. Subsection (8) says,
"The place at which the relevant records are produced must be—(a) the worker's place of work; or
(b) any other place at which it is reasonable, in all the circumstances, for the worker to attend to inspect the relevant records; or
(c) such other place as may be agreed between the worker and the employer".
Like all great advocates when confronted with the major difficulty in her argument—namely, subsection (8)(b)—the noble Baroness simply read it and said nothing about it. If, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, fears, employers are worried about confidentiality and if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, says, employers might be worried about being intimidated by the person who is brought along, then they would be perfectly reasonable in saying, "You cannot inspect at the employer's premises; you have to go somewhere else". They might go to the employee's home, the offices of a citizen's advice bureau if that is sensible, or even a solicitor's office. All of the problems which have been identified can be dealt with under subsection (8).
Clause 10—which in effect would be rewritten as a result of these amendments—is, as I indicated, drafted as it is for very good reasons; that is, reasons to do with fairness and reasonableness. These amendments would either make the clause less equitable or in some cases simply make it less workable.
The Government fully accept that enforcement should not be overburdensome. That is why, in subsections (2) and (3) as I indicated, the Bill makes it clear that the right of access is already limited; for example, the worker must have reasonable grounds for believing that he is or has been paid less than the minimum. In
650
addition, the right of access may be exercised only for the purpose of establishing whether the worker is being or has been paid at least the minimum. That goes a considerable way to meeting the problem posed by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. Again, as I indicated, the worker must produce a written notice.
Clause 10 as it stands also allows a degree of flexibility; for example in agreeing a different period—longer than the specified 14 days—for the production of records, under subsection (9)(b).
Finally, the clause provides for workers actually to inspect records and to be accompanied if they wish. I believe that is an important entitlement which will encourage workers to exercise their rights and discourage some employers who may be tempted to use unfair tactics of dissuasion.
I did not mean that in any intimidatory way when I said it in Committee and was extremely disappointed to hear the noble Baroness suggest that I did. What I meant by that was that there will be certain circumstances where an employer—there will not be many of them, but there will be some unscrupulous employers who wish to make it as difficult as possible—will simply provide a circumstance which is intimidating to an employee, perhaps a homeworker or someone not skilled in looking at records. In those circumstances it is perfectly appropriate that that person should be accompanied by somebody to help him. if the employer is concerned that he will be intimidated, he can deal with it by identifying somewhere where he thinks it reasonable to have the inspection.
More broadly, it is worth emphasising, that the overall purpose of this and other enforcement mechanisms is to encourage self-compliance. It is far preferable, if at all possible, to encourage employers to comply voluntarily than to have to provide for a huge bureaucracy to do so. Furthermore, by allowing workers to inspect records it should be possible to prevent cases of simple confusion or misunderstanding. That in itself should help to keep cases out of the tribunals and the courts.
The amendments would significantly weaken the position of the worker for no particular reason. In addressing them, I shall aim to focus, as in the earlier debate, on three main issues: the removal, by Amendment No. 17 and related amendments, of the worker's right to inspect and examine his records; the removal of the right to be accompanied; and the lengthening of the time in which records must be produced to 28 days.
Taking each of those points in turn, I believe it is essential to the enforcement provisions for a worker to have the right to inspect records. Of course, in many cases that right will be met by the employer providing the worker with a copy of the records as they relate to him. I imagine that that will be the normal way to proceed because in most cases employers and employees will behave well. But in setting out an enforcement procedure one has always to legislate for those cases where the employer or the employee is not behaving well. That is why it is always necessary, as in all civil litigation, for the originals to be inspectable.

651
I do not believe that the Bill allows this right to be abused. I doubt whether there will be long lines of employees queuing to inspect their relevant records in person. Subsection (2) already makes clear that the worker must have reasonable grounds to exercise the right. Therefore, the replacement of the right of access with a right to a copy of records would unacceptably weaken the enforcement provisions of the Bill.
This batch of amendments, which hang on Amendment No. 17, would also remove the worker's right to be accompanied when examining the records. As I mentioned, I believe that this right is essential to prevent some employers fobbing off their workers or pulling the wool over their eyes. I do not believe that there will be many such cases, but the option to be accompanied provides a reasonable means of avoiding that.
There is also a pragmatic reason for this provision. Some of the calculations of remuneration for minimum wage purposes may be not at all straightforward and some workers may feel more confident if they can call on a colleague with particular accounting or legal expertise. Again, some workers may not have a complete command of the language to enable them to understand financial or legal terms. The outcome of this provision should assist understanding the position and, to the extent that there may have been an innocent misunderstanding, should encourage early resolution of the problem.
Finally, the amendments would double the amount of time allowed to an employer to produce the records from 14 to 28 days. There seems to be no reason for this proposal. It seems to me that any reasonable employer would be able to produce records relating to how much he pays his staff within a fortnight. Subsection (9) of the clause in any event allows the worker and employer to agree between them an extension of the deadline if that is appropriate. So we have already built in more than sufficient flexibility for employers and employees.
That leads me to Amendment No. 23; for not all the amendments act in the interest of the employer. This amendment deletes subsection (9). It would therefore actually remove the right of the worker and employer to reach agreement on a longer timescale. I am surprised to see this amendment survive, despite apparently working against the interests of the employer, and no argument has been advanced in support of it.
As I indicated, we have designed the clause to be effective in a balanced way, not in order to over-burden or punish employers. It is in everyone's interests, workers and employers, for enforcement to be fair, and in particular for enforcement to be effective.
Perhaps I may come back to what I think is the noble Baroness's underlying fear that the clause allows employees to march into employers' premises and look at records. It does not. That is the misconception that underlay the whole of the noble Baroness's submissions. I would earnestly ask her to think again
652
on the amendments and not to continue to upset the House with her constant reference to constitutional outrage.
We talked on the previous occasion about the issues raised by the noble Viscount's amendment. There is not much I can add to what I said before. The Government can sympathise with the thinking behind the amendment as it is intended to ensure that the worker is not caught out by some sharp practice. However, I believe that we should be able to rely on common sense in this area. Subsection (9)(b) already envisages that there may be agreement between the worker and the employer as to the deadline within which the records must be produced. In the same spirit I would hope that employers and workers can reach a sensible agreement about when the records are produced. It seems disproportionate to seek to regulate that timing. Furthermore, as I pointed out in Committee, it is somewhat inflexible to follow the approach proposed by the amendment. On some occasions it may suit both parties to see the records at a time outside the working hours of the individual concerned. Yet the amendment would have the effect of preventing such a sensible arrangement. For those reasons, I hope very much that the noble Viscount will not move his amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I listened with enormous care to the noble and learned Lord. I was surprised that he referred to my upsetting the House with constitutional matters. It seems to me that the Government are bringing forward lots of constitutional matters which undoubtedly are upsetting many parts of your Lordships' House. I certainly did not hear any murmurs of upset on the few remarks that I made.
I quoted from the noble and learned Lord the line about discouraging some employers who may be tempted to use unfair tactics or dissuasion. I said that that sounded like intimidation to me and not that the noble and learned Lord was saying it. I said that if a minder came onto the premises I might feel some kind of intimidation. However, I totally accept what the noble and learned Lord said on that point, and not for anything would I upset him. In fact he was smiling at me very nicely at the end, but he was not smiling at me at the beginning when he said those words.
I am amazed that the noble and learned Lord continues to say that one may not go onto the premises. He referred to subsection (8)(a) and then put subsection (8)(a) and (b) together. I think that we will have to agree to disagree on that one. However, with regard to the copies, the noble and learned Lord said that he is sure that that is the normal way for that to happen. Yet he continues to say that by providing that that is what should happen, it would in some way weaken the Bill. I cannot agree. I shall certainly withdraw the amendment at this stage and read very carefully what the noble and learned Lord said. However, I reserve the right to return to the matter again at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 27 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Failure of employer to allow access to records]:
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report stage be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m. If we are to get through the Motion of noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, during the hour, perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, speaks for not more than 10 minutes, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for not more than 12 minutes and all other speakers for not more than five minutes.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
7.36 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway rose to move to resolve, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty should exercise the Prerogative of Mercy to release Guardsmen Fisher and Wright from mandatory life imprisonment in exceptional circumstances as other available mechanisms would unduly delay their release.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am more than content to treat this as if it were a dinner hour debate, which in effect it is. In the wake of your Lordships' debate on 23rd June, the Secretary of State set up a review to which this Motion now relates. My noble friend Lord Dubs explained the procedure on 6th and 16th of July in context with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Tebbit. This review is a welcome initiative which enhances the purpose of this Motion. The Secretary of State proposes to give her decision as to release towards the end of August. It is accepted that immediate release from a mandatory life sentence for murder presupposes time for due inquiry. This is a matter for the executive under delegated remit of the Royal Prerogative. It is acknowledged by statute; not the judiciary, not the legislature.
The Government Chief Whip was good enough to inform me this afternoon that it is not the intention of the Government to oppose this Motion; and for this relief I am indeed most grateful. If this Motion were to be carried, the humble Address, when received, would be sent straight off to the Secretary of State. It would serve as a representation from your Lordships' House, confirming the opinion already expressed in favour of immediate release, as sought indeed by my noble friend Lord Tebbit, but by other means. Such is the practical effect of the form in which the Motion is cast, which would be of considerable persuasive consequence without any hint of confrontation with government.
The Secretary of State would take into account all representations and all affidavits and documents on which your Lordships concluded that the findings as to
654
culpability were fundamentally flawed and that the conviction was a grave and manifest miscarriage of justice. The Secretary of State would no doubt take into account that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Tebbit—supported by my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley—was to send a strong signal for release as soon as possible. On that your Lordships' House is unanimous.
But one has to accept that until the debate of 23rd June both Secretaries of State were bound to rely on the findings of the judge,
"that there was no possible justification for either Fisher or Wright to have opened fire as they knew they were not exposed to any appreciable degree of danger and that McBride whom they shot was unarmed".
These findings are the ultimate degree of culpability and indeed were reflected in the last decision of the Secretary of State on 17th June on remission by the court on 22nd May. These findings were based on partial and wholly unsatisfactory evidence, contrary to early accounts given to the police by three residents of the New Lodge area of Belfast hostile to these armed foot patrols, who said that when the lance sergeant in charge of the patrol stopped McBride, he searched him; and so was found by the judge to be unarmed.
According to the affidavit evidence of the lance sergeant, as confirmed by Guardsman Williams—the fourth man in the patrol—and CSM Dunn, the platoon sergeant in various aspects, the lance sergeant did not search McBride who indeed attempted to evade, and evaded, the proposed search.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, then CGS, and who, alas, is unable to speak today, but would have wished to have done so, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, identified as the crux of the case whether or not the lance sergeant searched McBride. If he did not, according to the documents in the Library, the findings which supported conviction and have since thwarted release, are wholly untenable.
The question is whether these findings will continue to thwart release—findings which your Lordships concluded on 23rd June, on the documents in the Library, and in the light of the speeches made, were fundamentally flawed. As to this, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has said, quite reasonably, that no assurance can be given as this would pre-empt the decision of the Secretary of State.
It is therefore of cardinal importance that a representation, a strong signal, a message—call it what you will—as to release as soon as possible should be sent to the Secretary of State by your Lordships as an exercise of mere persuasion. As a means to this end, noble Lords on all sides of the House are respectfully invited to support this Motion.
The narrative is wholly based on affidavit evidence in the Library and is devoid of any embellishment. On 4th September Fisher and Wright—first-class soldiers of good character, experienced in anti-terrorist drill and practice—were part of a foot patrol with Guardsman Williams, as armed soldiers in aid of the civil power in the New Lodge area of Belfast under the command of Lance Sergeant Swift, a reliable patrol commander on

655
his fourth tour of duty in Northern Ireland. New Lodge was a high-risk area of terrorist activity, where, under the aegis of the provisional IRA, the doors are kept open as an escape route and where in recent weeks these patrols have come under persistent attack from coffee-jar bombs, which are improvised grenades containing shrapnel, semtex and a detonator with a killing radius of 30 metres.
Lance Sergeant Swift, if called to testify, would have said:
"at the morning briefing on 4th September and orders of the day, the threat of attack from coffee-jar bombs was stressed as the patrol would be out for over two hours; that it was well known to the patrol that the coffee-jar bomb was often directed with a plastic bag from behind the engine of a parked car; that it was an extremely dangerous, easily concealed weapon, designed to be used against such foot patrols; that leading the patrol he had cause to stop McBride, who with an arm across his waist was holding something bulky under his jacket. Fisher covered him, Wright covered down the street, Williams covered the rear.
"The lance sergeant started to question McBride and when he gave his name and address the lance sergeant knew that the RUC was searching at that address. The lance sergeant tried to make radio contact but failed. He said, "I'll search you. Empty your pockets onto the wall", and again tried to make radio contact. Before he was able to search, McBride grabbed the earpiece of the radio from the lance sergeant's ear and lunged at him. The lance sergeant recoiled and McBride made a dash for it, vaulting over the wall and railings. As McBride did so, he pulled from his jacket a thin white plastic bag containing a solid looking cylindrical object, which the lance sergeant thought would be a coffee-jar bomb to be used against the patrol in a "come on" ambush.
"The lance sergeant made a dash to catch him but fell to the ground. McBride ran towards the wall. The lance sergeant shouted, "Grab him". Fisher tried to grab him but failed. The lance sergeant did not shout, "Don't shoot". They all went in pursuit. McBride was gaining on them, still with the bag in his hand, heading towards a parked car. Three yellow card warnings, "Army—halt or we'll fire", were given and disregarded. McBride was shot, still running with the bag in his hand towards the parked car. Wounded, he fell behind the parked car and then struggled to a house. It was then that the lance sergeant shouted, "Don't shoot". The area was deserted. There was no one about until after the shooting".—[Official Report, 23/6/98; col. 218.]
The colonel—who, with the company commander, saw Fisher and Wright when they returned to barracks before they were arrested on 4th September and interrogated on 4th and 5th and charged by the RUC with murder on 5th—has deposed that when he saw them they were "shocked" and said that they acted in good faith, believing that their lives and the lives of the patrol and others, were in danger. They said that they fired in accordance with the terms of engagement.
The colonel also deposed that in his belief they acted in accordance with the terms of engagement as armed soldiers in aid of the civil power on the streets of Northern Ireland; and that those under his command were in danger 24 hours a day, seven days a week—a belief supported on 23rd June by the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Inge, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, my noble friend Lord Vivian and all noble Lords who spoke to this.
According to paragraph 10 of the affidavit of the lance sergeant (to be found in the Library) a few days before the trial, he was questioned by two RUC officers,
656
one of whom had questioned Fisher and Wright on 4th September. I quote from that passage:
"Their aim was to get me to alter aspects of my statement"—
that was the recorded interrogation of 10th September 1992, two years before trial—
"indicating my firm recollection [of] having seen what I believed to be a coffee-jar bomb. The questioning was aggressive. I refused to alter a single word".
At the trial neither the lance sergeant, Williams nor Darren were called to testify. The evidence of Fisher and Wright that they acted in good faith in accordance with the terms of their engagement, was rejected.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said on 23rd June that,
"This was not just a routine patrol". [It had] "specific tasks … based on hard intelligence. There had been more than 20 attacks [on these patrols] with lethal coffee-jar bombs and 18 incidents of shooting and in one a guardsman had been killed";
namely, Shackleton. There is no doubt about the threat they feared. He added:
"it is totally understandable that Fisher and Wright acted as they did".—[Official Report, 23/6/98; col. 226.]
That was from the then CGS. He said that the conduct of the trial in all aspects relevant to conviction was "incredible". That was the word that he used. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty should exercise the Prerogative of Mercy to release Guardsmen Fisher and Wright from mandatory life imprisonment in exceptional circumstances as other available mechanisms would unduly delay their release.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
7.50 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, like, I suspect, a number of other noble Lords, I do not fully understand the exact constitutional position of the Queen's Prerogative of Mercy, imagining that Her Majesty is bound to act on the recommendation of the very Minister or Ministers to whom, so far, our pleas and urgings, although utterly reasonable and widely supported, have fallen on deaf ears.
What I do know, however, is that the two Scots Guardsmen, Guardsman Fisher and Guardsman Wright, having already served what amounts to (taking into account normal remission) a custodial sentence of between eight and nine years, for what might have been a tragic, split-second error of judgment, but which they believed constituted (under the circumstances) their duty, should now be released forthwith. They should not have to suffer any longer the reality and stigma of a life sentence which, although mandatory under the law for the offence for which they were convicted, was wholly inappropriate in terms of justice; nor would it be other than invidious if the decision on their release was to be delayed just so that it could be entwined with political considerations affecting the release of terrorists on both sides. After all, those are the very people whom the whole training of soldiers such as Fisher and Wright was designed to thwart.

657
So, if the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to present an Humble Address to Her Majesty the Queen will help to persuade the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the time really has come to initiate the release of Guardsman Fisher and Guardsman Wright, I most readily support it.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I have served in Belfast, as thousands of others have done. Before going to Northern Ireland, every regiment receives excellent, well prepared and highly sophisticated training. I have patrolled in the remarkably unpleasant and dangerous New Lodge area of that city where Fisher and Wright were on the day that MacBride was killed. I know how those guardsmen felt when they started their patrol that day and the immense strains and pressures they were under.
Although Her Majesty's Government do not accept responsibility for the defence submissions or for the judge's verdict, they have overall control over the mounting of the case for the prosecution. I should like to bring to the attention of those in authority and to the general public the fact that there are serious concerns about the trial of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright, concerns which, in my humble opinion, amount to a gross miscarriage of justice.
A number of questions arise from the new sworn affidavits, which have been placed in the Library, which I have read with great care. I should like to know why that evidence was never produced to the court. If it had been presented to court, the outcome of the trial might have been very different.
I wish to concentrate on four important facts. The first issue is the search. Swift denies searching MacBride, and Williams has corroborated his statement. In my view, it is clear that Swift was physically prevented from searching MacBride. Why did Swift order the three men in his patrol to grab MacBride? Presumably, because he had not been able to search him by then. If he had searched him and found nothing, he would not have given chase, thus endangering their lives even more. If MacBride had nothing to hide, why did he evade being searched? Presumably, because he was carrying a coffee-jar bomb.
The second fact is that all four members of the patrol saw MacBride carrying a transparent plastic bag in which was a cylindrical object. Under existing regulations, that gave the patrol every right to adopt the action that it took.
Thirdly, the inhabitants of the New Lodge area are particularly resourceful at removing incriminating evidence from the scene of an incident. It is no wonder that no coffee-jar bomb was found on MacBride as he would have dropped it off as he went through 15 Upper Meadow Street.
My fourth point concerns the evidence given by the three local residents. In this unpleasant New Lodge area, it is not unknown for people to give false evidence when required to do so. The witnesses cannot be said to be impartial. Indeed, one of those witnesses had 12 convictions for shoplifting and others for receiving
658
and handling stolen goods, for disorderly behaviour and for failing to surrender to bail. Their evidence for the prosecution was unreliable and inconsistent.
Both Swift and Williams have said that there were no bystanders. Swift has said that there were no civilians in the immediate area. The total lack of civilians was most unusual, particularly as it was the school holidays and around 10.20 in the morning. It has been my sad experience that that is often a sign of an ambush. My personal view is that that ambush was thwarted because of the sudden and unexpected appearance of MacBride. In IRA terms, anything that does not go according to plan is immediately aborted as the IRA takes no unnecessary risks. It is most unlikely that there would have been three bystanders out on the street under those circumstances.
Furthermore, when the adrenalin is flowing very fast through the body, the automatic reactions by a soldier conform to the drills and commands learnt in training. Under those immense pressures, the mind is normally incapable of using words that have not been practised and rehearsed time and time again during training. To read that three mythical bystanders said that they had heard radically different versions, interspersed with foul language, of the laid-down command, "Army, halt or I'll fire", is so unlikely as to be, in my judgment, quite inconceivable. In any event, how could the three alleged bystanders have observed the search or heard the commands shouted by Fisher and Wright in Upper Meadow Street, some distance away with so many houses between them and where the incident took place?
I should like to ask the Minister why the prosecuting authorities decided to prosecute when the veracity of the bystanders' evidence is in doubt.
In conclusion, the Minister informed us in our previous debate on this that the Secretary of State can at any time, if she thinks fit, release a person serving a term of imprisonment for life providing she consults with the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge, if available. Why does she not do so? Are those two men, who were merely carrying out their duty for the nation, to languish in prison when others, many of whom have committed unspeakable crimes, are to be released? It is at this point that the whole matter becomes political. There has been a gross miscarriage of justice and it must be put right as soon as possible.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I rise to support as strongly as I can the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I should like noble Lords for one moment, if they can, to put aside thoughts of the Scots Guards with their great reputation and powerful image and to remember that we are talking about two young Scotsmen, Jim Fisher from Ayr, who was aged 24 at the time, and Mark Wright from Arbroath, who was aged 19. Those two young men did not go out that day to kill innocent people. They went out to perform what has already been called their duty in aid of the civil power—in other words, to help the police to protect innocent people from those who were out that day intending to kill. That is what those two young men were doing.

659
On 4th September 1992, the day with which we are concerned, there was an incident and someone, innocent or otherwise, was killed. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, pointed out, it might have been an accident, an error of judgment. I make no comment on that. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, hinted, I think it is very difficult for anyone who has not stood in a jungle clearing in Malaya, in a terrorist village in Cyprus, or in the African bush with a small patrol, to comprehend how such an accident might have happened. These young men were in none of those places but in a part of Northern Ireland known to be a dangerous area. They were in an urban terrorist area in which their regiment and other patrols had already been fired upon and attacked and in which one of their own comrades had been shot by an enemy sniper. While that was in their minds, before them was a man who, when ordered to be searched as a suspect carrying some offensive weapon, seized the earpiece of the patrol commander's radio set and made off in an attempt to escape. If I had been the patrol commander to whom that had happened I would have expected my soldiers to take some fairly vigorous action. Having studied the evidence to an extent I believe that what these soldiers did they were perfectly entitled to do. Indeed, were I the patrol commander I would have expected them to do it.
I understand that there was no way in which a lesser charge could have been brought. If any charge was to be brought it had to be murder. There was no way in which they could be tried for manslaughter, culpable homicide or any other offence. But one wonders whether they should have been prosecuted at all. I believe that in the light of the evidence the prosecution was unwise, unsafe and unsound.
I make one other point which may not be entirely relevant but is always in the back of my mind. I refer to the message that this kind of prosecution sends to soldiers and others who have to act in aid of the civil power and, having done what they consider to be their duty, are not criticised, reprimanded or punished under army regulations but are charged with murder and sent to prison for life. I believe that we should be asking ourselves some very serious questions in respect of that matter.
I conclude, as have other noble Lords, by saying that it is long past the time when these two young men should be released from prison. We do not want ponderous reviews or any lengthy reconsideration of the matter. If these two men are still in prison when terrorists under the peace process or the great agreement are released, ordinary, intelligent, decent people in this country will find it very difficult to understand. If the Secretary of State cannot or will not act now to secure the immediate release of these young men, perhaps the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is the only way to do it. I strongly support the Motion.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Westbury: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway for tabling this Motion. I declare my interest as a Scots Guard who has been
660
concerned with this situation for a number of years and has taken part in Written and Oral Questions and debates on this subject. On 23rd June 1998 the House concluded on the basis of affidavits and documents that the finding of culpability was fundamentally flawed. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has referred to the evidence that Lance Sergeant Swift would have given, confirmed in various respects by Guardsman Williams, who was the fourth man in the patrol, and Company Sergeant Major Dunn, the platoon sergeant.
Since 23rd June affidavits from Guardsman Williams and Company Sergeant Major Dunn have been placed in the Library. They show the salient aspects of that confirmation. I apologise for being long-winded but I believe that it is relevant to read the affidavit of Guardsman Williams:
"After we had been patrolling for about two and a half hours Lance Sergeant Swift told us that the Celtic Club search was over and all they found was one CB radio. We were then directed to proceed north east up Spamount Street to 'satellite' and give cover for another search at Templar House. We patrolled back up Spamount Street in normal operational order, staggered with two on each pavement, and as we got to the bottom of Trainfield Street I saw Lance Sergeant Swift run forward very quickly to intercept a youth coming down Trainfield Street from New Lodge Road where Templar House was located, and the three of us took up protective positions.
I was on the corner of Trainfield Street and Spamount Street. There was a low fence on top of a brick wall and I squatted down by this to give cover principally the way we had come. Meanwhile Guardsman Fisher took up a kneeling position in Spamount Street behind me looking forward to cover Lance Sergeant Swift and the suspect and Guardsman Wright [were] on the far side of Spamount Street looking the opposite way to me. We were probably 15 to 20 yards apart. I heard Lance Sergeant Swift go up to the suspect to check his personal details. This was standard (name, address, age, where he had come from and where he was going). I could not hear the suspect's answer but I did hear Lance Sergeant Swift trying to make contact with Company Headquarters, but he could get no reply. I could see a little out of the corner of my eye and I am definite that the suspect was NEVER searched. He was only with the lance sergeant for just over one minute and there would not have been time to do a body search …
I should also state quite clearly that there was nobody in Spamount Street anywhere near its junction with Trainfield Street. There were definitely NOT two men mending a car with its bonnet up, and indeed there was nobody out in the streets at all. I then heard Lance Sergeant Swift shout 'Grab him' and I could see the earpiece had been pulled off his head. I then saw the suspect jump over into the garden at the corner of Trainfield Street and Spamount Street. He jumped both garden fences and as he did so I saw a white plastic bag in his right hand tightly rolled round a cylindrical-shaped object. It would be about 10 to 12 inches long and four to five inches in diameter. I naturally thought it must be a coffee jar bomb.
Guardsman Fisher nearly grabbed him but he managed to run very fast with the white bag still in his right hand and we all set off in pursuit.
Both Guardsmen Fisher and Wright who were leading shouted 'Army, halt or I fire', but he turned quickly left into Glenrosa Street when they both gave him another challenge. I also shouted 'Army, halt or I fire', or words to that effect. He ignored these challenges and turned right down Upper Meadow Street.
We had all our weapons, equipment and body armour and I felt we were not going to catch him. When he was about two-thirds of the way down Upper Meadow Street on the left where I believe there was a blue car parked, I heard Guardsman Fisher give a third challenge and when the suspect did not stop he fired one shot which appeared to miss. Guardsman Fisher fired standing and he was on the right hand side of the road. Guardsman Wright was two to three

661
yards behind him on the left side. I was behind Guardsman Fisher and Lance Sergeant Swift was behind me, still trying to make radio contact as we ran into Upper Meadow Street.
Shortly after that Wright got down into the kneeling position and tired two shots. Almost immediately Guardsman Fisher fired another two shots and the suspect staggered by the car …
Immediately after the shooting, doors started opening and a lot of people came into the street but we had seen nobody outside during the chase".
As to the affidavit of Company Sergeant Major Dunn:
"I was platoon sergeant of these two soldiers and the rest of their patrol of four men with Lance Sergeant Swift in command and Guardsman Williams.
It was very quiet with a few local people moving about the streets. They obviously observed the patrols and stayed inside.
On no account would two or three members of a team crowd round a suspect as they would present easy, static, targets, and would not be giving proper cover.
At about 10.30 hours we heard shots from a northerly direction and we proceeded in the direction of the shots as far as we could. The whole patrol got there as a group in about three or four minutes. When we got there I saw Sergeant Swift who said there had been a shooting. I understand that Guardsmen Fisher and Wright had shot at a suspect who had assaulted him [Lance Sergeant Swift] and who they thought was carrying a bomb, and who had refused to stop after repeated warnings.
I, and other patrols, stayed in the area and helped to put up a cordon but before this an ambulance arrived to take the wounded suspect to hospital.
I would like to emphasise that the area in which the incident took place was extremely hostile and dangerous for any patrols and the longer a patrol stayed in one area the more likely were the Provisional IRA to set up an opportunity for sniping or bombing. I was amazed to learn that the two soldiers were found guilty of murder two years later when they were only doing their duty in accordance with their training.
I knew them both well and they were first class soldiers, of good character and experienced in anti-terrorist drills and tactics. Lance Sergeant Swift was a reliable patrol commander on his fourth tour of duty in Northern Ireland".
They have been in custody since 4th September 1992. They have served the equivalent of a nine-year determinate sentence. The opinion of your Lordships' House, as expressed on 23rd June and 16th July, is that they should be released immediately. The Motion should be carried so that a representation to this effect should be sent to the Secretary of State for consideration on the current review.
8.12 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for raising yet again the case of the two unfortunate Scots Guardsmen who have been languishing in gaol for over five years.
It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Westbury, who, among others, has worked tirelessly both inside and outside your Lordships' House to obtain redress and release for the two unfortunate guardsmen who, through a tragic error of judgment, found themselves convicted of murder by due process of law and received mandatory sentences of life imprisonment.
I am sure that all noble Lords in this House, including noble and gallant Lords who have had the privilege to wear the uniform of the King in war or peace, or of the Queen in war, peace or counter-insurgency operations, will agree with me that on exercise or on operations we
662
have all made errors of judgment but fortunately for most of us, more by luck than any other reason, we who served in Northern Ireland did not end in gaol.
I had the privilege after serving in Northern Ireland of serving with the British Army of the Rhine when General Sir Michael Gow was the Commander-in-Chief. He is a most distinguished infantryman. He is quoted as saying that in a similar situation to that faced by the two Scots Guardsmen he would probably have done exactly the same. So would I.
I rise to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that an Humble Address be presented. As far back as 20th April of this year I asked a supplementary oral question to the one put by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. I asked the Minister of State, the Minister who is in his place today, if he would consider putting the case to the Sovereign so that Her Majesty could exercise Her prerogative of mercy.
The Minister replied that the Life Sentence Review Board procedure and the sentence review body would be running in parallel and that in the circumstances he did not think it would be appropriate to refer the case elsewhere. I did not agree with him then and I shall not agree with him if at the end of this debate he cannot agree to endorsing a mechanism which would speed up the date of the release, the Life Sentence Review Board being too slow.
My view is further reinforced by a statement from the Northern Ireland Office dated 6th July 1998. The Secretary of State stated in another place that she had received the papers and would be considering those papers "during the next few weeks". How many weeks? We are entitled to know, as indeed are the guardsmen.
Secondly, the papers which have to be considered are extensive. I recall my service at various headquarters, in particular the Northern Ireland headquarters, where the staff were often directed by the Commander, Land Forces, to produce a brief, a paper or information for the Northern Ireland Office within 24 hours, or, indeed, within 24 minutes or even two-and-a-half minutes. Woe betide the staff office if that work was not produced on time. Why the delay in this case? Does not the noble Lord agree with me that this new review by the Secretary of State smacks of prevarication? Why is that the case?
The second avenue of approach is the sentence review body. As every schoolboy knows, this is a mechanism for granting convicted terrorists early release. This is an entirely inappropriate method for the release from gaol of the two Scots Guardsmen. First, they are not terrorists. Secondly, they never were terrorists. Thirdly, they were sent to Northern Ireland by the state—by previous Secretaries of State for Defence and for Northern Ireland—to keep the peace, to prevent terrorism and to apprehend or, indeed, kill terrorists.
I turn to the prerogative of mercy. I have been much influenced by the paper by Christopher Vincenzi, Crown Powers, Subjects and Citizens. He states that crimes may be pardoned absolutely or conditionally. He draws the distinction between the free pardon, which wipes out not only the sentence but the conviction, commutation of the sentence, and, finally, remission, which is

663
reduction of a sentence or penalty without changing its character. Between 1990 and 1993 there were 88 free pardons. During the same years there were 250 remissions of sentence. Surely the two guardsmen are deserving of the prerogative of mercy?
I shall conclude on this point. Last week on the West Front of Westminster Abbey 10 statues were unveiled to 10 Christian martyrs who died for their faith this century. Over the past quarter of a century over 3,000 people—3,000 too many—have died in Northern Ireland or, as I prefer to call it, been murdered; some—the vast majority I suggest—because either they were in the wrong place at the wrong time or they died for their faith. Although these statues are prominent, less attention is given to four statues below the 10 Christian martyrs. They represent the four cardinal virtues: truth, justice, peace and mercy.
I suggest that truth, in the matter of this tragic incident, will never be readily available or complete, as the evidence is incomplete. Justice was done, I hope, but it was very harsh. Peace may come to Northern Ireland, we all hope that. And finally, mercy: it is time—it is long overdue—to show mercy to these two guardsmen. That is the reason why I support the Motion before your Lordships' House.
8.18 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I apologise to the House for missing the first few minutes of this debate. I also remind the House that I have an interest. I notice, yet again, that we have a defence Minister, Lord Gilbert, in his place on the Front Bench. We are, indeed, grateful for his interest.
I have spoken on this matter before and I declare that I am broadly content with the Motion, but I believe that my noble friend Lord Tebbit may have a superior amendment or lever to pull later.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I doubt whether my device will be superior; I think that it may be more effective; and it will undoubtedly be triggered on Wednesday.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that intervention.
I agree with every word that I have heard this evening. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a possible condition that the Secretary of State may decide to impose on any licence given. As Guardsmen Fisher and Wright are serving soldiers, it would be possible to remit them to the charge of their commanding officer. They would then effectively be confined to barracks. That would obviously be a temporary measure. It would of course make the Secretary of State's decision easier and less risky and therefore more speedy. I hope that the Minister will draw that possibility to the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, there is a long and ancient history which supports the presentation of an Address to Her Majesty on every matter of foreign and domestic policy, including the administration of justice. We support fully the presentation of such an Address in this exceptional case. It is a step forward that the Government have indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that they do not intend to oppose his Motion.
The Monarch swears in the Coronation Oath that justice in this country shall be "administered in mercy". Sir William Blackstone, the great legal historian, traced the history of the royal pardon to the laws of Edward the Confessor. He said:
"the royal prerogative of mercy … is part of the power of the Sovereign of his pure grace to show mercy to an offender by mitigating or removing the consequences of conviction".
It is important to understand that a pardon does not necessarily remove the conviction itself. We have an adversarial process in this country which is designed to examine the evidence, but only the evidence which is put before the court: our processes are not concerned with the unfettered pursuit of the truth. In this case I have already commented on the fact that the trial judge could act only on the evidence placed before him. Judges have the power to call witnesses themselves, but it is rarely exercised. Here, the prosecution chose to rely upon the evidence of three bystander witnesses on the vital question as to whether the sergeant searched McBride. Their account at the trial differed in significant ways from their original statements to the police. Neither Swift, nor Williams, who was with him, was called to give evidence for the prosecution. The defence cannot be criticised for refusing to put their clients' interests at risk by calling them themselves.
The conviction then went on appeal, but the Court of Appeal has a limited function: it is only to supervise the operation of the lower courts and to correct their mistakes. It is not to hold a re-hearing of the facts which the tribunal of fact—here the judge alone—has decided. In this country the principle that the verdict of a jury is virtually sacrosanct prevails. It is less obvious that that principle—the findings of fact by a single judge in a Diplock court—should apply to those decisions.
A jury, from time to time, will acquit where justice demands. It may acquit in the teeth of the evidence. The Clive Ponting case is an example where a jury acquitted even though directed by the trial judge to convict. A jury may also convict when to the professional eye there is inadequate evidence, but almost invariably the instinct and common sense of the jury are correct. A judge who sits alone is trained professionally to analyse and sift the evidence that is put before him. His instinct is ruled out. If mistakes may happen in jury trials—we know that they do—how much more likely are they to occur in a Diplock court under the adversarial system?
The prerogative of mercy recognises that the judicial process is fallible and that the evidence before the court does not necessarily give rise to the right decision. The prerogative has different uses: to be merciful—for example, a free pardon to someone who is terminally

665
ill; to substitute one form of punishment for another—for example, the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment; but, importantly and thirdly, to recognise that the public interest may no longer be furthered by having an offender serve the full penalty imposed. That may be because of doubts that arise subsequent to a trial about the soundness of the conviction.
Lord Justice Watkins, when he was considering the Bentley case—which is back today before the Court of Appeal—in 1994 (QB at 365) said:
"The prerogative is a flexible power and its exercise should be adapted to meet the circumstances of the particular case. We would adopt the language of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand….'the prerogative of mercy can no longer be regarded as no more than an arbitrary monarchial right of grace and favour'. It is now a constitutional safeguard against mistakes".
Here, the Address is aimed not necessarily at a free pardon: Her Majesty is asked to exercise the prerogative of mercy:
"to release Guardsmen Fisher and Wright from mandatory life imprisonment in exceptional circumstances".
It is to ask for a remission of their sentence. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, inquired as to the constitutional position. The exercise of the prerogative has, by convention, rested with the Secretary of State since the accession of Queen Victoria in 1837 because, as Fenton Bresler once put it, she was regarded as both too young and of the wrong sex to preside over a "hanging" cabinet.
Perhaps I may therefore draw the Secretary of State's attention to the George Davis case in 1976 when, as noble Lords will remember, a long public campaign went on. The then Home Secretary, my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, as he now is, decisively exercised the power of prerogative. He said:
"I do not have evidence of Mr. Davis' innocence to justify my recommending a free pardon. I have considered whether I should refer the case to the Court of Appeal … But this would be a lengthy process and it is not at present clear that all the relevant material now before me could be considered by the court. My conclusions about the shift in the balance of evidence in the case are such that it would not be right for Mr. Davis to remain in prison any longer. I have therefore decided to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative to remit the remainder of Mr. Davis' sentence. He is being released today".
When later questioned about whether that created a precedent he said:
"I always look extremely carefully at all individual cases … I am sure my hon. Friend and the House will appreciate, it is important that one should proceed in these matters with expedition and decisiveness when one is convinced that it is right to do so. One should not get in to the position of not being able to do what is right in a particular case because to do so would mean having to act in the same manner in a number of cases which may be far less strong".— [Official Report, Commons, 11/5/76; cols. 230–33.]
So the question of precedent is not something that should hold back the Secretary of State.
There is an overwhelming case for saying that the full truth did not come out at this trial due to the selectivity of witnesses called by the prosecution. But, irrespective of that, it is manifestly unjust that those two guardsmen should remain any longer in prison.
Much concern is exercised for the sensitivities of the Protestant and Catholic communities in Northern Ireland. They are to get—perhaps rather more quickly
666
than public opinion in England, Wales and Scotland might allow—their unique and novel machinery for remission. The basic sense of justice and fair play which moves the people on this side of the water should equally move the Secretary of State to release these men, not, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, after ponderous review but tomorrow.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, in this harrowing matter it is important to keep distinct two issues: the safety of the conviction and the speed of release. The affidavits have revealed incompatibilities and inconsistencies in the evidence; and your Lordships have referred to many of those today. These matters are now before the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and in time it will report to the Court of Appeal. Unfortunately, until its report reaches the Court of Appeal there will be no opportunity of bail for the guardsmen. If they are to be released now, we have to consider other mechanisms, one of which is before your Lordships' House this evening; the Royal Prerogative of Mercy.
However, there are three other mechanisms. One is the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill which is due to come on to the statute book at the end of this month. I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that releases are expected from the beginning of September.
Of the two other mechanisms, one is the general power of the Secretary of State, after consultation with the trial court and the Lord Chief Justice, to release those who have been convicted of a life sentence. Finally, there is the regular reporting of the Life Sentences Review Board. So we have four ways in which release can be manifested now. Each one of those is a decision for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
What has the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said about the way in which the Secretary of State is confronting that decision? It is revealed in the debates of 6th and 16th July. We understand that the Secretary of State is not confining herself to any one of those procedures but is looking at substantive matters which underlie all four: the court decision; the affidavits; the decision of the review body; listening to what your Lordships have said; and considering wider issues as well.
In the debate on 16th July, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that he expected the Secretary of State to complete her consideration by the end of August. In the Opposition's submission, the end of August is far too close to the beginning of September when the first releases are expected under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill.
Let us consider the dilemma that those guardsmen faced—a dilemma which is not new to British servicemen. It is a tightrope. If one disobeyed orders, not so long ago one could be shot. If one pulled the trigger in the wrong circumstances one could be hanged. Fortunately, the consequences of getting it wrong are not so drastic as they used to be; but the dilemma is exactly the same.
Let us contrast that with the dilemma—if that is the right word—of the terrorist. The two situations are not morally on the same plane. In Her Majesty's Loyal

667
Opposition's opinion, it would be wholly wrong for the Government to intermingle the release of these men with the releases we expect of former terrorists at the beginning of September.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the test of the Government's moral authority is this. Release the guardsmen now or your moral equivocation will be plain for all to see.
8.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I should like to add my voice to those of the other noble Lords in complimenting the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, on securing this further debate on the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright.
I also acknowledge the assiduous efforts that the noble Lord continues to make on behalf of these two men. He has spoken with great feeling, but has not allowed this to cloud his judgment and has argued in measured and considered terms. I congratulate him on that.
I have listened carefully to all that has been said, and I thank other noble Lords who have contributed their views. They too have spoken with great strength of feeling because of the seriousness with which they regard the issue.
Perhaps I may deal with a number of specific questions before I turn to the brunt of the argument I wish to put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked what evidence was produced in court, a question implicitly asked by other noble Lords. He also asked some details about the prosecution case. The decision whether to prosecute is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions on the basis of the evidence available. It would be inappropriate for a Member of the Government to pass any comment on the judgment that the Director of Public Prosecutions entered into and the method by which the case was conducted. It is not a matter for the Government.
The noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, asked about the length of time of the Secretary of State's review, to which, by implication the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, also referred. There is no prevarication. Indeed, as I made clear in the Statement to this House on, I believe, 6th July, on behalf of the Secretary of State, she indicated that she was speeding up her consideration of the case. The Secretary of State had previously suggested that she would wait until the October deadline, as indicated by her review last year of the case put forward by the Life Sentence Review Board. The Life Sentence Review Board was going to consider the matter again in October. But in the meantime the Secretary of State was going to advance her consideration of the case. That was the announcement I made. Given the complexity of the evidence, and given that the Secretary of State also has to refer the matter to the Lord Chief Justice and the judge who presided when
668
the case was first heard, these matters take a little time. However, I assure noble Lords that there is no question of any prevarication on the part of the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested, as did other noble Lords, that it would be wrong for the Secretary of State to make a decision at about the same time of the first releases under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, assuming that Parliament agrees to pass the Bill. I was not suggesting that there was a relationship between the two decisions. I was answering questions about the likely timetable as regards the Secretary of State's consideration of the case of the two guardsmen; and the timetable as regards the sentences review board commissioners' releases.
This House has debated the matter on a number of occasions. On the first or second occasion I was asked whether the fact that there was to be a Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill about early release would delay any decision about the two guardsmen. At that point I indicated that the guardsmen would have the right under the sentences Bill procedure to apply for their case to be considered. I was not suggesting that there was any comparison between their situation and that of terrorists. I was simply answering a question.
In subsequent debates I was again asked about the different procedures open to the guardsmen. There is no sense in which the Government are saying that there is a parallel between the two guardsmen and what will happen to terrorists under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. I seek to make that distinction because the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested that there was some overlap in the Government's mind. There is clearly no overlap, but the timetables relate to the situations that I have described. If they happen to overlap within a month of each other, it is because the Secretary of State does not wish to delay her process; and under the sentences Bill the commissioners will also have to make their decisions as regards their priorities and timetable.
Perhaps I may return to the substance of the debate. The Motion set down by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, moves,
"That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty should exercise the Prerogative of Mercy to release Guardsmen Fisher and Wright from mandatory life imprisonment in exceptional circumstances as other available mechanisms would unduly delay their release".
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his clear exposition of the history of this prerogative and the circumstances in which it has been used.
Perhaps I may say at the outset, that I do not intend to oppose the Motion presently before this House. However, for reasons which the House will readily understand, I and other Ministers shall abstain in the unlikely event that the issue comes to a Division. There are, however, some points which I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention.
The exercise of mercy by the Crown dates from the Middle Ages. Until the 18th century, the issue remained a matter for the personal decision of the Sovereign. By the mid-19th century, however, the convention had

669
developed that the prerogative would be exercised on the advice of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State. Such advice must, of course, be provided with the greatest conscience and good care.
The prerogative is used in respect of criminal convictions and generally only where it is impractical to refer the case to an appellate court, and where there is new evidence which has not been before the courts and which demonstrates conclusively that no offence was committed, or that the defendant did not commit the crime. I have in mind, for example, a case in which there is new hearsay evidence which is absolutely compelling, but which would be inadmissible in court.
Turning to the specific question of the possible exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy in the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright, I would stress that very full rights exist for an individual aggrieved by his conviction, or sentence after trial on indictment. The right, however, to petition for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy is in addition to the normal right of appeal to a superior court and the fact that a person has not exercised his right of appeal is no bar to the consideration of a petition.
The Royal Prerogative of Mercy is not, however, a means of duplicating the ordinary machinery of appeal and save in genuinely exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and indeed the Home Secretary for cases within his jurisdiction, would normally expect a prisoner to use that machinery to the full.
The special circumstances in which it may be appropriate to entertain exceptionally an application for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, notwithstanding that some avenue of appeal may still be open to the applicant, are not to be determined by a rigid rule; each case must be considered on its own merits.
Lord Renwick of Clifton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. We are united in all parts of this House in wanting to see the earliest possible release of these Guardsmen. However, when the Address, which I and almost everyone else supports, is presented to Her Majesty, as the Minister and others have said, she will seek the advice of the Secretary of State who is conducting her own review of the matter.
In passing on to the Secretary of State the apparently unanimous view of Members of this House, will the Minister point out that this House contains many distinguished jurists and, so far as I am aware, not one has risen to defend the continued imprisonment of these Guardsmen?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what he has said. I shall ensure that the attention of the Secretary of State is drawn to the whole debate; to all the points that have been made; and to the fact that many noble Lords have a great deal of legal knowledge and experience and many have direct experience of serving in the Army on the streets of Northern Ireland. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State is aware of the body of knowledge and experience that has been brought to bear and the views that have been expressed.
670
I return to the argument. In the guardsmen's cases most, but not all, of the domestic avenues of appeal have been exhausted. The guardsmen's application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused on 6th March 1996. There still remains open to them, however, the ability to make an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, to which I have already referred in the debate in this House on 23rd June. This, of course, is a matter for the guardsmen to consider in consultation with their legal advisers.
As your Lordships' House will be aware, the Royal Prerogative of Mercy is generally exercised by the Sovereign in certain ways only: first, the grant of a free pardon, (that is, an unconditional pardon); secondly, the grant of a conditional pardon, whereby the penalty is removed, on condition that a lesser sentence, or penalty, is substituted; and, thirdly, the remission, or partial remission, of a penalty.
Given all that the noble Lords have said tonight, I assume that the noble Lord's petition seeks exercise of the Royal Prerogative in the last mentioned form, as a means of securing the guardsmen's release from prison, in the hope that an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission will secure through the courts the quashing of their convictions.
As I have advised noble Lords in previous debates on these cases, the position from which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I must approach these cases is that the guardsmen have been convicted of murder in accordance with the law.
These convictions arose from an incident while the guardsmen were on patrol in Belfast. The incident was carefully and thoroughly considered by the prosecuting authorities and then independently adjudicated upon by the courts. The courts held that the guardsmen had no lawful justification for firing at Peter McBride. I appreciate that many noble Lords have elaborated on the evidence and on the further evidence that has come to light as a result of the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. Therefore, I appreciate that there are views which go further than the decisions of the court.
The Motion before us this evening states that "other available mechanisms would unduly delay" the release of the guardsmen. However, I must, with all due respect to this House, point out that at present there are several possible avenues open to these particular prisoners through which release is a possibility. In respect of matters which fall to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, no decision has been made but, as I informed this House last Thursday, my right honourable friend would hope to announce her decision in the latter part of August.
For the benefit of the House, I will set out the various avenues by which the cases of the guardsmen can, or will, be considered for possible release in the weeks and months ahead. I cannot of course prejudge the outcome of any or all of these possible avenues, nor should anything that I say be seen in any way to prejudice any of those possible outcomes. These avenues fall into two

671
categories. I appreciate that some noble Lords have mentioned them, but it is right that the Government's attitude to them should be made clear.
Those in the first category are already active. They are the current consideration of the guardsmen's cases by the Secretary of State in light of correspondence from their solicitors, and the consideration of their cases by the Life Sentence Review Board in October this year.
My right honourable friend's consideration, as I have already indicated, will take a few weeks in view of the need to ensure a careful and thorough consideration of the considerable volume of paperwork involved in the cases.
With regard to the Life Sentence Review Board, preparation of the fresh reports required for the board's second consideration of the cases commenced. The guardsmen have been advised of this in writing. They, and their legal advisors, will be invited to make representations.
The second category of procedures available to the guardsmen are applications to the proposed sentence review commission, and applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, subject to discussion with their legal advisors. The timing surrounding the sentence review commission is subject to the wishes of Parliament, and subsequently a matter for consideration by the proposed commission in light of an application from the guardsmen.
In summary, therefore, two means of obtaining the guardsmen's release from custody are already under active consideration. Of the other two means, one is already available and the second will shortly become so, should the guardsmen choose to take the opportunity to make representations.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Which powers did the Secretary of State use when she released IRA terrorists to campaign for a "yes" vote in the referendum?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my understanding is that they were not released permanently. Those were temporary release powers which she already has. In one case, release was on compassionate grounds; in other cases it was for the specific reasons to which the noble Lord has referred.
I have listened carefully to the views that have been expressed and I sense the opinion of this House. I am fully aware of the strong and sincere feelings which have been expressed. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State is made fully aware of the whole debate and the feelings that have been expressed. As I indicated, the Government do not intend to oppose the Motion.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I shall be brief. I must be allowed to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his humane and sensitive handling of this truly unfortunate affair. No noble Lord has spoken in opposition to the Motion. With the leave of
672
the House, it is not profitable to discuss for the third time today the amendment of my noble friend Lord Tebbit; I should prefer to deal with it on Wednesday if it were tabled again.
I seek the common sense, composite wisdom of your Lordships' House which reposes with the Cross-Benchers and the Back-Benchers. I commend acceptance of the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that the Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

National Minimum Wage Bill
8.50 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 11.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 40, leave out ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 30 to 34. The mandatory sentence for anyone convicted of murder is life imprisonment. I do not know of any other penalty where the judge does not have some sort of discretion, even if it is only the power to take into account "special reasons" for offences like the road traffic offences. However, if I am mistaken and there are others, there are enough lawyers in this House whom I am sure will correct me on the point.
There are to be just two offences for which the judge has no discretion to take into account mitigating factors, extenuating circumstances or even the financial ability of the offender to pay the fine. One of those offences is murder; the other is thwarting the ambitions of the trade unions. In simple terms, the clause as drawn gives the employment tribunal absolutely no discretion whatever as to the penalty to be imposed on an employer who fails to produce records or to accord an employee his rights under Clause 10. The combined effect of the amendments is to do just that.
To give the employment tribunal some discretion, the combined effect of the amendments would make Clause 11(2) read as follows:
"Where an employment tribunal finds a complaint under this section well-founded, the tribunal shall make a declaration to that effect and may make an award that the employer pay the worker such sum not exceeding 80 times the hourly amount of the national minimum wage (as in force when the award is made) as it considers just and equitable having regard to the employer's default".
If the owner of the struggling corner mini-market objects to the presence of the minder that the employee chooses to bring into his shop, then its owner is to be fined 80 times the national minimum wage—that is, £288—until the national minimum wage is increased, which I am sure it inevitably will be. Never mind that, due to the owner's lack of command of the English language, he did not understand the employee's rights under Clause 10(9)(b), and never mind that a fine of

673
£288 means that the owner cannot meet his cash-on delivery commitments for stock, and loses a vast and probably ruinous amount of trade as a result.
At the same time as this happens, International Conglomerate plc fails to give access to the records of one of its employees within 14 days due to some bureaucratic blunder. It, too, is fined £288—that is less than it spends on paper clips in a year and less than it spends on flowers for the director's dining room in a month. Two offences committed inadvertently—but offences nonetheless—with vastly different financial consequences to the employers. At the same time, the owner of a sweat shop is caught paying a pittance in cash, with no records kept, to the illegal immigrants he employs under the threat of reporting their presence to the authorities if they complain. As no records can be produced, the employer is in breach of Clause 10(1)(b). For deliberately flouting the Act, this unscrupulous employer will be fined the same amount for each offence; namely, £288.
When we considered these amendments in Committee on 15th June, the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General explained that the reason why the Government did not want to give the employment tribunal any discretion was because the provision would,
"enable cases to be handled much more swiftly and effectively in a tribunal, there will be no need for the tribunal to spend time considering specific amounts".—[Official Report, 15/6/98; col. 1412.]
I see that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General was admitted to the Bar in 1974, long after the demise of the old Bow County Court. One of the many no doubt apocryphal stories told about that court was the occasion when a barrister arrived five minutes late and discovered that his case had been heard without him. When he complained, the usher said, "Well, you see Sir, we dispense with justice very quickly in this court." That is what the Government are saying should happen in these cases: in the interest of administrative expediency, employment tribunals should dispense with justice. How many cases are the government expecting anyway?
I spent 20 years as an active magistrate. No matter how long our list, we always felt it our duty to consider the penalty no less carefully than whether or not the defendant was guilty. A few extra minutes, sometimes less, is no burden to those exercising a judicial function. The Government are saying that, in the case of the inadvertent failure to produce a single sheet of paper or a delay perhaps caused by the illness of the one-man owner of a small business, there should be no mitigation of the penalty. The Government are saying that, contrary to the criminal law, the means of the defendant to pay a fine are not to be taken into account. The Act deprives the tribunal, exercising a judicial function, of any discretion to show mercy in appropriate cases—all in the interests of expediency, and a few minutes of its time.
In passing, I should just like to mention Amendment No. 43 relating to Clause 19, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Of course we welcome any provision that will allow an employment tribunal to correct a mistake. We shall not object to that amendment
674
when it is called. The pity is that the Government have not seen fit to frame the Bill so as to enable tribunals to avoid a different error altogether; namely, the error of committing an injustice because of a lack of discretion over the penalties.
The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General holds one of the most senior offices in our judicial system. He needs no permission from the Secretary of State to concede the point that I am making. On the contrary, it is the Secretary of State who, constitutionally, must be guided by his advice. The House of Lords is the highest court in the country. We cannot—we must not—send out a signal that justice is something that can be dispensed with in the interests of expediency. I urge the noble and learned Lord to use the discretion that he undoubtedly has and here and now agree to accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we had a full debate on these identical amendments in Committee. In the meantime, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis has written to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in response to particular points which he raised during that debate. I believe that a copy of that letter has been placed in the Library of the House.
I believe that I set out fully and clearly in that debate the Government's position on the making of awards under Clause 11. However, perhaps I may briefly go over the ground again just to indicate the Government's thinking on the matter. The amendments to Clause 11 require a change of wording from "shall" to "may". This is essentially a procedural clause. It concerns the failure of an employer to allow access to records, and the awards that can be made by employment tribunals in that event, as well as the period for bringing a complaint.
All the amendments in the group are directed towards that clause. As the noble Baroness rightly said, their overall effect would be to allow a tribunal to be more lenient to an employer who had not complied with his obligations to allow access to records under Clause 10. Indeed, the amendments would have that effect or would be ancillary to it.
Amendment No. 32 takes the proposed discretionary power a step further in that it gives the tribunal the option of awarding less than the full amount (which is currently set at 80 times the national minimum wage rate) to the worker, to be paid by the employer. Amendment No. 33 is linked with the discretionary notion as it would give the tribunal the right to consider what is a just and equitable award.
The noble Baroness is characteristic with her style. She makes this right to award 80 times the national minimum wage if somebody fails to comply with an order to produce documents appear parallel to the charge of murder. She says that it is similar in that respect and that it is the only offence in the country, apart from murder, where there is a fixed penalty. Perhaps I may make three points in that respect. The noble Baroness's argument is well put. However, I would submit that it is somewhat disproportionate. First, this is not a criminal sanction; it is a civil sanction for failure to comply with

675
what we all agree is a necessary procedural right in relation to the minimum wage. Secondly, it is most certainly not alone in the way that such rights are enforced. By way of an example, I should point out to the House that there is a right to each employee to be told the reasons for his dismissal. If he is not given the reasons, then, assuming that the tribunal found the complaint well founded and all the procedural grounds had been gone through, it must award two weeks' pay to the employee. Again, that is a fixed amount. That is an incredibly sensible way of dealing with this kind of problem, rather than creating a whole series of discretionary matters which will be argued before employment tribunals. Far from being good for an employer, that would be bad. There would be some merit in what the noble Baroness had said if an unsensible or disproportionate amount had been prescribed for not complying, but with regard to the proposed present minimum wage the amount is £288. I appreciate that may be a significant sum for some people, but their remedy to avoid paying that sum is to comply with their obligations under the law.
The noble Baroness gave two examples of where that may cause problems. The first concerned a situation where—as she put it—an employee might introduce a "minder" into a shop whom the employer does not like. I think I responded to that point when I responded to the previous amendment. Secondly, there is the matter of someone who is unable to produce records within 14 days. A judgment has to be made about how long it takes to produce records. We take the view that most people—particularly small employers—will be able to produce wage records within 14 days if they have only one or two employees. Frankly, that seems a perfectly reasonable period of time within which to do that.
One can choose to impose an easy, sensible remedy which is easily obtained in the industrial tribunal and which is not disproportionately severe or, as the noble Baroness would have it, a remedy in an industrial tribunal dependent on submissions by both sides which would involve greater legal complexity and arguments before the tribunal. I think we have the balance right. We have indicated the importance of not complying but our remedy is not disproportionate and it is quick. Although we have considered carefully the proposals that have been made by the noble Baroness, in our view we have the balance right. I believe the more one thinks about it the more one recognises that. I hope that, in the light of the explanation I have given, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
9 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, perhaps when I read the noble and learned Lord's explanation in detail I may agree with him. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 34 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Appointment of officers]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page 10, line 2, after first ("any") insert ("Minister of the Crown or").
Page 10, line 3, at end insert ("Minister,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendments Nos. 35 and 36, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 38, 40 and 41. These linked amendments are essentially technical. They are designed to maintain the status quo of the enforcement arrangements envisaged in the Bill. I have written to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, with a detailed explanation of the amendments. There may be some points I have not covered in writing, in which case an explanation or a letter will be placed in the Library. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 15 [Information obtained by officers]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 11, line 36, at end insert—
("(6A) Subsection (2) above does not affect the title or rights of—

(a) any person whose property the information was immediately before it was obtained as mentioned in subsection (1) above; or

(b) any person claiming title or rights through or under such a person otherwise than by virtue of any power conferred by or under this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 37, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 39, 42, 64, 65 and 67. The purpose of these amendments is essentially to clarify the situation. They are being proposed to avoid any doubt and inconsistency as to who holds information for the purposes of the information exchange provisions of the Bill. What I had to say before applies equally in relation to the letter and/or the explanation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 11, line 37, after ("any") insert ("Minister of the Crown who, or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Information obtained by agricultural wages officers]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 11, leave out line 42.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 42:
Page 12, line 2, after ("any") insert ("Minister of the Crown,").
Page 12, line 3, after ("that") insert ("Minister,").
Page 12, line 27, at end insert—
("(bb) in relation to information obtained by an officer acting in an area which is partly in England and partly in Wales, the Ministers mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) above acting jointly;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Power of officer to issue enforcement notice]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 14, line 21, at end insert—
("(9) The powers of an employment tribunal in allowing an appeal in a case where subsection (8) above applies shall include power to rectify, as the tribunal may consider appropriate in consequence of its decision on the appeal, any penalty notice which has been served under section 21 below in respect of the enforcement notice.
(10) Where a penalty notice is rectified under subsection (9) above, it shall have effect as if it had originally been served as so rectified.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to cut unnecessary red tape and prevent enforcement from being potentially weakened in a specific area. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 44:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
PROVISIONS OF INSOLVENCY ACT 1986 AND BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) ACT 1985: FAILURE TO PAY NATIONAL MINIMUM WAGE
(" . The failure of an employer to pay any wages at all as required under a contract of employment or a contract for services shall not be treated for the purposes of this Act as a failure to pay the national minimum wage when such failure is due to the operation against the employer of any of the provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 or the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 or the corresponding bankruptcy and insolvency legislation in force in Northern Ireland and no enforcement procedures under sections 17 to 22 of this Act shall be undertaken in such cases.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I return to this amendment which I moved in Committee because the Government have not met the case that I advanced on 15th June. I must say at the outset that I accept the blame for this because on re-reading the wording of my original amendment I feel that it did not make my point sufficiently clearly, although I thought it did when I spoke. I therefore propose a revised amendment which I believe fully meets the Government's objection. I regret that I have been unable to specify precisely the primary legislation affecting Northern Ireland but I do not have the research facilities available to the Government. That can no doubt be rectified on Third Reading.
In presenting my amendment on a previous occasion, I said that this was not a device to enable an employer to escape paying the national minimum wage by the simple expedient of not paying any wages at all. This was to cover the situation where an employer becomes bankrupt or goes into liquidation or receivership and is unable to pay the wages due to the staff. The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General proceeded to demolish the case for an employer saying, as it were, "Look, we are a bit short of money at the moment. Do you mind not being paid anything at all for the next few weeks?" That was the case that I had expressly said I was definitely not putting forward. The Minister began the passage I just quoted by saying:
"Putting aside a case of bankruptcy or liquidation".
678
But that was exactly the case I asked to be covered. The fact that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General acknowledged that bankruptcy and liquidation were a separate case makes the case for this amendment.
Clause 31(8) of the Bill provides a partial but slightly ambiguous defence by an insolvent employer from the criminal sanctions constituted by Clause 31(1). This amendment makes the position absolutely clear: an employer who is already suffering the misfortune of insolvency is not only absolved from criminal prosecution but from the other sanctions and penalties provided for in Clauses 17 to 22. The Solicitor-General has already recognised that that situation is a special case. All I ask is for the Government to put a statutory seal on it. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the purpose of the amendment. It is worth making a general point first about the operation of bankruptcy and insolvency law. Its purpose is not to penalise the employer or anyone else, as the amendment would seem to suggest. Instead, I regard that legislation as providing a systematic means of sorting out a financial mess that has inevitably arisen. That must be in the interests of everyone concerned.
If the amendment is intended to highlight the position of the Crown as a preferential creditor of an insolvent business, capable of emptying the pot before employees can get their hands on any remaining assets, I have to say that that is not my understanding of how the process works.
I am advised that preferential creditors do not rank ahead of each other in that way. In other words, if there are £500 of assets to distribute and £5,000 worth of preferential claims, each preferential creditor gets 10p in the pound—whether that creditor is the Crown or an employee in respect of pay. So the somewhat alarmist scenario envisaged by the noble Baroness in Committee, along the lines that the Government could take all the money and prosecute the employer for failure to pay the national minimum wage, seems to be based on a misapprehension of the way in which bankruptcy and insolvency law operates. The scenario to which I have referred was suggested by the noble Baroness in Committee. The way in which she presented this amendment indicates that it is designed to cover the situation to which I referred then.
In any event, it is highly unlikely that a genuinely insolvent company or bankrupt employer would be subject to criminal prosecution for failure to pay the minimum wage if he had first postponed other payment obligations not involving a criminal offence and was still unable to pay the minimum wage due to financial collapse. Where he does have sufficient money, however, it seems only right that he should use that to pay the minimum wage rather than to discharge other civil debts. Clearly, a position in which employers were entitled to postpone payment of the minimum wage to their lowest paid workers before postponing payment of purely civil obligations would be unacceptable.

679
The criminal offence which the Bill creates in that respect is the refusal or wilful neglect to pay the minimum wage. Clearly, the surrounding circumstances would be taken into account in deciding whether there should be a prosecution in any particular case. Again, referring to what was said in Committee, I do not believe that over-zealous officials would or could take advantage of the situation. Such officers will in any event be working to the remit provided by the Secretary of State.
The wider question is how a worker can secure any outstanding payments owed to him by the business which is unable to pay him irrespective of the minimum wage legislation. In that event our concern is to ensure that the worker receives his money, not to punish the insolvent employer.
There are already mechanisms in place for such payments to be made to workers where a company is unable to meet its obligations. The Department of Trade and Industry's redundancy payments service can make certain payments to the former employees of insolvent employers under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The question of whether a worker has received the national minimum wage therefore becomes subsumed in the larger question: has he received his wages at all? If it transpired that the wages owed were actually lower than the minimum required because the employer had been breaking the law, the redundancy payments service would pay the minimum wage to which the worker was entitled.
I appreciate that the explanation I have given is rather dense in the sense that it relates to provisions under insolvency and bankruptcy law. I do not think that anybody, whatever the time of day, could have taken it in at one shot. However, I believe that I have dealt with the points that the noble Baroness legitimately raised. I could not reasonably expect the noble Baroness, or anybody, to take all of my reply in at the speed at which I delivered it. I suggest that the noble Baroness reads my reply in Hansard. She will then realise that there is no need to pursue the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for saying that his explanation was rather dense. I began to think that perhaps I was rather dense. I shall read it very carefully. I shall certainly take his advice. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [The right not to suffer detriment]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 16, line 40, after ("will") insert ("or might").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if we also consider Amendments Nos. 46 and 47. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that there is no loophole in protection against dismissal or detrimental action for workers and employees who would be entitled to the full rate of the national minimum wage or who were about to qualify for a higher rate, even when no rate has
680
yet been set in the months following commencement of these clauses. These are technical matters. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed: Great Britain]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 18, line 27, after ("will") insert ("or might").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 [Right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed: Northern Ireland]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 19, line 36, after ("will") insert ("or might")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Reversal of burden of proof]:
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 21, line 6, leave out ("qualifies or, as the case may be, qualified") and insert ("does not qualify or did not qualify").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 48, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 49 and 50. This little clause, tucked away half-way through the Bill, involves a matter of major constitutional importance. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General will not get very upset about that and tell me that the House will get upset about it. As I pointed out to him, the Government will be bringing in much more major constitutional issues.
The marginal note to Clause 28 describes it as providing for the,
"Reversal of burden of proof',
a frank admission that the Government, contrary to the safeguards long since established by our courts and the common law, are requiring the defendant to claim to prove his innocence.
How do the Government seek to justify this? Let me again remind your Lordships of the flamboyant language used by the Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry in Committee in the other place. He said:
"For far too long, low-paid workers, who have little or no representation, have found it almost impossible to do anything about their employment status or to gain access to basic minimum rights in the labour market".
Later he said:
"I am putting the case not only for the Government but for millions of workers who, over the years, have not had the opportunity to make their voices heard".
I see that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General is nodding his head. I am surprised. I did not think that he would agree with those comments, put in exactly that way. But there we are; we live and learn. I believe that that was a remarkable piece of rhetoric from a warrior in the class war, riding to the rescue of the huddled masses of the oppressed proletariat with which he imagines the country abounds.

681
That is why I did not think that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General would agree with the words from the other place.
This piece of nonsense clearly demonstrates the mind-set that afflicts the Government. This clause is nothing less than an attempt by the Government—freely admitted by the Minister in the passages that I have just quoted—not to create a level playing field in what, after all, amounts to a civil piece of litigation about a civil dispute but to make the employer face an uphill struggle. Not that I have ever heard of a downhill struggle. It is an uphill struggle in which the employer is required to do the almost impossible: to prove a negative.
What is the justification for that? Again, let me quote the Minister of State in the other place. At 2.30 in the morning he asked the Committee:
"Where does this information come from … Who maintains records about national insurance contributions and pay-as-you-earn issues? … Who maintains the record of hours worked by the employees?"—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D, 29/1/98; col. 649.]
Hardly pausing for breath—rather like me at this stage of the evening—he triumphantly answered himself, "The employer does". Five out of 10. But the employee knows what he has been paid; the employee knows how many hours he has worked.
More than that, Clause 12 of the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring the employer to provide the employee with detailed information, including, quoting the words of Clause 12(2)(b):
"prescribed information for the purpose of assisting the worker to determine whether he has been remunerated at a rate at least equal to the national minimum wage during the period to which the payment of remuneration relates".
Surely the Minister of State should have known that this provision was in the Bill.
The reality is that this Bill will not impinge on the large commercial concerns, which probably are already paying the national minimum wage; or, if they are not, will easily do so by simply putting a penny or two on the price of a loaf of bread, a gallon of petrol or whatever their product is. No, it will most affect the little corner shop. Often that shop is owned by people who arrived in this country penniless, fleeing from more real oppression than the Minister of State in the other place could ever conceive of. It will most affect the corner shop, the petrol station, the local hairdresser's, the flower shop and manufacturing businesses, which are the ones which provide a huge number of jobs; the little shops and small manufacturing businesses which are pestered with the over-zealous enforcement of petty regulations emanating from Brussels, while their continental counterparts disregard them with impunity because their governments do not take them seriously.
Apart from the data supplied by his employer in accordance with the Bill, and which the employee only has to read to get all the information he needs, rights are granted by Clause 10 to see what is in the employer's records as to wages paid, hours worked, and so on. The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General gave them to me again at great length. That disposes of the Government's argument that the common law right
682
of the owner to have any case against him positively proved and not to have to prove his innocence is due to the fact that the employer is in some sort of dominant position. I believe that, if anything, the reverse is the case. The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General is either nodding or shaking. It must be very difficult for him. He is wincing; that is something new.
At the Committee stage I tried to explain the problems of an employer in having to prove a negative: that he had not failed to pay the national minimum wage. How could he do such a thing when, in the case of a small business, there were probably no computer records; when, in common with most employers, wages would be paid in cash; when requiring a receipt each pay day was not a practical probability; and when an employee could reasonably be expected to protest vigorously and immediately if the payslip which the Bill will require to be given to him does not correspond to the cash that he receives in his hand?
What was the Government's response to what the Solicitor-General was kind enough to describe as my "eloquent and effective speech"? I see that the noble and learned Lord remembers that phrase well. Eloquent it undoubtedly was; but effective it clearly was not. The Government absolutely refused to budge one single iota.
What was the Solicitor-General's explanation for that obduracy? He prayed in aid the Industrial Relations Act 1971 which he pointed out had been introduced by a former Conservative administration. He did not mention that that Act, which he now endorses, had been fought tooth and nail by the Labour Party. But perhaps that is what always happens when parties get into government.
It is with considerable trepidation that I stand here about to argue a point of law with one of the two distinguished Law Officers in the Government. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is, after all, a QC, when in fact I must confess that I never even finished eating my dinners in Middle Temple—something which I now very much regret.
However, I have to say, with the greatest respect, that his analogy is not a correct one. Under the Industrial Relations Act 1971 and the Acts which succeeded it, culminating with Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, an employee has the right not to be unfairly dismissed. The noble and learned Lord actually mentioned that earlier this evening.
Under Section 92, the employee has the right to receive a written statement of the reasons for his dismissal. The written statement, or indeed reasons given verbally, constitute an allegation of facts which the employer, as the person making the allegation, has to prove. What point will there be in the employee going to the Employment Tribunal and saying "I was dismissed unreasonably. There were no facts which justified it."? Full stop. Where would the case go from there if the employer had previously had to justify and prove his case?
Of course the employer, as instigator of the act of dismissal, and the one contending that it is justified, has the responsibility of proving the facts on which he is relying. That is exactly the same situation as applies under the present Bill. The employee is alleging that

683
he did not receive the national minimum wage, whether because of a simple underpayment or an unauthorised deduction. Therefore it is up to him to prove it.
The Minister conjured up a picture of employees,
"in a moderately vulnerable position. Many of them may be isolated from other workers".
However, they will not be isolated by the time they have called in the assistance of the enforcement officer, and the minder that Clause 10 permits to assist him in the invasion of his employer's premises—perhaps I should not use the word "invasion"; I know the Minister does not like it; I can substitute the word "entry"—pursuant to Clause 10(8)(a) of this Bill.
Then the noble and learned Lord called in aid the touching picture of this wretched downtrodden employee,
"sometimes not very well able to express themselves in English".—[Official Report, 15/6/98; col. 1428.]
However, many of the small businesses we constantly talk about in connection with this Bill—the corner shops—are owned by people who work hard, long hours, often harder and longer than their employees, who also have English as their second language.
That is the problem with both this whole Bill and the Government's attitude to any suggested amendments, however reasonable. The Government are still motivated by the thinking of old Labour. It is them and us; workers on one side, employers on the other. And the workers are always right.
The workers rights to receive the national minimum wage are fully protected under this Bill. They do not need to be added to by depriving the employer of an elementary historical right to have any case against him proved before he has to answer it. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, earlier in the evening, I understood the noble Baroness to accept that records should be kept by employers. I understood her to disagree with us as to whether it was right that a particular form of records should be on the face of the Bill, but I understood her enthusiastically to accept the proposition that all employers, whether employers in a corner shop or ICI, should keep records. That explodes the whole of her case in relation to Clause 28.
As she rightly acknowledged, Clause 28 states that the burden of proof in showing, first, that someone is an employee or a worker entitled to be paid the minimum wage and, secondly, whether an employee or worker had been paid the minimum wage, is on the employer. That is an important element of the Bill and more generally of the Government's enforcement strategy in relation to the Bill. The Bill extends the right to the minimum wage to workers whose employment status might often be unclear. I have in mind particularly homeworkers and agency workers. Such workers are often in low paid categories. In other words, they are among the workers whom the Bill is designed particularly to help. Often they may be working without any explicit workers' contract. Frequently they may be working on their own or without any access to representation. If such vulnerable workers believe that they have not received
684
the national minimum wage, without Clause 28 the position would be that they would have to prove, first, that they are workers for the purposes of the Bill and, secondly, that they have not received the amount of the minimum wage. The effect of Clause 28 is to place this burden on employers, not workers. In any dispute about status, employers will have to show that the individual concerned is not a worker. Similarly, in any dispute about payment, it will be for the employer to show that the minimum wage has been paid.
The noble Baroness gave the example of the small shop. She accepts that the small shop has to keep records of wages. Therefore, on the basis of her position, there is obviously no difficulty about the small shop producing the records of what wages it has paid. The employee may not be in as good a position to know what he or she has been paid. The noble Baroness asks those on her right and on her left, "Why not?", and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asks the same. The reason why not is that very many people do not keep a record of what they are paid. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would keep a record of what she was paid. But I can assure her that large numbers of employees, particularly low paid employees, do not keep a proper record of it. Who would have the record? The answer is the employer; even the small shopkeeper employer. I was asked what is the nature of the arrangement between the employer and the employee and whether there would be any difficulty in the person who owns the small shop explaining to an industrial tribunal what was the nature of the arrangement on which the employee was paid. I would have thought not; whereas, if it was a homeworker or someone like that, there would be considerable difficulties.
To sum up, what the clause achieves is to shift the balance a little towards the vulnerable worker who may otherwise be deterred from taking on a powerful and well advised employer or even a small employer. Underlying it all is the simple principle that those who are entitled to the national minimum wage should not be discouraged from ensuring that they get it. In the past the burden of proof has been to the advantage of employers. It is a strength of this clause and of the Bill as a whole that the burden is being shifted to the advantage of workers in the situations that I have described.
The noble Baroness proved that it was a great and substantial loss to the Middle Temple and to the Bar as a whole that she did not finish eating her dinners, because the argument that she put with such appallingly bad material was so good and so eloquent that she would have had a huge following at the Bar. I say that with sincerity. The simple point is surely this. In the unfair dismissal example, under the 1971 Conservative legislation, what is being said is that the employer is alleged to have committed a wrong—namely, unfairly dismissed someone—but, as everyone recognised, all of the detail in relation to that would in the normal case be more likely to be in the hands of the employer rather than in the hands of the employee. As a sensible, practical matter, therefore, the Conservative Government recognised that it was right to place the burden of proof on the employer. It is exactly that

685
approach which is being followed here. It is nothing to do with infringing a common law principle. It is to do with being sensible and practical and making sure that justice is done in the end.
The arrangements for the Industrial Relations Act 1971 have been repeated and used frequently and successfully over the decades. The party opposite has made no attempt to change the legislation in that respect despite 18 years in power between 1979 and 1997. The effect of the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness is to negate the reversal of the burden of proof and to shift the balance back towards the employer, to a greater or lesser extent. I do not think that I need to go through what each of the amendments does, but they have been dealt with as a matter of principle which is fair enough.
The effect of these amendments is that workers would again be left in a position where an employer could seek to evade his responsibility by claiming that they were self-employed, or they would find that the presumption of non-payment would be subject to actual evidence of non-payment. The effect of this requirement would be to devalue the presumption and negate its benefit to the worker.
For example, an employee has to establish that he has not been paid the minimum wage. The employee has not kept proper records and goes to court and states that he has not been paid the minimum wage. The employer simply says, "prove it", when everyone knows that he has records. That would be a travesty of justice. Vulnerable workers would be less likely to take cases forward and, where they did so, they would be less likely to succeed. I ask the noble Baroness to consider very carefully what I have said and to think about what is practical and what is just. We appreciate the position of the small businessman, but we believe that his position is properly accommodated. Despite the eloquence of her speech, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I say to the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General that I do not accept that the balance is always in favour of the employer because if an employee is claiming that he has not been paid the national minimum wage, how would he know that unless he had some kind of indication as to what he ought to have been paid? It goes both ways. I am glad that the noble and learned Lord thought that I argued a very poor case very well: I thought that I argued a very good case not well enough. However, I shall read what the noble and learned Lord said with great care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
Clause 34 [Agency workers who are not otherwise "workers"]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 24, line 9, leave out from ("principal") to ("and") in line 12.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 52. In listening to the Minister's response at Committee stage, I was quite unable to understand why the Government were objecting to a very simple pair of amendments which neither detracted from the principles of the Bill nor reduced workers' rights, but by simply clarifying the legal position it prevented an injustice being done to an innocent employer. However, I accept that the Minister is finding it difficult ever to assume that there is such an employer. Not that the Government seem to accept the concept of there being such a thing as an innocent employer: they all seem to be unscrupulous and goodness knows what they are trying to do.
At one stage the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General spoke about an unscrupulous employer pretending to be in financial difficulties in order to avoid paying any wages at all. At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, managed to conjure up a scenario of an employer deliberately marrying an employee to avoid paying her the national minimum wage. We are not discussing unscrupulous or devious employers trying to deprive the workers of their legitimate rights. We are not discussing workers of the world who have nothing to lose but their chains. We are not involved in the rhetoric of the class struggle which I thought new Labour had thrown overboard with the rest of the socialist baggage, but it may be that, deep down, it has not.
In this amendment we are trying to see that employees get what they are legitimately entitled to under the Act, but to get it from the person who is responsible for paying them and not from a third party with whom—to use a phrase that the Minister has repeated on numerous occasions—the worker does not have a worker's contract. I believe I have said this before this evening, but one thing than a politician hates is to have his words quoted against him. I remind the Minister what he said in debate at Committee stage as regards the first amendment in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said,
"The Bill makes it manifestly plain that the responsibility for"—
and we were referring to paying the national minimum wage—
"lies with the employer, and there is no alternative to that. The approach of the Bill, just as with other employment law, is based on the relationship between employer and worker".
A few moments later, he said on the subject of tips:
"customers in restaurants are not employers … They have no share in the responsibility to pay the staff the minimum wage".—[Official Report, 11/6/98, col. 1199.]
If the customers of restaurants are not employers, neither are the clients of secretarial agencies. If customers in restaurants have no share in the responsibility to pay the staff, neither do the clients of office cleaning contractors. That is notwithstanding the mental gymnastics by which the Government have changed their stance and reversed their own arguments in the 23 pages of this Bill, between Clause 1 and Clause 34, where we are now.
The Minister argued, contrary to what he said on Clause 1, that the client should be potentially liable even if he was not actually the employer. He said that that

687
was because the Government were concerned that there could be cases where there was a doubt about whether the contract was with the agency or the principal. Indeed, he suggested that,
"Sometimes the existence of a contract is undoubtedly questionable".—[Official Report, 15/6/98; col. 1436].
I do not think that that is right. The existence of a worker's contract can never be in doubt. If A is working for B, that can be only as a result of a contract. However, I shall return to that point in a moment because I do not want to lose the train of my argument.
As I said, the Minister was worried about whether the worker would know with whom he had a contract. On the other hand, I said that there could never be any such doubt. As we both agreed that certainty for the worker was essential on this point, I asked myself how the Minister and I could both look at the same clause, but read it in such different ways. I therefore did what I promised to do when I withdrew the amendment in Committee. I carefully considered and read every single word that the Minister had said. As a result of that reconsideration, I believe that I have discovered the cause of our misunderstanding. The problem is that the Minister is a lawyer and I am not. The problem is the definition of "agency" in subsection (1). The legal concept of an agent is as defined in the Oxford Dictionary as,
"A person who acts for another in business, politics, etc.".
Clearly, that is not the same as what we are considering.
A secondary meaning of "agency", which has crept in recent years, is "a person or a company who provides a specified service". That is the sort of agency about which we are speaking. I refer, for example, to cleaning contractors; catering contractors; those who run works canteens; secretarial agencies; and suppliers of building workers. The people they place with the clients of their agencies are the employees of those agencies, not the employees of the clients. The real test of who is the employer is simple. It is the answer to the question: who actually engaged the worker? The client will usually never have set eyes on the worker before he or she first sets foot on his, the client's, premises. Who is responsible for the PAYE and the national insurance? Does the client pay an ongoing fee to the agency for providing the services of the employee? Can the agency substitute one worker for another if the need arises?
It is simply not credible or feasible that a worker should be engaged by "Cleaners and Dusters International", hand over his P.45 from his former employers and still not know for whom he is working, irrespective of where he was directed to perform his duties. After all, the worker may be sent to several sites in one day. That will tell him that he is not working for the office or site owner, but for the agency. By the very definition contained in Clause 34(1), an "agency worker" is someone who works for an agency and not someone who works for the client.
I refer to the misconception by the draftsman of this clause when he refers in Clause 34(1)(b) to the absence of a worker's contract. As I have just pointed out, in the phrase that I quoted the Minister repeated the same
688
misconception. It is not possible for anyone to be employed by anybody without a contract. If I say to someone, "Come and work for me and I will pay you £x per week" and if he or she says yes, that is a legally binding and enforceable contract. The misconception on the part of both the Government and the draftsman was shared by the late Samuel Goldwyn, who said:
"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on".
Contrary to what the draftsman thinks and, with the greatest respect, contrary to what the Minister said, the existence of the worker's contract does not depend on the existence of a piece of paper—not even the one that the employer is supposed to supply under the Employment Rights Act 1996 in which the essential terms are to be spelled out for the employee.
The use of the words "the principal" in the clause is a misconception. The so-called agency is not engaging the worker to work for what I have called the client; it is employing someone to perform the duties that the agency itself has contracted to perform for the client to clean his office, to supply a temporary typist, to provide a hospital with a nurse, or whatever the case may be. If those duties are not performed, it is the agency that is liable to pay the client damages. The client has nothing whatever to do with the pay or the other terms of employment of the worker. His entire arrangement is with the agency, as I have demonstrated.
There is absolutely no reason why a worker should be in any doubt as to who is his employer. The Government have themselves made that clear in Clause 12 of the Bill. That clause requires an employer to provide a written statement containing "prescribed information relating to this Act". One assumes that that prescribed information includes the name of the employer. That provision completely negates the Minister's argument at an earlier stage that an employee may not know who is his employer. On the basis of the Government's drafting of Clause 12—to say nothing of the Minister's arguments that I have quoted in relation to Amendment No. 1—there is no reason whatever why the client of an agency should be saddled with the responsibility for matters over which he has no control. For that reason these amendments seek to avoid a possible injustice. In this case I do not ask the Government simply to accept the amendment; I expect them to do so. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I intervened to speak to the amendments moved by the noble Baroness at Committee stage. With the massed ranks of my party behind me I should like briefly to speak again to this matter. Having read carefully in Hansard the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I concluded that as to the principle of the clause my fears were largely ungrounded but as to the detail it was unclear that the provision achieved what was sought. At Committee stage the noble Lord said that Clause 34 should represent a belt and braces approach, ensuring that where the position was uncertain—because it was unclear whether there was a contract with either the agency or the principal—such workers should be covered. I applaud that. I agree that either the agent or the principal should be responsible.

689
However, I believe that Clause 34 potentially traps both parties. For example, if in my business I employ a contracting company to install central heating, as Clause 34(1)(a) is written, should that plumber fail to obey the legislation it is possible that liability to ensure the payment of the minimum wage falls upon me as the employer of the contractor. The first matter on which I seek reassurance is whether in those specific circumstances any liability falls upon me as employer. As a sub-question, if in my contract with that plumber I require him to contract that he will obey the legislation, does that provide me with a suitable defence?
I believe that the heart of the Clause 34 is in line 11. Paragraph (b) provides that Clause 34 applies in any case where an individual,
"is not, as respects that work, a worker, because of the absence of a worker's contract between the individual and the agent or the principal".
It is unclear to me whether that deals with the agent or the principal, or both. I believe that if the words "or the principal" are deleted or the word "either" is inserted before reference to the agent or principal the Government will achieve the clarity that they seek.
Secondly, is the position that the Government are seeking to achieve that somebody must be responsible, who will be either the agent or the principal, but that if the principal has taken just cause to ensure that the agent is paying properly, he or she will not be liable simply because the agent has not obeyed the law?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, can I reassure the noble Baroness, who constantly wishes to erect barricades—and I have a sense of understanding as to where she might put herself there—that we certainly have not regarded all employers as unscrupulous. That is nonsensical. After all, employers were involved in the work of the Low Pay Commission—they were involved in the consultation. They do not share the Opposition's sense of foreboding and even malice about the Bill. It is clear that the Government place great importance upon consultation with all sides of industry. That was part and parcel of what we sought to do long before the last election and since. I think that that was unworthy of the noble Baroness. She is often extremely persuasive—albeit wrong—and always entertaining. I hope she will regard that as a compliment.
The noble Baroness said quite rightly that I had referred last time—though I thought I said it was an extreme example—to somebody marrying to avoid the effects of the national minimum wage legislation.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, when the noble Lord raised the matter I could not believe my ears, but I was about to say that maybe, if an employer had two female employees, he might suggest that the employer marries both and so commits bigamy in order not to pay the national minimum wage.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that is on a par with most of the noble Baroness's arguments during the
690
course of this debate. The fact is that I have heard of less good grounds for marriage. Of course, we were dealing somewhat ironically with the situation.
The noble Baroness said that the existence of a contract can never be in doubt. We have employment tribunals which are constantly visited with these problems. They deal with the nature of a contract, the contracting parties, the legality of contracts and so forth. These matters are not always simple; nor can they be reduced to the alleged commonsense simplicity in which the noble Baroness delightfully indulges us from time to time. She even said that I and my noble and learned friend took a rather different view because we are lawyers; that we look at these things in an arcane way almost deliberately. I would remind her, although I do not think she needs reminding, that she is married to a lawyer, and a very nice labour lawyer he is. I take umbrage on his behalf at that particular remark. Of course one would like to be able to deal in these somewhat simplistic ways, but it cannot always work out like that. That is the problem. That is why there is such a burden of case law dealing with employment matters, and this will not be immune to that.
These amendments, and the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, to which I will come later, all relate to Clause 34 dealing with agency workers. It is quite clear that there are some misunderstandings about how the Bill works and the way in which agencies work, and they still remain. What the noble Baroness has argued, in effect, is that the principal, is, as a matter of fact, never the employer. The employer is always the employment agency which supplies the worker. I believe that that is fundamentally wrong. It may be the case in some instances but it is not the case in all instances. The DTI has an entire section devoted to enforcing employment agency standards. I regret to say that there is much case history which shows that sometimes it is not at all easy to determine who is the employer.
In some cases it is clear that it is the principal who is the employer, but not in all instances. We are dealing with the law, perhaps regrettably from the noble Baroness's point of view. There are three parties involved in the arrangements. It is not unusual for there to be more than three. The parties can come up with whatever arrangements suit them. More and more agencies use arrangements where the contract is specifically with the employer and not with the agency.
I want to make clear that there is nothing illegal about that. There are examples in almost every sector of industry. Perhaps I can give an illustration. In the world of the theatre it is often the case that an actor is supplied by an agent but employed by the theatre or film company. It is almost long-established practice. One finds such a situation in many other instances. For the noble Baroness, it is easy to identify the employer at all times, because that is the person who has the contract of employment. With respect, that is a misunderstanding of the clause because the clause does not refer to those with ordinary contracts of employment. Those are the straightforward cases. The clause relates to those agency workers who are not otherwise workers and who cannot be readily identified as being employed by the agent.

691
That is the point I tried to make in earlier debates and the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. The contract cannot be both with the agent and with the principal. It has to be with one or the other.
The majority of agency workers is likely to be covered automatically by the Bill regardless of Clause 34 because they have the status of worker by virtue of a contractual arrangement with the agency or the agency's client whom the Bill identifies as the principal. Most people will be covered by such arrangements. We are talking about a situation where it is difficult to determine the position. There will be grey areas. It is that situation which brings in Clause 34.
I thought that we had explained that point in previous debates. We set it out in the Notes on Clauses. I hope that the noble Baroness will think again about what I have been saying. She was kind enough to say to my noble and learned friend that she will spend all of her working days and working nights reading his words. Perhaps she will do the same with what I have said, but with less emphasis. I referred rightly to Clause 34 being a belt-and-braces clause. I hope that I have dealt with that point. I think that I have covered most of the ground that I wanted to cover in relation to that amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 52. I do not entirely dismiss what the noble Baroness said in relation to it. It is an interesting amendment. It relates to Clause 34(2) which, in the absence of the worker's contract, defines the person with whom the agency worker is to be regarded as having a contract. I went into the matter at some length in Committee. Perhaps I may offer a resumé of those arguments.
Clause 34(2)(a) provides that the contract is regarded as being with either the agent or the principal, depending on which of them is responsible for paying the agency worker. Clause 34(2)(b) provides that, where neither the agent nor the principal is responsible for payment, the contract is to be regarded as being with whichever of them actually pays the agency worker.
The effect of the amendment would be that the agency worker would be regarded as having a "worker's contract" in all cases with the agency in the absence of such a contract or in case of doubt as to the person with whom it was held. Is that the right conclusion that we wish to draw here? It is simple; there is certainly an advantage in simplicity. But it would mean that even where it was understood by all concerned—the agency, the principal, the worker—that the principal will pay the worker, the agency has legal responsibility for paying the worker the national minimum wage. I cannot believe that that is a satisfactory outcome for such a situation.
It is not an easy point, but it is important. There is a growing tendency for some organisations to use agency workers to provide flexibility. Although the use of agency workers provides significant advantages to a client company, the uncertainty of the employment status of the worker can lead to a lack of legal protection. That is what we are concerned about in protecting this aspect of the matter.
692
I said that there was some merit in the noble Baroness's proposal, although I doubt whether all agencies would agree. It would be simpler. It would be easier for agency workers to identify the person from whom they could claim—the agency. It would ensure that agencies could not use the clause as a loophole to put the onus on the client (or principal, in the terms of the Bill) to pay the minimum wage. However, it is difficult to judge the extent of the benefit because it is difficult to determine the likelihood of an agency being able to get away with such a course of action.
I appreciate the importance placed by the noble Baroness on this matter. I do not dismiss it lightly. However, we are of the opinion that the clause as drafted provides a better outcome than the amendment suggested by the noble Baroness. We believe that the amendment would go unnecessarily far by interfering too much in existing arrangements. While, therefore, the amendment would be workable, I do not think that it is as effective as the provision that we have sought to import into the law. If the noble Baroness proposes to read what I have said, I hope that on this occasion she will withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may take what he said as an assurance that where there is a contract with either an agent or a principal, and one of those persons fails to pay the minimum wage, the other person does not become responsible simply by virtue of the fact that they are available.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, of course not. The liability has to reside with the person who is liable as a matter of law. That is what we seek to assert.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I shall read the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, with even greater care than I shall read the words of the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General, considering the kind words he said about my husband the lawyer. I was not being derogatory about lawyers—far from it. I should not be derogatory about any profession with which my husband is concerned.
We view the agency from an entirely different point of view. The Minister pointed out how the Government view it. Perhaps I may give a purely practical example as someone who has engaged a cleaning agency—let us say, Busy Bees. After a time I got rid of them because every day it was a different worker. I knew not who they were and I did not employ them. My contract was with the agency and it was down to the agency not only to pay the wages but also the income tax. I believe that the provision will turn the meaning of "agency" on its head.
10 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She is saying that she was clear, as a matter of law, that the contract she entered into in those circumstances was with the agency.

693
I do not deny that that occurs. I am saying that one has to be specific as to whom the contract is with: who is responsible for paying the national minimum wage?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I believe that when one has a contract with an agency, the agency is responsible and not the principal. However, as always, I shall read carefully the speech in Hansard, taking note of the response which the Minister gave to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Power to apply Act to individuals who are not otherwise "workers"]:
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 54:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
FAMILY BUSINESSES
(" . A person who is employed by his spouse, parent or child, or by a private limited company of which his spouse, parent or child is a substantial (but not necessarily a controlling) shareholder, does not qualify for the national minimum wage in respect of that employment.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 54, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 55. I said on the previous occasion that I was disappointed with the Minister's response to Amendment No. 54. Having carefully read what the Minister said, as I promised I would, I have brought it back for your Lordships' further consideration.
In his response to me, the Minister referred to the drafting history of this amendment. Frankly, at that time I could not see the relevance of that because what the Committee had to deal with was only the final version. But his observation on that point and his subsequent remarks lead me to believe that he and the Government have misunderstood the whole philosophy behind this new clause.
It is true that in the other place the amendment was restricted to proposals to exempt spouses. Of course, I was not consulted about the amendment at that stage. But with my own experience both as someone who has managed a rather large family business for some 17 years and as someone with a long and close connection with a small business bureau, I know that many small businesses are not merely run by husbands and wives but that children often work in their parents' businesses and sometimes vice versa. Incidentally, for some reason or other, the Minister thought that I was talking about small children. Of course, that was not the case.
After I tabled the amendment, I continued to reflect on the problems of small businesses, something which I believe the Government have singularly failed to do in relation to this Bill. Passing a local newsagent, I noticed from its sign board that it was operated by a limited company. A huge number of limited companies—in fact, the vast majority of those trading in Britain—are run by members of the same family or by what are in
694
reality partnerships. To my mind it would be unfair if the wife of Mr. Smith were exempted from the national minimum wage, whereas Mrs. Smith, the wife of the principal shareholder of Smith Limited, were not. That is why I closed up the last loophole; not in order (to quote the Minister) to make the matter as complicated as possible.
It is clear that the Minister may well have misunderstood the objectives of the clause. It is not to exclude as many people as possible, as he put it. It is, however, to exclude a group of people in whose private affairs the Government have absolutely no right or reason to interfere. We are not discussing total strangers becoming employees of some person with whom they have no connection outside the relationship as employer or employee. We are discussing people in the closest possible relationships known to the law; relationships which would exist irrespective of family businesses in which they were both working. I refer to a family business where they could have been partners except for the fact that for whatever reason the business is registered in the name of only one of them. These are not cases where the relationship of employer or employee is intended to be created.
In the old, less politically correct days, that relationship used to be called "master and servants". If we were still unfortunate enough to use that phrase, perhaps the Minister would have better understood the difference I was getting at. In these family employment cases, despite whoever is regarded as the owner of the business, for the purposes of income tax, rates, liquor licences, signing leases and so on, they often operate so as to pay the family household expenses without anyone receiving a formal wage. Sometimes a nominal wage is put through the books in order to take advantage of tax allowances. The essential point is that in reality the spouses or the parents or the children do not regard themselves as employees as such. But the definition of "employee" in Clause 1(2) is, of course, wide enough to catch them.
On various occasions in our debates the Minister has sought to refer to a contract of employment as if that is necessarily some formal written document, but I do not believe that it has to be. The employer is supposed to give the employee,
"a written statement of particulars of employment",
in accordance with Employment Rights Act 1996. However, that provision is often more honoured in the breach than in the observance. The contract between the employer and the employee exists whether or not the employer has complied with his obligation to furnish written details.
I believe that the Government cannot have it both ways. Either spouses, children or parents are not employees merely because they work in the family business—in which case why will the Government not agree to make that clear beyond all doubt by saying so in the legislation?—or the Government contend that they are employees and that they claim the right to interfere in the purely domestic arrangements of very close relatives—interference which, by the actions of an over-zealous official whom the Act describes as an

695
"enforcement officer", could result in someone being penalised and acquiring a criminal record because he failed to give his wife sufficient house-keeping money. That interference will simply result in the bureaucratic process of transferring money from one family pocket to another, with of course the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency taking a large bite out of it in the process. There is part of the reason for the Government's intransigence over logical requests for exemptions from the operations of the Act.
The Treasury stands to gain considerable sums of money from the stringent effects of the legislation. The amendment is not intended to create exemptions just for the sake of doing so; its intention is to exclude from the Act people who I do not believe should have been caught by it in the first place. The Government must either say that the state definitely intends to interfere in private arrangements between close relatives, or they must say that they have no such intention and concede that the very carefully drafted amendment would prevent this from happening.
I now turn to Amendment No. 55, which involves precisely the same principle as Amendment No. 54. The majority of limited companies are controlled by their directors; in other words, the company which employs the directors is owned by the directors. I shall return to the employment aspect in a moment. What the Government are trying to do is to tell a director how much he should pay himself. If the directors decide that for some reason they cannot afford to pay themselves during a particular pay reference period, or if they decide for some reason that they do not want to pay themselves, they should not have to do so. It is a free country—or at least it used to be before this legislation was introduced. However, if an enforcement officer discovered that the directors were committing the heinous offence of not transferring their own money from one of their pockets to another, it could bring the whole panoply of the enforcement procedures down on their heads.
I turn now to the question of whether a director of a company is an employee. When speaking on the point in Committee, the Minister said that,
"a director of a company … would not normally be entitled to receive a national minimum wage because the legal status of the director … is that of an office holder".—[Official Report, 22/6/98; col. 59.]
However, with the greatest possible respect, I believe that to be a totally specious argument. There is absolutely no reason why the status of being an officer of a company means that someone cannot simultaneously be an employee.
I notice that the Minister did not cite any authority, whether judiciary or statutory, for that statement. However, on the other hand, I did cite an authority; namely, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v. Bottrill. Despite this being a case involving his own department, the Minister said that he was not familiar with it. In the month that has passed since the last debate, I hope that the noble Lord has had a chance to look into the matter. The point is that this is the latest in a long line of cases which say that a director is an employee. Even noble Lords who, like me, are not
696
lawyers will recall seeing innumerable reports in the press of directors going before employment tribunals complaining of wrongful dismissal. They were able to do so precisely because they were employees.
The Minister went on to claim that the definitions in Clause 54 make it clear who is covered by the Bill; indeed, that is so. In Clause 54(1) it says that an employee,
"means an individual who has entered into or works under … a contract of employment".
Moreover, subsection (2) says that a contract of employment,
"means a contract of service … whether express or implied, and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing".
Noble Lords should note the words "express or implied", and whether or not the contract is in writing.
The Minister conceded that a director who is an employee of his own company could claim the national minimum wage from that company. I admire his courage in making that point. I would certainly not have dared to advance the argument that a director who had decided to forgo his salary could or would, schizophrenically, lodge a complaint against himself with an enforcement officer. The Minister also conceded that a director who is the employee of his own company may claim other employment rights. Precisely, but the fact is that every director, as I have already pointed out, is an employee as well as being the holder of an office.
The Minister finished his remarks by inviting me to read them carefully. I always pay rapt attention to every single word he utters. I am sorry the Ministers are talking because I very much want them to know that it is rapt attention that I pay to every single word of wisdom that they utter. That is why I was utterly astounded by the Minister's final point, so much so that I could hardly believe my ears. That is why I did not respond on the spot but waited until I was able to read his comments. He said that he could not envisage an enforcement officer taking action against a director employee who did not pay himself the national minimum wage. We are not in the business of passing laws involving criminal sanctions and then approaching the responsible enforcement authority, "Nudge, nudge, do not take any action over this". That is an astounding proposition. If the Minister concedes, as he clearly does, that an anomaly could arise, or that there is a potential ambiguity, or even that there is merely scope for misunderstanding, it is Parliament's job, and the Government's responsibility, to see that it is corrected.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for giving way. It is not unknown to the criminal law even where the law is very specific, for the prosecuting authorities to exercise a discretion in all the circumstances.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, that is correct, but it is not normally the case, before a Bill is passed, and while we are debating it, when I talk about a factor that could cause problems, for someone to say that the chances are that that will not be dealt with

697
anyway. One does not know whether that will or will not occur until one knows all the circumstances of the case.
I was saying that if the Minister concedes—as he clearly does—that an anomaly could arise, or that there is a potential ambiguity, or even that there is merely scope for misunderstanding, I believe it is Parliament's job, and the Government's, to see that that is corrected before the Bill is passed (that is the point I was making to the Minister) because afterwards it is too late. My Amendment No. 55 addresses that point. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the amendment of the noble Baroness would exclude family members from entitlement to the minimum wage. I think that was the point of her argument. We discussed this at some length in Committee. Our objection is that it goes entirely against the thrust of the Government's philosophy and of the Bill. This amendment appears to be yet another example of the Opposition's keenness to exclude as many categories of worker as possible from the minimum wage. Our wish is to include as many people as possible.
The amendment raises issues about the nature of ownership and control and whether a person is a substantial or a controlling shareholder. As regards the Bill, that is something of a red herring. The Bill is founded on the basis of whether or not a person is a worker, not whether he is in control of the business or is a family member. The status of shareholders, or family relationships, have absolutely nothing to do with it. It all boils down to a quite simple principle that a worker should be entitled to the minimum wage, whoever he or she has as his employer.
In particular, I see no reason why a person should be disenfranchised from the minimum wage just because the employer is his or her spouse, father, mother, niece or child, or whatever. However, it all depends on the nature of the relationship. If the family member is a worker, he or she will qualify for the minimum wage. If he or she is simply helping out on an informal basis, that is unlikely to form the basis of a worker's contract. As I said, we wish the Bill to be inclusive, not exclusive. It is a fair and sensible way to proceed. That is why we opposed the amendment previously, and why I recommend that the House reject the amendment on this occasion.
The question of directors was discussed at some length in Committee. The Government have not changed their view, which is clear. Under the Bill, a person who is a director of a company, limited or otherwise, will not normally be entitled to the national minimum wage. But that is because of the legal status of the director. Whether it is a small business—for example, the corner shop of which the noble Baroness is so fond—or a multi-million pound business, the director is an office-holder.
It is possible to be both an employee and a director. There may be many cases where a director additionally has a contract of employment with the business. That may be explicit or implicit. In this case, he or she would also be an employee of the company and would therefore be entitled to the national minimum wage. But that entitlement would be the result not of being a director but
698
of being an employee. That may apply, for example, to some managing directors or directors who are "one-man bands" in charge of their own business.
The Bill is clear in its effect. Directors who are simply office-holders will not be entitled to the minimum wage, and directors who are employees will be entitled to it. The distinction derives from existing employment law.
That is an important point. The Bill relies at heart for its main definition of "worker" in Clause 54 on the approach taken by existing employment law. In the Bill we have tried to follow that. Much of the legislation, including the Employment Rights Act 1996, was introduced or maintained by the previous Conservative administration. I am therefore puzzled as to why the noble Baroness makes continuous efforts to change, or at least appears to call into question, the previous position of people under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The amendment is therefore not necessary. The definitions in Clause 54 make it quite clear who is covered by the Bill. Where directors are not workers, they will not be covered; where they are workers, they will be covered.
I hope that the noble Baroness will consider this matter of principle and will withdraw her amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I shall certainly withdraw the two amendments that I have spoken to. However, I did not agree with the Minister's remarks. I am surprised that he did not comment on the case on which I asked him to comment; namely, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v. Bottrill, which I believe refutes what he said. I totally accept that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was not in a position to comment previously. However, I thought that within the month I might receive a satisfactory answer. I suggest that the Minister looks up the case when this matter arises again at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
EXCLUSION OF DISABLED PERSONS AND EMPLOYMENT FOR THERAPEUTIC PURPOSES
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Low Pay Commission, make an order exempting disabled persons from the provisions of this Act.
(2) An order under subsection (1) above shall provide for the issue of permits by the Secretary of State to those persons whom he believes to be disabled and may make provision for—

(a) the procedure for applying for and issuing such permits;

(b) the procedure for establishing the minimum wage to which each permit holder shall be entitled (being less than the single hourly rate prescribed under section 1(3) of this Act);

(c) the appointment by the Secretary of State of suitably qualified persons to assess such applications; and

(d) the procedure for appealing against a refusal to issue such a permit.

(3) No person shall be guilty of an offence under this Act in respect of an employee who holds a permit issued in accordance with an order made under this section.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a person is disabled if he is so affected by physical injury or mental deficiency or infirmity due to age or any other cause as to be incapable of earning the national minimum wage.
(5) A person whose employment is primarily undertaken for the purpose of therapy and whose employer is a non-profit-making organisation does not qualify for the national minimum wage in respect of that employment.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the wording of this amendment is slightly different from that of the one I introduced in Committee. The difference is that I have used the word "disabled" in place of "incapacitated".
Representations were made to me by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that the word "incapacitated" is objectionable to disabled persons because it is not representative of the problems that they face. Merely because a person suffers from any sort of disability does not mean that that person is incapable of normal, useful and productive activities. Naturally, I accept the correction. I very much hope that my drafting did not cause any offence.
Knowing the capacity of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for compassion, I could not understand his rejection of my amendment, which he agreed related to a difficult issue. We were arguing diametrically opposite cases, but with the same objective: to assist disabled workers. On reading his arguments in Hansard, I think I have discovered the reason. It is the classic conundrum of whether a glass is half empty or half full. The noble Lord saw it as a risk of discrimination, although he was gracious enough immediately to acquit me of any such intention. He said that it could,
"deny the minimum wage to the very people who are most in need of its protection".—[Official Report, 22/6/98; col. 65.]
I, on the contrary, see it as an opportunity for disabled people who would otherwise find it impossible—at the very least difficult—to obtain work to do so.
This amendment is not designed as a licence for what the Government call unscrupulous employers whom they see lurking round every corner and ready to exploit vulnerable people. I was amazed when previously the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, commented on the fact that I kept saying that the Government regarded employers as unscrupulous. I suggest that, if the noble Lord has time, he should read the debates on some of the other amendments as carefully as I have done and count how many times unscrupulous employers have been referred to.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the point I was trying to make was that if everyone in this world was scrupulous we would not require legislation. Most legislation is designed to deal with those people who, ambitiously and deliberately, set about avoiding legal provision. That is why it is necessary to have laws. It is as simple as that. It is the unscrupulous who disadvantage the scrupulous employer by seeking an unfair advantage.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I accept the noble Lord's reasoning for the word, even if I do not
700
necessarily agree with it. The amendment provides the opportunity for sympathetic employers to lend a hand to people with disabilities by enabling them to do a useful and satisfying job, to earn some money of their own instead of relying on state handouts and at the same time to build their own self-esteem.
In his response the Minister quoted selectively from the report of the Low Pay Commission by referring to paragraph 1.6, which said that a majority of witnesses, including the Government, saw no justification for an exemption or a lower rate of national minimum wage for disabled persons. As regards the Government's evidence, they are opposing this amendment, so I expect that that is what they would say. On the other hand, the Minister did not comment on the paper published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, published ahead of the Low Pay Commission's report, which I quoted. I remind your Lordships that it said:
"Disabled people may have been affected by a wider and systematic shift in employment patterns. As the supply of labour has expanded employers have become more selective in their choice of staff. Marginal workers such as disabled have been excluded … preliminary evidence suggests that very few have found a job".
The Minister also disregarded the evidence, reported on page 39 of the Low Pay Commission's Report, of the Royal National Institute for the Blind. The institute said:
"Blind and partially sighted persons face bleak prospects in employment".
It goes on:
"Significantly, blind and partially sighted people are concentrated in lower paying, semi-skilled, unskilled and routine manual occupations … Many blind and partially sighted people are therefore caught in poverty even when in work".
I do not understand how the Government can believe that putting another obstacle in the way of disabled people obtaining employment will help them.
I believe that the Government have totally misunderstood the purport of my amendment, which is far more detailed than the one that received perfunctory attention in the other place. I hope that, despite the Minister's very heavy workload, he has had time to consider and reflect on the detail of what I proposed in my amendment and which I explained in Committee. I am emphatically not proposing a blanket exemption from the national minimum wage for disabled persons en masse. This clause provides for an exemption for individuals on a case-by-case basis. Each request for exemption will have to be initiated by the employee, not by the employer or potential employer. Each case will have to be examined on its own separate merits. The Secretary of State will make regulations to prescribe the criteria to be applied in deciding whether exemptions should be granted. I suggested that the procedure should be conducted by those expert assessors who already decide about disablement benefit. But that would be for the Secretary of State to decide. What the doctor or other assessor would be looking at is an applicant who says, for instance, "My disability prevents me from working for more than a few hours a day" or "I cannot go to work more than an odd regular day" or "I can only do limited tasks, but I would like to get a job from a sympathetic employer who is prepared to take me on despite my problems".

701
We must recognise that many such employers would be willing to employ disabled persons as a commendable social duty. So why should those employers not pay the full national minimum wage? Of course, there is nothing to prevent them from so doing, but human nature being what it is, they in turn may face problems with their other employees—"Why should he be paid the same wage as me when I do more work, produce more widgets in a day or do not need so much time off?" Nothing in the clause requires a disabled person to take a job at an unacceptable wage. Nothing in the clause enables an employer to recruit an employee at a rate lower than the national minimum wage unless that employee has himself obtained an exemption after a stringent assessment procedure.
Finally, I turn to subsection (5), which deals with persons whose work is primarily undertaken for therapeutic purposes with a non profit-making purpose. We are talking of disabled people living in community homes, staying in hospital or attending some kind of day centre. They can often do jobs—frequently handicrafts, but sometimes small industrial applications. The work they do is partly to help them overcome their disability. Pay is not necessarily the prime consideration, though it is a factor in establishing the self-esteem of the worker who is possibly, simultaneously, a patient.
I told the Committee of my experience on a visit to a community home for people—mostly adults with learning difficulties—where I was presented with a vase made by one of the residents who spent his time working in the pottery shop. The shop sells the products to visitors to provide extra comforts for the residents. If the community home had to pay them a commercial wage for work which has no real commercial value, it would simply have to discontinue that operation. That would be to the considerable detriment of the residents who would then have to spend their time watching TV.
My noble friend Lord Oxfuird is not able to be present today. If he had been, he would have told your Lordships of a letter he received from the Enham Trust—a charity with which he works for those suffering from cerebral palsy. The national minimum wage would be to the disadvantage of disabled workers and may impose extra financial burdens on the excellently supported employment programme administered by the Employment Service Department.
In closing their ears to our request for disabled persons to be exempted, if they individually ask to be, do the Government realise the wider implications of that action? This is one case where the Government cannot produce their usual scenario of an attempt by some unscrupulous employer to evade the Act. The qualification is that the employer providing therapeutic work must be a non-profit-making organisation. Similarly, no part of the first four subsections will enable any employer to evade the Act. It will not affect a disabled person unless he and nobody else applies for the exemption. He will not obtain that exemption unless it is granted after careful appraisal by a qualified assessor using the same criteria as apply to evaluating a person's disability for other purposes. It is entirely to the advantage of the employee and nobody else. For the Government to continue to refuse to agree to the
702
exemption will condemn numerous disabled people to exist, often for life, on benefits doled out by the DHSS offices instead of the benefit of useful and fulfilling work.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is also not in his place. I saw a copy of the letter he wrote to the Minister as chairman of MENCAP—the organisation that he leads with such distinction. I believe it is a fair reading of his letter that MENCAP would not wish in any way to become involved in what it sees as a political dispute—and that is quite right in view of its charitable status. He shares the Minister's view which I have already quoted; that is, that the pay of the disabled is a difficult issue. He reminded the Minister that MENCAP's evidence to the Low Pay Commission was that in reality the employer is often doing the disabled worker a favour and is not necessarily guaranteed to do so if the cost is doubled. He pointed out that even low wages were far better than the derisory sums they received at some day centres.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, posed two questions to the Minister, of which I only wish I had been the author. So I repeat them myself because they require simple, straight answers, yes or no. First, are the Government suggesting that all arrangements for disabled workers below the national minimum wage should become illegal and that this is the necessary price of progress for the wider constituency of low paid workers? Secondly, is not the function of the national minimum wage to lay down some rules at one end of the spectrum and not to rule out provision at the other end of the spectrum? The noble Lord, Lord Rix, said that he did not wish to undermine the national minimum wage. Well, I admit that he and I do not see eye to eye on the worth of this politically doctrinaire piece of legislation. But he also said that he did not wish to undermine jobs which are of importance to those disabled persons who have them but which are not viable at the national minimum wage levels. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked the Minister to help him; and so do I. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lady Miller in her amendment, perhaps I may further refer to the findings of the Low Pay Commission. In Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General quoted the Low Pay Commission:
"Moreover, for those people with severe disabilities that limit their productivity, the Government funds the Supported Employment Programme which helps employers recruit and maintain these workers in jobs".—[Official Report, 22/6/98; col. 65.]
That is all very fine in theory and we must indeed pay regard to the Low Pay Commission's findings. But what are the practicalities? We are looking at a small firm. There will be a good deal of ill-affordable time tied up in getting the various subsidies available and almost certainly they will come after the wage has been paid, so there will be a cash flow problem for small firms. The result will be that employers with the highest intentions will say, "This is not worth the candle", and a disabled person will lose that chance of a job. That must be of concern to every Member of your Lordships' House.

703
How much simpler it would be if we could go straight to the problem so that, as my noble friend outlined, each case was individually dealt with? We are not talking about a sweat shop composed of disabled people. This issue is not sectional and is not political. It is of the highest public concern. I urge the Minister to think again about making an exemption for this disadvantaged group of people.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in Committee we discussed an almost identical amendment. The noble Baroness has indicated why it is not identical. I entirely respect her reasons for changing it, but it has the same effect. It is a fundamental principle and one that we would all share that disabled people should not be discriminated against in the workplace. I appreciate that that is not the intention of the amendment; rather it is to allow a permit system to operate allowing partial exemptions on the basis of incapacity and to exempt those who work for therapeutic reasons. The amendment risks discrimination, although that is not its intention. It invites us to distinguish between the able bodied and those who are, to quote her amendment,
"incapable of earning the national minimum wage".
With respect to the noble Baroness, that is a loose and difficult concept. In practice, the amendment could lead to the totally unacceptable situation where some people are denied the minimum wage when they have just as much right to it as anyone else. It could easily become the thin end of a very large wedge, denying the minimum wage to the very people who are most in need of its protection.
Perhaps I may refer again to what the Low Pay Commission had to say on these points. I do not make any apology for returning to this part of the report on such an important matter. It faced up to the issue. We all recognise that it is a difficult issue and we all recognise that it is an issue on which we want to come to the right conclusion. Having taken considerable evidence, the Low Pay Commission stated at page 14, paragraph 1.6 of its report,
"We believe that there are compelling arguments for treating disabled workers in the same way as other workers. To do so recognises the value of disabled workers to employers and supports a culture of social inclusion".
I believe that is what we all have in mind. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, then referred to page 39, paragraph 3.15. The relevant part of that report states,
"Blind and partially sighted people face bleak prospects in employment. In addition to the barriers to securing and retaining paid work there is extensive discrimination in work. Significantly, blind and partially sighted people are concentrated in lower paying, semi-skilled, unskilled and routine manual occupations, and fewer are employed in professional and skilled occupations. Many blind and partially sighted people are therefore caught in poverty even when in work".
I see absolutely no reason why such people should not have the protection of the national minimum wage. I think it is not appropriate that, because it can be argued that they could fall within the definition of somebody incapable of earning a minimum wage, they should not
704
be treated exactly like those who are sighted. They are just as strongly entitled not to be exploited as everybody else.
Why did the commission arrive at the clear conclusion that it did, the conclusion that I believe the noble Baroness accepts it reached? It is because it recognised the overwhelming rightness of the case. It notes that, although a "small minority" of those who gave evidence had suggested exemptions or lower levels for the disabled, the vast majority saw no justification for that.
I believe that it is highly significant that the commission's very wide ranging consultations did not report any support for the type of arrangements proposed by this amendment. Yet the commission received views from several organisations representing or with interests involving the disabled. Perhaps I may mention who they were. They were, the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities; the National League for the Blind and Disabled; the Royal Society for Disability and Rehabilitation; the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the Royal Society for Mentally Handicapped Children and Adults. What are their views on the noble Baroness's proposals? They all gave evidence to the Low Pay Commission, which rejected the idea of any sort of amendment along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness. It is a difficult issue and we have to come to the right conclusion on it. We have thought about it a great deal. The weight of opinion is against this sort of amendment, but if the noble Baroness tells us that these bodies thought we were wrong, they should tell us.
The question of therapeutic earnings is a separate point. The commission's report points out that, for those with severe disabilities that limit their productivity, the Government fund a supported employment programme which helps employers recruit and maintain these workers in jobs. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said that that was all very well in theory, but what about the practice? The supported employment programme helps about 22,000 people with severe disabilities who can work but who are unlikely because of their limited productivity to get or keep jobs in open employment.
Government funding is being maintained at over £155 million for 1998–99. In my book that is going a lot further than simply putting forward theoretical ideas. It is a very practical way of helping the people who are most concerned. Anyone working on a voluntary, unpaid basis will be exempt in any case as a result of Clause 44, which is the clause dealing with voluntary workers. We have thought about it and we very much hope that the noble Baroness will consider the matters I have referred to in relation to these amendments and will withdraw the amendment advanced and not move the others.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that this is a very sensitive issue. It is clearly a very difficult one. As I believe I said

705
when I moved the amendment, we both want exactly the same on both sides of the House, but it is simply that we believe there is a different way.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may allude to the letter to which the noble Baroness referred and of which my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General was not aware. I have not seen that letter. I note that it is not dated. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making a copy available. I shall, of course, make investigations into the matter, but I am informed by my officials who are present tonight that they have not seen the letter either. I shall find out from my private office whether it has been received. There may be a simple explanation, but I shall certainly look into it.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am sure that there will be a simple explanation. I am certain that both sides of the House share the view that this is a difficult issue. We think that our way is better, but I take support from the fact that the Minister has said that the Government have gone into this carefully and that they believe that their way is right. I hope that it is. Indeed, I am sure that if time should show that it is not right, the Minister will ensure that his Government come back with some alterations to the provisions. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [The Low Pay Commission]:
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 36, leave out line 26.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 60, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 61 and 62. This is a technical drafting amendment which is designed to avoid wording that some might regard as offensive. Perhaps I may take a moment to explain what this is all about.
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 relates to membership of the Low Pay Commission. Paragraph 1(6)(b) as currently formulated permits the Secretary of State to dismiss a member of the Low Pay Commission who is,
"incapacitated by physical or mental illness".
I believe that it is as well to avoid that particular formulation. Instead, the three linked amendments achieve the same result as the original intention, which is to ensure that the Secretary of State can terminate the duties of any Low Pay Commission member who, for whatever reason, is unable to carry out his functions as a member. I hope that the House will be able to support the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendments Nos. 61 and 62:
Page 36, line 29, leave out ("who") and insert—
("(d)").
Page 36, line 29, leave out ("otherwise").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Amendments relating to remuneration etc of agricultural workers]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendments Nos. 64 and 65:
Page 41, line 26, leave out from ("1998") to end of line 30.
Page 46, line 29, leave out from ("1998") to end of line 33.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 46, line 43, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 51, line 31, leave out from ("1998") to end of line 35.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  EU Tobacco Subsidy
  EU Tobacco Subsidy
  E.coli 0157 and Zoonoses Order
  E.coli 0157 and Zoonoses Order
  Vitamin B6
  Vitamin B6
  East Timor
  East Timor
  EU/Iran Dialogue
  EU/Iran Dialogue
  Children and Young People: Protection from Abuse
  Children and Young People: Protection from Abuse
  Asylum and Immigration Appeals: Presenting Officers
  Asylum and Immigration Appeals: Presenting Officers
  Immigration: Requests for Information
  Immigration: Requests for Information
  Law Enforcement: Requests for Information
  Law Enforcement: Requests for Information
  Legislation: Human Rights Compatibility
  Legislation: Human Rights Compatibility
  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Independent Commission on the Voting System
  Independent Commission on the Voting System
  Death Rates Following Surgery
  Death Rates Following Surgery
  E.coli 0157
  E.coli 0157
  Food Safety
  Food Safety
  Prostate Cancer Screening
  Prostate Cancer Screening
  Prostate Cancer: Research Expenditure
  Prostate Cancer: Research Expenditure
  Cancer Treatment Waiting Times
  Cancer Treatment Waiting Times
  Haemophiliacs Infected with Hepatitis C
  Haemophiliacs Infected with Hepatitis C
  Department of Health: Reviews
  Department of Health: Reviews
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Code of Practice
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Code of Practice
  Transport Programme Expenditure Plans
  Transport Programme Expenditure Plans
  SSSIs: Improved Protection
  SSSIs: Improved Protection
  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: Reviews
  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: Reviews
  Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Planned Reduction
  Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Planned Reduction
  London Taxis without Seat Belts
  London Taxis without Seat Belts
  Export Licence Refusals
  Export Licence Refusals
  Competition Bill
  Competition Bill