Sitting of 23 July 1998

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

  ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 30 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Mortgages (Euros)
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What estimate he has made of the number of house buyers likely to switch their mortgages from lenders trading in sterling to those trading in the euro. [50487]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): The United Kingdom mortgage market is already one of the most competitive in Europe. The narrow differential between longer-term interest rates in Britain and in Europe and the need to manage currency exposure are likely to make these specialist products.
    Mr. Prentice: I am not entirely sure about that. It seems that, if there is a big gap between interest rates in the sterling zone and those in the euro zone, it would make sense for people entering the mortgage market to go where mortgages are cheap, or cheaper. I have had a letter from one of the big high street banks telling me that it will be offering euro mortgages next year. What is to stop French, German or Dutch banks—banks throughout the European Union—putting advertisements in the national press here to induce people to switch from sterling mortgages to euro mortgages, which may be more beneficial?
    Mr. Darling: The answer is that, subject to the regulatory requirements that are enforced in this country, there is nothing to stop any French or German bank or other financial institution from offering mortgages in this country. Indeed, British lenders are already offering mortgages in other member states. That is what the single market is all about.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that 89 per cent. of mortgage finance in the United Kingdom is held
    1240
    at variable rates and given the simple established fact that mortgages account for almost 11 per cent. of average earnings in the UK—by contrast, they account for only 3.5 per cent. of average earnings in the rest of the European Union—will the right hon. Gentleman, in his public information campaign about the single currency, make it abundantly clear to the British people that they will be much more damaged by an increase in interest and mortgage rates under the single currency than they would be if they lived in France, Germany or elsewhere in the EU?
    Mr. Darling: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might have thought long and hard before he asked that supplementary question, because the last time that mortgage rates in this country increased dramatically to double figures was in the late 1980s, following mismanagement by the previous Government. I should have thought also that he would have supported this Government's policy, which is geared to reducing inflation, so that we can bring down interest rates and get long-term stability. The final point that he might want to bear in mind is that interest rates in continental Europe have always been lower than those in this country because it has had the long-term economic stability that this country has not had, primarily because of the stop-go, boom-bust, high-interest-rate policies that were operated by the previous Government.

    NHS Funding
    Mr. Tony McNulty: What representations he has received on proposals in the comprehensive spending review in terms of the funding of the NHS. [50488]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Within a falling debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio and a current surplus over the next three years, we have made £21 billion available for the NHS, money for modernisation to improve services to patients. To deliver that agenda, responsibility in pay will continue to be necessary but, as a result of our decisions, 30 new hospitals are planned, 1,000 general practitioner surgeries will be renovated, and 7,000 more doctors and 15,000 more nurses will employed in the health service over the next three years. Our proposals have brought a favourable response in the representations that we have received.
    Mr. McNulty: I welcome that response and the real increase of 3.7 per cent. over the next three years in NHS funding, compared with 2.5 per cent. under the previous Government. Will the Chancellor confirm that modernisation goes hand in hand with that additional funding? Does he believe that the public will welcome that approach, rather than the approach that involves cutting NHS spending, which is the policy of the Conservative party?
    Mr. Brown: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. This is money in return for modernisation. Resources will be available for reform in the NHS. As a result, £8 billion will be invested in new hospitals, clinics and GP premises. It has been possible to raise real-terms health service spending by 5.7 per cent. next year, 4.5 per cent. the year after and 3.9 per cent. the year after that. That is an

    1241
    average growth of 4.7 per cent. in real terms, far more than was ever achieved by the previous Government. Because of their policies now to cut public spending, the Conservatives will have to tell us which hospitals and which schools they would close.
    Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Increases in NHS spending have frequently required calls on the reserve. Does the Chancellor think that it was prudent to announce a reserve that is smaller than any reserve announced by the six predecessors in his post?
    Mr. Brown: The whole point of three-year plans is that Departments now make their decisions within the resources allocated to them. I would have thought that, as a result of seeing the stop-go in public spending under the previous Government, the hon. Gentleman would prefer three-year plans that will allow us to break from the short-termism of the annual cycle and to plan the proper delivery of services. The Conservative party has some questions to answer about its future policies.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What proportion of the increased expenditure on the NHS capital programmes comes from the private finance initiative? What will be the real cost to the NHS in the longer term of repaying private finance both in terms of the funding of each district health authority and each hospital and in terms of democratic control of the NHS which, in my view, might be handed over in part to the private sector through the PFI?
    Mr. Brown: The difference between the private finance initiative under this Government and what happened under the previous Government is that, under the previous Government, public investment was replaced by private investment and, under our Government, public investment is being enhanced by private investment. That has made possible the 30 new hospitals that are being planned—work is already under way on eight. Private finance initiative schemes will produce the new hospitals and they will be very much part of the £8 billion invested in new hospitals and clinics. As a result of the changes that we have made, from a failed PFI unit in the Treasury when we took office to a new and reinvigorated public-private partnership unit in the Treasury now, we are determined to achieve the value for money that I should have thought was wanted by both sides of the House.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Chancellor explain why he seems so determined to leave the NHS totally unprotected and uninsured against the possibility of high inflation? Does he not realise that high inflation could have a damaging effect on the NHS? Why can he not simply say that he will use the higher tax revenues that will come with higher inflation to give a cast-iron guarantee to the House that he will maintain the spending on the NHS announced in his review in real terms?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman speaks as if we are not increasing NHS expenditure in real terms. It is being increased by 4.7 per cent. a year in real terms. The whole purpose of a three-year settlement is that, within the health budget, with the total increase of £21 billion, all the
    1242
    decisions about the use of resources can be made. It ill becomes the Liberal Democrats, who were suggesting that we should spend an extra half a billion a year on health—that is £1.5 billion over the next three years—when we have now allocated £21 billion, to start complaining about a Labour Government who have delivered when they can never deliver. It is a party that wants publicity without responsibility. That is all that it is.
    Mr. Jim Murphy: I listened to my right hon. Friend talking about the party that seeks publicity without responsibility. Has my right hon. Friend listened to the pledges and commitments of the Scottish National party in previous weeks and months? I notice that not one of them is here—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question about Government policy and not about other parties in the House.
    Mr. Murphy: Has my right hon. Friend had time since the announcement of the spending review to investigate how his announcement compares with the pledges of other parties? Is he aware that the investment in Scotland's health service that is threatened by the SNP and its policies would mean 3,000 fewer nurses, 300 fewer doctors, 400 fewer intensive care beds and 4,000 fewer beds in our hospitals? Is it not true that, under the SNP, we would have cuts, cuts, and cuts again?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat and it will be some time before I call him again.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: How can the Chancellor be so sure that his spending plans are securely based when independent survey after survey—Ernst and Young on Monday, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research this morning—all conclude that he is seriously over-estimating economic growth and tax receipts? Are all those reports wrong, or is it the type of self-opinionated arrogance that has driven prudence away?
    Mr. Brown: Labour Members will not take lectures on arrogance from the hon. Gentleman. I urge him to read the NIESR report that he mentioned. It states:
    "Despite our different assessment of future receipts, our forecast shows the Government's fiscal plans being broadly met."
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take note of that, and of what major economists and others have said about our plans.
    Richard Jeffrey, chief economist at Charterhouse, said:
    "This is an incredibly conservative package that…wasn't imaginable from an old Labour"
    Chancellor.
    Andrew Dilnot, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said:
    "The rate of growth of spending is going to be slower than under the last Government".
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes—and Conservative Members accuse us of imprudence.
    Adair Turner said:
    "A reasonable combination of tight control of current spending and a welcome increase in capital expenditure."

    1243
    Conservative Members had better now make up their minds. Last Tuesday, when I made my announcement, they said that they wanted to cut spending. Every day after that, with each of our announcements, they have been anxious to increase spending. They must make up their mind whether they will be a serious party of opposition, or simply in opposition for years to come.

    EU Budget Lines
    Barbara Follett: What recent discussions he has had regarding the European Court's decision that certain EU budget lines had no legal basis. [50489]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I had very fruitful discussions with other European Budget Ministers, and with representatives of the European Commission and European Parliament, at the Budget Council on 17 July. I am pleased to say that, in line with the assurances given by the Prime Minister on 18 June to Members of the European Parliament, we have reached an agreement that will enable funding to be released while ensuring that the European Court of Justice's ruling is respected.
    Barbara Follett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and for the work that she has been doing to resolve that very difficult situation. When does she estimate that the funding will be released?
    Mrs. Liddell: The block that was put on budget lines because of the European Court of Justice's decision has now been lifted, and we anticipate that those budget lines will now be fully operational.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Much as the European Court and the European Commission play a beneficial role in extending the single market in the European Union, will the Minister have a close look at the decision on the Air France subsidy, whereby the Commission appears to have overturned the European Court's judgment? That could affect £2 billion of subsidy to Air France. The Commission's decision seems an outrageous one, and may well have budgetary implications for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider.
    Mrs. Liddell: The Council of Ministers keeps a very close watch on all the Commission's activities in budgetary matters. We are very committed to tight budget discipline, and that commitment is shared by a number of our European partners. I very much take on board the hon. Gentleman's point.

    Coral Reef Products
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will make a statement on Customs and Excise policy in relation to the illegal importation of coral reef products. [50490]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): As in the case of all items protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, customs
    1244
    policy is to confiscate coral imported illegally. Customs usually would prosecute if there were evidence of the importer deliberately breaking the law by such activity.
    Mr. Dalyell: Acknowledging the excellent efforts of many customs officers, often in trying circumstances, and in the light of the Adjournment debate on 1 July, may I ask what efforts the Government are making to increase awareness of the impact of the coral trade on coral ecosystems, not only in the United Kingdom but in holiday destinations, where tourists often buy illegally got coral?
    Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is quite correct to say that there is an amount of unintentional importation occurring, and we are taking action—in a public advertising campaign at airports and other points of embarkation and debarkation—to clarify the matter. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his Adjournment debate and on drawing attention the matter. I have also read with great interest the recent "Reefs at Risk" report, which he will have seen. Moreover, we are in close contact with the World Wide Fund for Nature and other organisations on the matter.

    Public Spending
    Mr. John Smith: If he will make a statement on the priorities for public spending set out in the comprehensive spending review. [50491]
    Mr. Jim Dobbin: If he will make a statement on his priorities for public spending for 1999–2000. [50505]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The statement on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 187–94 and the White Paper on spending set out prudent spending plans which will achieve a falling debt-to-GDP ratio and a current surplus over the next three years and will invest in reform of the public services and reallocate 50 per cent. of new money to two priority areas—the national health service and education. We shall invest £19 billion in education. We shall renovate or build 2,000 classrooms and employ 6,000 extra teachers to cut class sizes, and we shall have half a million more students in higher and further education.
    Mr. Smith: We on the Government Benches welcome the emphasis in my right hon. Friend's comprehensive spending review on capital spending, especially on the doubling of capital investment in our schools, which will be music to the ears of the mums and dads in the Vale of Glamorgan whose children's education had suffered for so long under the Tories. Is not the only way to get the high-quality public services that the public clearly want through increased investment, something that the Conservative party totally opposes?
    Mr. Brown: Capital expenditure on schools will double in this Parliament, to the benefit of thousands of school pupils. Also, 6,000 schools are already benefiting from the new deal for schools, which was paid for by the windfall levy on the privatised utilities—something that

    1245
    was also opposed by the Conservatives. We have made our investment in education; it is now time to hear the policies of the other parties.
    Mr. Dobbin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the serious under-investment by the previous Government prevented the modernisation and improvement of the British infrastructure? Will he outline what levels of investment will be going into the public sector when we set up the investing in Britain fund?
    Mr. Brown: All hon. Members will welcome the improvements that will be made in their constituencies as a result of the investing in Britain fund. It will double capital investment over the next three years from 0.8 to 1.5 per cent. of GDP. At the moment, 1 million school pupils are being taught in classrooms built before the first world war; two thirds of our hospital blocks are hand-me-downs from the days of the voluntary and charity hospitals; and everyone knows that our roads and the transport infrastructure have been under-maintained. As a result of the investing in Britain fund, I should like to see signs in every constituency that the Government have invested in this country's future.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Chancellor recall that, under each of the previous five Labour Governments that this country has had to endure, unemployment has always been significantly higher when they left office than when they assumed it? Has he noted the report by Ernst and Young—the largest accountancy firm in the world—which states that his comprehensive spending review is going to send unemployment soaring towards 2 million?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should read the report. The first thing of which I remind him is that unemployment increased by 50 per cent. under the previous Government. Secondly, the Labour Government have created 400,000 jobs in their first year. Thirdly, the new deal for young people, which the hon. Gentleman's party also opposed, has already involved 60,000 young people. We are determined to end the problems of youth and long-term unemployment. It is about time that we heard a Conservative party policy that would cut unemployment instead of increasing it.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Does the Chancellor accept that next year will be the last in which Conservative expenditure totals apply, and that, after that, expenditure as a proportion of GDP will be out of control, in the sense that he does not have the foggiest idea what the GDP will be beyond that, given that he himself has produced two totally different central forecasts for GDP in the past four months?
    Mr. Brown: First, the forecasts that we have put before the House of Commons have been absolutely consistent since the November statement and the Budget, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the point that he made on that. Secondly, in respect of prudence in public spending, our golden rule means that, over the cycle, revenues will pay for current spending. In other words, the Budget will be in balance. Under the Conservative Government and in the last economic cycle, there was a deficit of 1.5 per cent. of GDP, averaging £12 billion every year on current spending. So I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider who was prudent and who was imprudent.
    1246
    As for our spending plans, the Conservative party had better wake up to the fact that we are getting the debt-GDP ratio, which we inherited at 45 per cent., down to 40 per cent. and below. Therefore, we are running a prudent policy—[Interruption.] I am not going to take lectures from the party that doubled the national debt and left us with public borrowing at £23 billion, which we had to reduce to £8 billion, and debt interest payments that were more than the budget for education. That is the record of the Conservative Government.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his comprehensive spending review statement was the defining moment for the Government? It reminded the British people why they voted Labour last year. My right hon. Friend has identified the productivity gap as crucial to the success of his economic and financial policy. In view of the overvalued pound and earnings rising at 5.4 per cent., will he now ensure that the Government devote sufficient resources to deal with the problem?
    Mr. Brown: I understand the concerns of exporters about the pound, but, more than anything else, they are concerned about the possibility that we shall return to the policies of the previous Government. We are engaged in a process of moving the economy from the stop-go, low productivity and instability of the past 20 years under the Conservatives to an economy that is capable of sustained and steady growth with high investment and productivity. I believe that most businesses and industrialists do not want a return to the boom-bust years of the Conservatives, and we shall not be diverted from a policy for long-term growth in the economy.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Why did the Chancellor abandon the commitment made in his March Budget statement to balance the Budget in cash terms by 2000?
    Mr. Brown: No commitment was made. We said that we would publish three scenarios about the future growth of public expenditure, all of which would meet the golden rule. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at what I have said in past years, he will see that I said two things: it is prudent in economic policy first to meet the golden rule and secondly to have a sustainable debt-GDP ratio. When we published the projections in March, they included, under the old public sector borrowing requirement, zero in one year. In the projections that we published in June, under the net borrowing requirement, we reached zero in one year.
    However, the whole purpose of our policy is not to pursue the balanced budget policy that the right hon. Gentleman's party pursued but always failed to meet, but to pursue two rules in public expenditure: the golden rule and the sustainable investment rule with debt to GDP being at a prudent ratio. I must now ask the right hon. Gentleman, who said a week ago that he would cut spending, now that every other Opposition spokesman is saying that they would raise spending, whether his policy is now to cut spending, raise spending or leave it the same. Will he tell us the answer?
    Mr. Maude: The Chancellor's defence to the charge that he has abandoned his commitment is that he has

    1247
    changed the definition. It is almost the same explanation that the Paymaster General gave for his failure to disclose his interests—that he signed false accounts instead. Will the Chancellor now correct the Prime Minister's gravely misleading statement yesterday and accept that his own forecasts are now much more optimistic than any others?
    My hon. Friends have quoted the Item Club report and the report by NIESR. The Item Club says:
    "the fiscal arithmetic is dangerously prone to recessionary shocks which hit welfare spending and tax revenues."
    The NIESR report says:
    "The sharp rise in Government spending will keep interest rates higher than would otherwise have been the case and delays their eventual reduction."
    What does manufacturing industry have to say about that? Has not the Chancellor shown in a few short weeks what a sham his reputation for prudence and caution was? Has he not blown it all in a calculated bid to wrest control of the Labour party from his neighbour, trying to spend his way into the Labour party succession?
    Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor has no reputation to worry about. The average of Treasury and independent growth forecasts is 2.2 per cent. We have said that growth will be within a range of 2 to 2.5 per cent. Far from being out of line with independent and City forecasts, we are in line with them.
    The shadow Chancellor quoted from the NIESR review. Let me tell him what it says instead of him pretending what it does not say. On page 6 it says:
    "the inflation outlook remains benign"
    On the same page, it says:
    "We expect…growth at 2 per cent. this year and 1½ per cent. next year".
    Further on, it says:
    "our forecast shows the government's fiscal plans being broadly met."
    I expect the Conservatives to read that before trying to give selective quotations from City and independent forecasters.
    Our forecasts for the economy last July, last November and in the Budget are broadly being met. It is time that the Conservatives faced the challenge of moving the economy from stop-go, which we had under them, to stable and sustained growth. That is why we made the Bank of England independent. Would the right hon. Gentleman keep the Bank of England independent?

    Pay Rises
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What assessment he has made of the effects of the current level of pay rises among senior business executives. [50492]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): Pay in all sectors and at all levels must be related to what is affordable in the medium term. Senior business executives are no exception. It would be the worst of short-termism for senior executives or anyone else to pay themselves unsustainable pay increases today at the cost of higher interest rates, fewer jobs and slower growth tomorrow.
    Mrs. Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that large pay increases that are not related to productivity can only make firms less competitive and lead to inflationary pressures in the economy?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Boardroom members who are telling others to pull
    1248
    in their belts and accept reasonable and affordable pay increases must show a lead. Our productivity record is not very good compared with other countries. Management has a role to play. I repeat that for anyone—senior executive or not—to pay themselves unsustainable pay increases today would bring the worst possible results, with fewer jobs and slower growth. Everybody—boardrooms in particular—should take the lead on that.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Chief Secretary agree that the issue is not the amount that chief executives are paid, but their calibre and the performance of their companies, particularly their investment in infrastructure and the fact that consumers' bills since privatisation have been held at incredibly low levels? We all remember the times when nine out of 10 public telephones did not work and every high street in the country was being dug up by a different utility. The utilities are very different today. We need world-class companies such as British Telecom and other privatised utility companies.
    Mr. Darling: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past few years. Many hon. Members can name many high streets that are still being dug up by the utilities. I am not sure when he last received a water bill, but many people's water bills have increased substantially.
    The important point is that all boardrooms, particularly those of the monopoly utilities, should show an example—some restraint. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that calibre of boardroom members matters. Those of calibre should reflect on the fact that what they do is seen not only by those who work for them but by everyone else. I would have thought that it would be an example of calibre to show some degree of restraint in order to ensure that pay increases are affordable and that some of this year's increases, which, frankly, are very difficult to justify, are not repeated.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that expecting bosses, especially of the public utilities, to adopt the moral tone that the Government might encourage, and asking them to occupy high moral ground on their own pay, is not likely to work? They have never been prepared to respond in the past. As the Government have something to do with regulators and can propose public utility price levels, should they not take the opportunity to work in that direction? Should not the people whom the Government appoint to quangos—I do not like quangos, but the Government do, and they appoint thousands of people to them every year—impose conditions on bosses' pay? If we go down that road—it is public intervention for sure—we might get a better result than by merely preaching.
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes an important point, particularly in respect of directors of monopoly utilities, who make their profits, to a large extent, because of their monopoly. He will know that the Government are considering action to ensure some degree of restraint in those boardrooms. I repeat that it is up to everyone, particularly senior executives, to show some responsibility and to set an overall example.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Chief Secretary comment on the future of pay review bodies

    1249
    apropos public sector pay increases? Does he share my view that it is more appropriate for consultants, doctors and nurses to receive a larger increase than public sector executives?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Lady will know that pay review bodies, some of which were set up more than 20 years ago, will remain. We have enhanced their responsibilities by asking them to have regard not only to recruitment, retention and motivation but, crucially, to affordability in order to ensure that whatever they award is consistent with Departments' obligations to achieve the targets set out in last week's review.
    Pay review bodies must also have regard to the Government's inflation target. Although such bodies are of course independent and will come to their independent views, most people realise that, if we start to pay ourselves unjustifiable and unaffordable awards, we shall embark on the spiral that we saw far too often in the past, in which any gains from a pay increase that public service workers and others received were swiftly eaten away by inflation. We shall not return to those days.

    Economic and Monetary Union
    Mr. Brian White: What progress has been made towards meeting the criteria which the Government have set for joining EMU. [50493]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government are committed to a programme that is in the national economic interest and will help to satisfy the five tests outlined by the Chancellor in his statement in October.
    The Government are achieving macro-economic stability through our sound fiscal and monetary policies. We are creating the right framework for low inflation through our reform of the Bank of England and our commitment to monitoring the inflation target in the light of the European central bank's practices. We are ensuring that fiscal rules and deficit reduction plans continue to be consistent with the terms of the stability and growth pact, thereby underlining our commitment to avoid excessive deficit. We are promoting greater flexibility in the United Kingdom by our welfare-to-work programme and our investment in long-term skills.
    Mr. White: Given that, in 14 months, the Government have done more to prepare British business for either the threat or the opportunity—depending on one's point of view—of the euro than the previous Administration in the long years since Maastricht, will my hon. Friend explain how she intends to provide the House and the British people with regular progress updates, so that any decision on British entry to the euro can be an informed choice rather than the knee-jerk reaction so typified by Conservative Members?
    Mrs. Liddell: The Government regularly publish details of the performance of the economy against which the five economic tests can be measured. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We have only five months until the introduction of the single currency in 11 countries with which businesses in this country trade. It is quite appalling that the previous Government did nothing to ensure that preparations were in place. Indeed, their actions could
    1250
    have adversely affected the competitiveness of British industry. This Government are doing everything in our power to address that.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: In the light of the job losses announced by Rover today, does the Economic Secretary not recognise that the overvalued pound is causing serious damage to British manufacturing and threatens tens of thousands of jobs, and that that has been brought about partly by the Government's failure in their fiscal policy to tackle consumers rather than businesses, so forcing up interest rates and the pound? Does she not recognise that the Government have the power and the duty to address that problem, and also to ensure that business has a clearly identifiable timetable for membership of European monetary union so that it can make plans now, knowing that the British exchange rate will be at a competitive level, which at the moment it is not?
    Mrs. Liddell: Again, we have publicity without responsibility. The hon. Gentleman is advocating short-term solutions to problems that have to be dealt with in the longer term. It is ironic that that should come from the Liberal Democrats, who voted against all the tax changes introduced by the Government. The sensible thing to do is to get the economy on to the path of long-term sustainable growth. In that way, we benefit the entire British economy, and allow the British people to make a reasoned judgment on whether to join a single currency.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware that in the west midlands we are very concerned about the job losses—up to about 10,000—which will arise as a result of Rover's announcement. Will she and her colleagues tell the Monetary Policy Committee that it is important not to exaggerate the inflationary pressures in the economy and that, with the exception of fat cat pay rises, pay settlements, including those at Rover, have been in line with inflation? Higher earnings have largely been the result of factors such as increased overtime working, which, ironically, has come about because employers are unwilling to take on new staff because of the high and uncompetitive rate of the pound. Will the Minister also tell the Monetary Policy Committee that tomorrow's mortgage interest rate rise will lead to demands for higher pay increases? The sooner we can get interest rates down, the better.
    Mrs. Liddell: I must tell my hon. Friend that only last month Rover announced 1,000 additional new jobs in connection with the R40 model that it is introducing. One of the key elements for long-term business planning in this country is to get inflation down and stability into the economy. Some 400,000 new jobs have been created over the past year, and to enable us to build a sustainable economy we need the kind of decisions now being taken by the Monetary Policy Committee, which should have been taken by the Conservative Government. Much of the increase in the value of sterling—two thirds of it, in fact—took place in the lifetime of the previous Government. Conservative Members frequently try to forget that.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: As the Government have decided in principle to join the single European currency, and it is now just a matter of timing, does the hon. Lady agree with the National Institute of Economic and Social Research report that came out this morning, which says that the recently announced public spending increases will lead to an interest rate regime that is higher for longer than would otherwise have been the case, and that joining the single European currency in the next Parliament would lead us to join at an uncompetitive rate? According to the report, that will mean
    "a period of very slow growth and price deflation".
    Is that what the hon. Lady wants to condemn the British economy to, just so that the Government can regain some influence in the European Union?
    Mrs. Liddell: The right hon. Gentleman is obsessed with the European Union. Indeed, it was interesting that in the debate on the single currency the other evening, the shadow Chancellor, in response to a question by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary about whether he could tell the House under what circumstances a Conservative Government would ever join the single currency, replied:
    "At the moment I cannot".—[Official Report, 21 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 990.]
    First it was going to be 10 years, and now the Conservatives cannot say when they would ever join. That means that, even if it were in Britain's national interests, the Conservative party could never, because of its own divisions, say that Britain would join a single currency.
    I commend to the right hon. Gentleman page 6 of the NIESR report that he cited, which states explicitly:
    "the inflation outlook remains benign",
    and that the forecast shows
    "inflation falling below 2½ per cent. per annum by the end of this year, with a modest revival to the target rate in 1999".

    Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: How many representations he has received since 1 May 1997 about the debt problems of the poorest countries in the world. [50494]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Since 1 May 1997, the Treasury has received more than 9,000 letters and postcards about third-world debt. In the past year, eight of the poorest indebted countries have moved into the debt reduction process.
    Mr. Canavan: Although some progress was made at the G8 summit in May, is my right hon. Friend aware of the disappointment at the failure of some of our G8 partners to agree on more positive measures for debt relief? As the International Development Committee report on debt relief was published more than 11 weeks ago, can we expect an early positive response to the Committee's excellent recommendations? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the Government will step up their efforts to write off the unpayable debts of the world's poorest countries by 2000?
    Mr. Brown: I assure my hon. Friend that a response has been sent to the Select Committee, outlining a number of initiatives in which the Government are engaged. As a result of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, Uganda became the first country to receive a debt reduction—it will complete the process this month—by $347 million. Another five countries will have their debt reduced by $3 billion as a result of the negotiations and of the decision points that have been reached. Another two countries are about the reach the decision point, and we are close to agreement on six other countries.
    My hon. Friend makes an important point. By the millennium, as a result of the Mauritius mandate, on which Government policy is based, we want all countries to become part of the debt reduction process. That will go hand in hand with the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to increase overseas aid and the proportion of our national income that is given in overseas aid.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: What discussions is the right hon. Gentleman having with other European Union financial leaders about how substantial progress can be made towards ensuring that the whole of the EU helps to reduce the debt burden of the poorest countries?
    Mr. Brown: Much as many hon. Members want the European Union to work in an integrated way on all issues of foreign policy, debt relief works through the Paris club and through pressure in the G7 and other organisations. I think that what the hon. Gentleman wants is what we are trying to do—to persuade our G7 partners to become far more fully involved in the debt reduction process and to persuade countries to reconsider their refusal to sell International Monetary Fund gold. Through our new initiative for post-conflict countries such as Rwanda—which have been burdened not only by huge, unsustainable debts but because they are recovering from war—we can do more as members of the international community to extend the debt reduction process.
    A year ago, when we came to power, only one country had finished the decision-making process on debt relief. As a result of international efforts, eight countries have finished that process and another six will soon be at the point of reaching a decision. We must also move forward with the post-conflict countries. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not complacent about these matters; we shall try to move other countries that have hitherto done less.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts to solve some of the debt problems of the poorest countries? I, like many hon. Members, receive many representations from schoolchildren, who absolutely cannot understand why we cannot do something about the terrible pictures that we see on the television. I welcome the progress that has been made, but will he redouble his efforts, so that, when we go to schools, we can talk about the real progress that we are making?
    Mr. Brown: The Government want poverty to be halved in the future. I assure my hon. Friend that our efforts are designed to ensure that international development aid money goes to the reduction of poverty, to health programmes and to education. We want to avoid

    1253
    what happened in the 1980s, when much borrowed money financed prestige projects, was wasted on military expenditure and, in some cases, led to the corrupt use of resources.
    As we move forward, countries such as Mozambique—where 9 per cent. of the national income was being spent on debt relief but only 4 per cent. was being spent on education and health—are now part of the debt reduction process, which enables money to be spent on the education of children and the health of all people. That is the aim of the Government. I hope that, in the run-up to the millennium, our international millennium initiative will be to ensure that every country is part of the debt reduction process.

    EU Spending
    Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on the impact of the proposals set out in his comprehensive spending review on the United Kingdom's net contributions to the European Union.
    Mrs. Liddell: The United Kingdom's contributions to the European Community derive from its treaty obligations with the Community. Consequently, the comprehensive spending review has had no direct impact on the United Kingdom's net contributions to the European Community.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I thank the hon. Lady for her reply. If that is so, can she assure the House that when the budget and expenditure review of the EU takes effect from the end of next year, the UK's net contributions to the EU in the first two years of the new millennium will be no higher than they are at present?
    Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that discussions are about to start on the new financial prospectus for the European Community. It is important to make the point that, at the moment, there are increased pressures on the European Community budget because of decisions entered into by the Government of which he was a member in 1992 in relation to structural funds, which have meant a significant increase in expenditure on contributions to the EU. The long-term financial prospects must be looked at in light of the proposed enlargement of the EU. It is the determination of the Government to ensure that we can have a tight budgetary package so we get value for money not just for our domestic economy, but right across Europe.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend agree that targeted investment-led EU structural funds have made a major impact on the economies of regions such as the north-west, particularly during those years when the Conservative party refused to intervene to do anything about disparities in regional economies? Does she believe that the comprehensive spending review's proposals for new investment in transport infrastructure will help to develop the economies of our regions so that we may strive to become near the average of the EU regions in terms of gross domestic product, rather than below, where we find ourselves as a result of 18 years of neglect?
    Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend is well aware of the Chancellor's intention in the comprehensive spending review to seek to reach a settlement that ensures that our infrastructure gets the investment that it requires. We are coming up to a period in which we will be examining the future of the structural funds. The aim of the British Government will be to ensure value for money and that the new structural funds settlement and the common agricultural policy secure the best interests of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom and our constituents.

    European Investment Bank
    Mr. Colin Breed: What steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that the European investment bank properly assesses applications for investment. [50496]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): All projects approved by the EIB are approved by its board after appraisal by its staff.
    Mr. Breed: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee on European Legislation was recently advised of a substantial write-off of an advance to a regional airline which subsequently failed, and that the reasons given were
    "Poor financial and commercial management, an inadequate choice of aircraft—
    which seems to bear out the former—
    "and lack of political support"
    from the Government of the region? Does he agree that those assessments should have been part of the original appraisal and that, therefore—in terms of getting EIB loans—such matters should be eliminated? Will he institute a review of the way in which EIB loans are assessed so that we can minimise any future bad debts?
    Mr. Robinson: I have met Sir Brian Unwin, and I will bring the matter to his attention. I would not like to leave the House with the impression that the EIB is an inactive or incompetent organisation. It has invested £26 billion, £23 billion of which was in the EU, and, last year, £3.8 billion—the highest level ever—was invested in the UK. I will bring the matters to the attention of Sir Brian. I have met him before and will do so again, and I will report what he says back to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to announce that he was in favour of joining EMU—without setting a date—the consequences would be an increase in inward investment, a reduction in the high level of the pound and a reduction in interest rates? Would that not be one those rarest-of-all economic consequences—a genuinely free economic lunch?
    Mr. Robinson: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear the five conditions that must be met and has said that, if it is in the national interest, there is no barrier

    1255
    to our joining EMU. The performance of the European investment bank in the United Kingdom and the European Union is already extremely good and should be welcomed by the whole House.

    Tax Harmonisation
    Mr. John Cryer: When he last met his counterparts in the European Union to discuss tax harmonisation. [50497]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Government's view is that direct taxation is primarily a matter for national Governments. Decisions on European tax issues are subject to unanimity.
    Mr. Cryer: As we know, there have been extensive discussions within the auspices of the Economic and Finance Council on future tax harmonisation. Can my right hon. Friend guarantee that there will be no future discussions on income tax harmonisation within the European Union because, as sure as eggs is eggs, that is what enthusiasts for EMU will press for next?
    Mr. Darling: It is not true to say that there have been extensive discussions. ECOFIN has discussed measures to cut down on tax evasion and also the effects of harmful tax competition—a matter that has been pursued by this Government—as some countries are offering tax incentives in particular areas rather than a generalised reduced rate of corporation tax. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said in the debate on the European Union the other night and I understand his general position on it—let alone the European currency. I believe that his fears are exaggerated and I do not share the basis on which he opposes the concept of monetary union or the European Union itself.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: With the London art market already largely destroyed in the pointless quest for tax harmonisation, does the Chief Secretary accept that the Commission's proposal to impose a 20 per cent. withholding tax on interest income poses a real threat to London's position as an international financial centre and will lead to investors simply switching their money to Zurich or New York? Will he give a categorical assurance that the Government will veto that proposal and reject any compromise that damages the City of London?
    Mr. Darling: I was wondering what the hon. Gentleman was doing on the Front Bench, but I am reminded that he is now an Opposition Treasury spokesman and I welcome him to that job. I recently met an individual who is involved in the art world and am aware of the fears. Frankly, we were sticking up for the position of the art market long before the hon. Gentleman showed any interest in the matter. The Government are aware of the problem—and to say that the London art market is under threat is to raise unjustified fears, as it is competitive and well regarded throughout the world.

    European Currencies (Exchange Costs)
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What estimate he has made of the annual costs to the United Kingdom general public of exchange costs related to European currencies. [50498]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): Any estimate of annual exchange costs related to European currencies would be subject to wide margins of error. It would need to take account of the transaction costs incurred by business and individuals each time currencies are exchanged and the associated costs to business of exchange rate uncertainty.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why should the British holidaymaker in Europe spend billions of pounds annually filling the pockets of European money changers, when at the stroke of a pen—entry into the single European currency—those costs would disappear overnight? Is that not a powerful argument for early entry into the European single currency?
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made the Government's position on the single currency absolutely clear. If we meet the five economic tests, we believe that, in principle, the single currency would be good for this country. In the past six months of our presidency, we have done everything that we can to ensure that it is launched successfully. I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I think he would agree that the important thing is to ensure that this country prepares so that it is in a position to make a genuine and real decision whether to join such a currency at the appropriate time.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Surely the costs of conversion of currencies are as nothing to the costs to our people of having to endure inappropriate levels of interest or quantities of money in circulation, imposed by an alien bank over which they have no democratic control.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman illustrates the problems of the Conservative party when he describes the European Union as alien. No doubt he was greatly encouraged the other night when the shadow Chancellor moved his party's position from not joining a single currency for at least 10 years to not being able to envisage ever joining it at all. That is how out of touch Conservative Members are. They must realise that we are part of Europe. More than 50 per cent. of our trade is within Europe, and we believe that, if it is in our economic interest to join a single currency, that should be equated with the national interest.
    The hon. Gentleman graphically illustrates the difference between his party and the Government, who will always act in the national economic interest, which is why most people believe that we will best serve our country's interests in Europe.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to announce the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 JuLY—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland Bill.
TUESDAY 28 JuLY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill.
Consideration of a Lords amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords amendments which are expected to be received to the National Minimum Wage Bill
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 pm.
WEDNESDAY 29 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.
Opposition Day (19th allotted day). Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate which the Opposition have entitled "The Government's obsession with style over substance", followed by a debate that they have called "The Government's threat to the quality of life in rural areas". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Terrorist Organisations) Order.
THURSDAY 30 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Bill.
FRIDAY 31 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Bill.
The House will then rise for the summer recess. I cannot announce this week the business for the first week back, but we will return on Monday 19 October.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for the announcement of next week's business, and of the date on which we can return from working in our constituencies. The House is expecting a number of statements before we rise next week. When can we expect the publication of, and a statement on, the findings of the inquiry into the Sandline affair? Will it be, as rumoured, on Monday?
When will we have the long-awaited statement on local government? Will there be a statement on asylum seekers? When can we expect the outcome of the roads review? Can the Leader of the House confirm that there is no question of delaying announcements so that they are made when the House is not sitting, and can she shed any light on the continuing speculation in the newspapers about the legislation on freedom of information?
If there are to be changes not only in the personnel of the Government—we very much hope that the right hon. Lady will not be moved—but in the structure, can we have early discussions, through the usual channels, about the implications for Select Committees and for question time in the House?
1258
Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate, in which many Ministers may wish to take part, including the right hon. Lady herself, so that the House can judge for itself the claim of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs on 15 July in the Edinburgh Evening News:
"When it comes to performance as a minister, I'm rated as one of the best in the House."
Can the right hon. Lady devise an appropriate mechanism to allow the House to vote on the respective qualities of Ministers? Might there also be an opportunity for the President of the Board of Trade to apologise for statements made by the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs about his staff, and to outline what disciplinary action she is taking to deal with him?
Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made it clear that she has no intention of responding to press reports, and that she has confidence in her Ministers and her civil servants. I have nothing to add to that.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reiterating what I have said many times about the recess. It is not a time just for holidays, but for hon. Members to do useful and well organised work in our constituencies. It is a working period, which sometimes includes Committees of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman was worried about whether there would be any delay in our making several statements. I hope that there will be statements in one form or another before the House rises on all the matters he raised, but I cannot guarantee that. We pencil in dates for statements, but sometimes they must be adjusted.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Legg report. The inquiry is independent, as I have pointed out before. I have not yet had confirmation of precise arrangements for the report's publication, but I expect it to happen next week, and expect that there will be a statement in the House.
We are still considering the precise timing and arrangements of the local government White Paper. On the roads review, I have said before that I think it extremely important that any announcement allows all hon. Members to be informed on what is happening in their areas. There are precedents for and against statements on such matters, and we shall have to make a judgment about the balance of other business and statements. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about asylum, and I hope that there will be a statement, perhaps on Monday.
Mr. Derek Foster: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1589 about freedom of information, which has been signed by 76 hon. Members from both sides of the House, including several leading Select Committee chairpersons?
[That this House welcomes the Prime Minister's statement in 1996 that a Freedom of Information Act 'is not some isolated constitutional reform' but 'a change that is absolutely fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country over the next few years'; congratulates the Government on its Freedom of Information White Paper; expresses concern at the prospect of any delay in bringing the measure forward; and calls on the Government to publish its draft Freedom

1259
of Information Bill before the end of the current session and to ensure that the actual Bill is introduced in the coming session.]
Can she give us a statement next week on the progress of the draft Bill on freedom of information? Would it be possible for that statement to deal with Sir Richard Scott's comments after the arms-to-Iraq affair about a culture of secrecy in Whitehall that was endemic to how we operated? He was saying that the affair was not just a matter of a few Tory Ministers behaving badly, but part of the way in which we work. Can we be told when the draft Bill will be published? Can we be assured that it will be in the Queen's Speech?
Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. Friend is too experienced to expect me to anticipate the Queen's Speech. The Government are fully committed to a radical freedom of information Bill. I apologise to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for ignoring that part of his question; perhaps I had anticipated that it would come up again. I can confirm that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said, we intend to publish a draft Bill in the autumn.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on the European Union's current anti-dumping negotiations? I draw her attention to early-day motion 1558 and the large number of jobs at stake in many constituencies.
[That this House supports the British Government in opposing measures taken by the European Commission to impose duties on cotton imports from China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey; recognises the adverse effect this will have on United Kingdom jobs with 7,000 jobs in the United Kingdom textile finishing sector at risk; and calls on the Government to continue its stance in objecting to these measures along with the eight other member states who oppose the duties in order to ensure that these proposals are scrapped.]
May I ask the right hon. Lady to find time for a statement on the future of mutual building societies, following the very narrow victory today by the Nationwide board in the ballot?
Has she had an opportunity to study the letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) to the Secretary of State for Social Security? It draws attention to the continuing difficulties in getting statements and documents from the Government, including this week, which, following the brave words of the Leader of the House in a debate earlier this week, is perhaps somewhat unfortunate?
Finally, early-day motion 1569, supported by more than 80 Members, contains a request that urgent consideration be given to solving the long-standing problem of dealing with private Members' business. Can the right hon. Lady assure the House that action will be taken on that front as well?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are extremely concerned about the anti-dumping issue, as are many of us who have textiles in our constituencies. I know that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been active in trying to get a satisfactory resolution of that matter.
Regarding mutual building societies, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in November last year, we increased the turnout threshold in conversion votes from
1260
20 to 50 per cent. That is probably as far as the Government can go in that respect. I assume that the hon. Gentleman wants time to be found for a debate on the matter, but he will understand why "not next week" is a particularly appropriate answer this week.
Regarding his hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Had he given me notice, I would have made inquiries, but I shall do so after Business Questions. I have to admit that I do not see every piece of correspondence from individual Members to all my ministerial colleagues. As for private Members' Bills, the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Modernisation Committee, and he knows that that is one of the issues to which the Committee intends to turn its attention.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Leader of the House give the House an assurance that she will defend the right of the House of Commons over the other place, particularly in respect of the amendment made yesterday in the House of Lords to the Crime and Disorder Bill? Is she aware that it would be utterly intolerable for two free votes of the House of Commons—one on fox hunting and the other on equality of treatment between people of different sexual orientations—to be frustrated by the second Chamber? We have a Government who are prepared to take tough decisions, and here is a really tough decision.
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that a study of the Division list shows that the life peers voted by a majority of 138 to 97 in favour of rejection of the Bill, which includes 20 Labour life peers, four Labour hereditary peers and a former leader of the party, Lord Callaghan? Will she therefore give serious consideration to the apparent policy of the Government that patronage is better than election when it comes to a second Chamber? Will she look at the Parliamentary Reform Bill introduced last week, which would provide for a wholly elected second Chamber of the sort that most civilised countries adopted long ago?
Mrs. Taylor: I am afraid that I cannot hold out very much hope for the Parliamentary Reform Bill introduced last week, but my right hon. Friend makes some serious points about the need for reform of the other place. On his two specific points, I think that the fate of the Bill on fox hunting had more to do with Opposition Members than with Members of the House of Lords; and, after the vote last night, I am considering very seriously with my right hon. Friends, including the Home Secretary, the options now open to us.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we have an early debate on the extraordinary events in the Department of Trade and Industry, not least the astonishing outburst by the Under-Secretary of State to which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) referred? Does the right hon. Lady not agree that we really must get to the bottom of those events, touching as they do on the relationship between the Secretary of State, one of her junior Ministers and the permanent secretary, the ability of that Department properly to discharge its duties, and its relationship with the House? Surely the President of the Council must agree that this matter is of the utmost

1261
gravity and urgency. Will she arrange for an emergency debate to take place later today so that we can clarify those matters before the events of the coming weekend?
Mrs. Taylor: I am reminded that the Opposition will have a debate on style over substance next Wednesday. The right hon. Gentleman may have style on occasion, but there was certainly no substance in that request.
Mr. David Winnick: Although I deeply regret the decision by the House of Lords yesterday, I ask my right hon. Friend to bear it in mind that there are differences of opinion about the way in which a second Chamber should be organised. Is she aware that many hon. Members, including myself, take the view that the last thing that the House of Commons should want is an elected second Chamber that would substantially undermine the authority of this House, which is already undermined to some extent by organisations such as the European Union? If an elected second Chamber did as the other place did yesterday, what political and moral grounds would we have for opposing it? Now, we can oppose the second Chamber with justification on decisions such as the one made last night, because the other place is totally unelected.
Mrs. Taylor: That is very interesting, but I am afraid that I cannot find time for a debate on that matter next week.
Mr. James Paice: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the crisis in the milk industry? Does she know that a week ago all the major dairies in this country refused to bid for this round of milk sales, with the result that some 40 per cent. of dairy farmers do not have an outlet at any price for their milk in the coming months?
Will the right hon. Lady try to arrange an emergency debate or at least a statement by the Minister of Agriculture about what can be done? A statement could perhaps be made by the President of the Board of Trade, because the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is currently considering the matter. I hope that the right hon. Lady understands that the dairy farmers of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are very worried about what will happen to their milk.
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot arrange the debate that the hon. Gentleman requests, but I remind him that Agriculture questions will take place on Thursday.
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging a debate on the textile industry? Has she read early-day motion 1558, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)? The motion pinpoints the potential loss of 7,000 British textile workers' jobs. Those jobs will be lost simply because the European Commission is not firm enough in importing its levies and protecting the general textile industry. Does my right hon. Friend accept that today's legitimate demonstration to safeguard and secure textile workers' jobs is welcomed by the House?
Mrs. Taylor: As I explained earlier, I represent a textile constituency, so I know about those problems.
1262
The Government remain firmly opposed to anti-dumping duties on imports of unbleached cotton originating in China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey. We are doing everything that we can to prevent confirmation of the current provisional duties. There is concern among all Members with textile interests in their constituency. As I pointed out earlier, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is fully aware of those concerns, and is working extremely hard to try to achieve a proper resolution of the problem.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the Leader of the House give a categorical assurance that during the summer parliamentary recess, no British forces will be committed to action in Kosovo or against Serbia without the House of Commons first being recalled to debate the matter?
Mrs. Taylor: I have said on other occasions that we can never guarantee an oral statement before any decision is made to deploy troops. We would never want to deploy troops without first making a statement, but obviously that cannot be ruled out.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend said that she expected the freedom of information Bill to be published in the autumn. I wonder whether she might go further and arrange for the publication of the draft Bill before the Labour, Liberal and Conservative party conferences, because I believe that it will certainly influence debates at those conferences.
Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure when all the dates of those conferences are, but it is an interesting suggestion. I shall look at the possibilities, but without giving any guarantee.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I pursue that point? Is the right hon. Lady aware that her answers to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) are very disappointing indeed? The Bill has slipped several times, and there is now concern that the Government are going cold on the idea.
It is a matter of some importance that we get the draft Bill published in the spillover at the latest, because the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and the Select Committee on Public Administration are looking forward to conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. That makes it impossible, realistically, to put it in the Queen's Speech for next year. That is a matter of grave concern because, apart from anything else, before the general election some pretty firm assurances were given to my party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that these matters would be brought forward and dealt with very early in this Parliament.
Mrs. Taylor: Freedom of information has long been a high priority of the Labour party, and, as I said, Government remain fully committed to a freedom of information Bill. I believe that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), as Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration, which is considering a draft Bill, appreciates the importance of that procedure, which I want to see advanced in a positive way, and from which I want positive outcomes.
The idea is that we have a draft Bill, which is then considered again. I hope that that means that the passage of the legislation will subsequently be more

1263
straightforward. We cannot guarantee that, but it is worth investing time in that pre-legislative procedure to getthe legislation right. Earlier, I gave the date that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster mentioned to the House—in the autumn. He has made that statement, and that remains the position.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I had understood that the Office of Public Service was saying that the draft freedom of information Bill would be ready by the end of September. Is that true?
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot give a precise date, but the end of September is in the autumn.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will we have a chance next week to debate the report that the Government were going to produce on the progress of each Minister? The Leader of the House knows that, in February, I asked a series of questions about the time that it took for people to respond to letters from Members of Parliament. One junior Minister has said that he is being undermined by his civil servants because he is trying to get 90 per cent. of letters answered within the appallingly long time of three working weeks.
What will actually happen? Does the Leader of the House believe that she is responsible for obtaining for the House a proper service for getting those answers out to Members of Parliament? She knows that Ministers refuse to tell me how long it is now taking them to reply to Members' letters, saying that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will publish those figures some time—and not in Hansard.
Mrs. Taylor: The information will be published. We shall publish the target times for the turnaround of replies, and information about the volume of correspondence to different Departments. I hope that we shall be able to do so in the very near future.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why should there be all this fuss and bother about what the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs is alleged to have said? If what was reported today in the House is correct, what is wrong with the Minister doing his own spin doctoring? He has cut out the middle man.
Mrs. Taylor: I think my hon. Friend confirms that we need not have a debate on that subject next week.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Humorous though some of these exchanges are, I am not prepared to cut into the period of time for debate on the Northern Ireland Bill, which should start at about 4 o'clock, so I am asking for very specific questions and very brief responses, please.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Minister of Transport come to the House and explain how he will safeguard the interests of British aviation against the thoroughly unconstitutional behaviour of Commissioner Kinnock, who, at a stroke of a pen, seems to be able to overturn the jurisdiction of the European Court?
Mrs. Taylor: Again, I do not think that we will be able to debate such issues next week, but the hon. Gentleman,
1264
who is well informed on European matters, will know that the original decision to grant aid predated the arrival of Commissioner Kinnock.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Has the Leader of the House had drawn to her attention concerns about thoracic surgical services at Derriford hospital in Plymouth following a Channel 4 news programme last night? Such instances cause deep anxiety to patients and those close to them. As well as leaving no stone unturned, will she offer reassurance that the House will have the chance to debate the findings of any review of the circumstances?
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot give that assurance at this stage, but I will try to make sure that my hon. Friend is fully informed of what is happening and of when any outcome is due. As she knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health acted promptly to launch an inquiry and the surgeon concerned has been suspended, pending its outcome. I do not think that there is time to have a further debate at this stage—nor, probably, would it be appropriate.
Dr. Evan Harris: Speaking as one of the six co-sponsors of the Back-Bench amendment on the age of consent, may I ask the right hon. Lady to accept that there is cross-party Back-Bench concern about the actions of another place in overturning that amendment? Therefore, does she not consider it reasonable for the Home Secretary to consult both with other parties through the usual channels and with those co-sponsors on the nature of the Government's response next Tuesday night to the decision in another place?
Furthermore, does the right hon. Lady deprecate press briefings, which are rumoured to have taken place, to the effect that the Government might cave in on the issue? Does she agree that those briefings were not helpful in advance of the debate in another place?
Mrs. Taylor: I certainly confirm that such briefings in advance of that debate would not have been helpful at all. I do not think that any briefings were issued by Labour Members; they certainly did not come from Government sources. I have explained that, along with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other colleagues, we are considering seriously the options open to us now.
Mr. John Smith: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time in a busy schedule before the House rises to look at the impact of the Data Protection Act 1988 on the ability of right hon. and hon. Members to take up constituency cases? We should be able to do that, and I am sure that the whole House supports me, without any fear or favour or impediment. More of us have time allotted to take up constituency cases than ever before. The last thing we want is barriers. The Act is not being applied equally throughout the country or by different agencies. I should be grateful if she would protect our interests by looking into the matter.
Mrs. Taylor: I am aware that some Members, when they take up a case on behalf of a constituent, have been asked for proof that the constituent is willing for the Member to do so. I do not think that such proof is

1265
necessary, but I know that some people want doubly to protect themselves. It is an issue that we will have look at, because it appears that that practice is increasing.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Whose decision was it to release the Government's consultation paper on fishing safety and recovery of bodies lost at sea by written answer and press conference, as opposed to Commons statement? The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) and I have received the document in the past few minutes. We understand that the press conference took place at 2.30.
Given the commitment by letter last November to release such a consultation document on recovery of bodies lost at sea to four bereaved families in my constituency, what provision was made to inform them of the release of the document and to ensure that they had its contents at least at the same time as the press? Given the huge sensitivity of these matters, is not this an occasion when effective parliamentary scrutiny and questioning might have been better than the Government's obsession with news management?
Mrs. Taylor: This is a matter of sensitivity and, sometimes in such matters, it is right that everyone can absorb the information before they jump to conclusions about what is being proposed. We do not always have statements in the House. As I was saying the other day, we always have to balance the business of the House with statements and the nature of those statements, but I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are passed on to my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: In considering the options in response to last night's vote in another place on the age of consent, will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that many hon. Members feel strongly that we should at least be given the opportunity for a further vote on the matter?
Mrs. Taylor: That issue will return to the House next Tuesday. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, along with other colleagues as well as myself, understands the feeling in the House on that matter.
Mr. Tim Collins: Will the right hon. Lady find time for an early debate on redundancy arrangements, given that so many of her colleagues will be deeply interested in them in the next week or so? Does the right hon. Lady agree with the self-assessment of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, her hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh. South (Mr. Griffiths), that he is rated one of the best in the House?
Mrs. Taylor: I have nothing to add to what I said earlier.
Mr. Alan Simpson: May I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 1583 which relates to a Court of Appeal decision earlier this week about genetically modified crop trials?
[That this House welcomes the Court of Appeal ruling that it was illegal for field trials of genetic maize in Devon to have been allowed without first having met the
1266
statutory legal requirements relating to national seed list trials; regrets that the court failed to go on to rule that GM crop trials be removed; recognises that there is now a moral obligation to do so; values the legal requirement that two replicated trials must be conducted before any national field trials can proceed; and calls for a moratorium on all GM field trials until the wider consequences for human health and environmental well-being have been fully explored.]
Can a statement be made in the House which clarifies exactly what is happening to the crops that have been ruled to be illegal because they have been grown without having first met the statutory legal requirements over national seed list trials? Can we also have a statement on whether there is a case for a moratorium on such GM trials until their status is clear?
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot guarantee my hon. Friend the statement or the debate that he requests. However, I draw his attention to the fact that there are Agriculture questions on Thursday, and it may be possible to raise the subject then.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to the right hon. Lady's glib answers to date, why will she not ask the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, to make a statement to the House, given that that would enable him either to apologise for, or to explain, his publicly reported attack on the permanent secretary of the Department in which he is a Minister? If the right hon. Lady is not prepared to make that request, are we to conclude that the Minister's behaviour is an example of the high standards of public life to which new Labour aspires?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's behaviour today certainly does not meet the high standards of the House. There is no case to answer, and to ask for time to be used on such matters is just silliness on the hon. Gentleman's part.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate or statement on the taxation of the North sea offshore oil and gas industry? That matter has a bearing on some 350,000 jobs across the country, and affects hundreds of constituencies throughout the land.
Mrs. Taylor: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about this issue. I know that he is one of those who has already found the three-hour pre-recess debate extremely useful. I would not be surprised if he were to try to contribute again. I cannot throw any more light on that topic today, but I know that Ministers are aware of the interest in that issue.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Can the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—or preferably a new Minister—to make a statement on the quarantine regulations? If the right hon. Lady believes that he cannot come next week, when are we likely to have an announcement on any proposed changes in quarantine regulations? The right hon. Lady may know that many people are deferring their holidays in anticipation of changes taking place.
Mrs. Taylor: I am not aware of people deferring their holidays on that basis, and I cannot provide time for a

1267
debate before the summer recess. I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I have reminded others, that it is Agriculture questions on Thursday.
Sir Robert Smith: Further to the question on the oil tax, does the right hon. Lady not realise that, for an industry to make investment decisions, it has to know what the Government intend to do with the tax regime? The Government keep promising to say something, but then say nothing. Is the right hon. Lady aware that Labour Members and nationalist Members are fighting over the fact that the Government have made a U-turn, and about who is responsible? The industry cannot have confidence in Back-Bench speculation; it needs to know what the Government are planning to do.
Mrs. Taylor: In that case, we should wait for the Government's decision.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate before the recess on the working time directive, since its implementation has been promised by 1 October? Although that will be widely welcomed, it is extremely controversial, and raises many technical questions about implementation.
Mrs. Taylor: For reasons that the hon. Gentleman will well understand, next week's programme is extremely crowded, and I do not think that there will be time for extra debates of the type that he is suggesting.

Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Further considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [17 July] [Progress, 22 July].
  [MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

  Northern Ireland Bill
    Clause 23

      EXCLUSION OF MINISTERS FROM OFFICE
      4.4 pm
      Mr. Andrew MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 11, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert—
      '() because he is not committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means;
      () because he is involved in acts of violence or of preparation for violence;
      () because he is directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people;
      () because he is not committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and the achievement of the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms, by 22nd May 2000;
      () because he is not co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 in the implementation of the agreement reached at multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883;'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 82, in page 11, line 29, at end insert 'or'.
      No. 83, in page 11, line 31, leave out from 'office' to end of line 32.
      No. 200, in page 11, line 32, after 'reason', insert
      '(including his association with paramilitary organisations carrying out any form of violence or intimidation, such as so—called punishment beatings)'.
      No. 16, in page 11, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert
      'because it is—
      ()not committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means;
      () involved in acts of violence or of preparation for violence;
      () directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people;
      ()not committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and the achievement of the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms, by 22nd May 2000;
      ()not co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 in the implementation of the agreement reached at multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883; or'.
      No. 86, in page 11, line 38, leave out from 'means' to end of line 39.

      1269
      No. 201, in page 11, line 39, after 'reason', insert
      '(including its association with paramilitary organisations carrying out any form of violence or intimidation, such as so-called punishment beatings)'.
      No. 17, in page 12, leave out lines 17 to 27 and insert—
      '(7) The Secretary of State shall serve such a notice if he believes the Minister or party concerned is—

      (a) not committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means;

      (b) involved in acts of violence or of preparation for violence;

      (c) directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people;

      (d) not committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and the achievement of the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms, by 22nd May 2000; or

      (e) not co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 in the implementation of the agreement reached at multi—party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883.'.

      No. 121, in page 12, line 18, leave out from 'account' to the end of line 27 and insert 'subsection (1)'.
      No. 90, in page 12, line 18, leave out 'or' and insert
      'concerned, the organisation to which he or his party is affiliated, or the'.
      No. 88, in page 12, leave out lines 24 to 27 and insert—
      '(d) has already decommissioned a substantial proportion of its illegally held firearms, ammunition and explosives in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 and is fulfilling a decommissioning timetable which will ensure that it has completed decommissioning before 22nd May 2000.'.
      No. 89, in page 12, line 27, at end insert—
      '(e) has commenced the dismantling of its paramilitary structure;
      (f) in the opinion of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary no longer represents a threat to the community.'.
      No. 75, in clause 15, page 8, line 35, at end insert—
      '(11A) A member shall be excluded from office if he is unable to satisfy the Assembly that he is committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful means.
      (11B) A Northern Ireland Minister shall not take up office until a resolution, "That the member be accepted as a Minister" has been approved by the Assembly voting on a cross-community basis in accordance with section 4(5).
      (11C) The Assembly shall make its determination under this section based solely on the factors listed on section 23(7).'.
      Mr. MacKay: I should like to put the amendment and the debate in their full context. The distinguished and important organisation Families Against Intimidation and Terror reliably informs me that, so far this year, there have been 58 republican so-called punishment attacks and beatings, and 53 loyalist punishment attacks and beatings. Therefore, we should go back and carefully examine exactly what has been said by the IRA and the loyalist paramilitary groups that have signed up to the Belfast agreement.
      We are all grateful that there is a ceasefire—which is particularly welcome in the Province. However, the IRA has described it as a "cessation of military activities".
      1270
      What is behind that phrase? Yes, the IRA has stuck to its word, in that there are no so-called military activities, but there is absolutely no doubt that there is what it would regard as "civil activity".
      Although there is absolutely no doubt in the Province or on the mainland that there are no IRA-inspired bomb attacks on military or civilians targets—such as factories and shopping centers—I deeply regret that it cannot be said that there is absolutely no doubt about other activity in many communities in the Province, in which paramilitaries are not only active but dominant. In those communities, the agreement and the so-called ceasefire mean very little.
      I should repeat the figures: 58 republican punishment beatings; 53 loyalist punishment beatings. It is very difficult for hon. Members representing constituencies that have not been affected by such beatings to imagine what they really mean. I should dwell on a couple of examples.
      After the agreement was signed, John Brown, a 79-year-old New Lodge resident, was dragged from his flat and shot—or knee-capped, as the phrase goes. He will never walk again. For what it is worth to those who committed the atrocity, he was not the alleged child abuser for whom they were looking—that man lived in a different flat, across the corridor, and has now left the area. Such vigilante justice is unacceptable in any society. It is a great pity that it was not condemned by Sinn Fein; commentators and residents in that part of Belfast are convinced that it was an IRA punishment beating.
      More recently, a brave and distinguished peace campaigner, Vincent McKenna, was viciously attacked in south Belfast. There had been threats against him, and he knew that that would happen to him if he continued to campaign.
      Kate Hoey: Does the shadow Secretary of State realise that it is possible for paramilitary groups to be controlled? It was interesting that, during the three weeks of the Assembly elections, there were no so-called punishment beatings by the IRA. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it rather strange that that can happen when it suits the people who control the thugs and gangsters, but that when it does not suit them, such things continue?
      Mr. MacKay: I entirely endorse what the hon. Lady says, and I commend the amendment in her name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley). I shall deal with that issue in a moment, because we want to be fully aware that the tap can be turned on and off very easily. Before I do so, I shall mention the latest case, which involves Andrew Kearney.
      Andrew Kearney was not associated with drug running and was not a member of a paramilitary organisation, but he was dragged from his flat in north Belfast, while asleep with his two-week-old baby. He was knee-capped and left to bleed to death. His family and Families Against Intimidation and Terror have no doubt that it was an IRA punishment beating. I gather that eight men were involved, so it was not simply a casual, chance mistake. Again, I regret to say that Sinn Fein has been totally silent.
      Mr. David Winnick: Obviously, everyone on the Labour Benches condemns those acts

      1271
      committed by thugs; they must be condemned by any decent person. The thugs have shown that they have no respect for the rule of law, which is not surprising.
      It is important to recognise that the agreement and the Bill refer to a commitment to non-violence and to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. I mention that because, when the right hon. Gentleman began his remarks, he said that, although there had been no bomb attacks, there had been other outrages. However, the agreement makes it clear that there must be a commitment to non-violence and to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. While the amendment is useful for debating purposes, what it seeks to achieve is already provided in the Bill.
      Mr. MacKay: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments in their entirety, but he makes a valid point. If he will excuse me, I shall come to it shortly. I want to continue dealing with the present scene and to talk about exiles.
      Many hundreds of people have been intimidated into leaving not just their homes but the Province. They are still not able to return to Northern Ireland, and there has been no word from either the paramilitary parties that were represented at the talks or from Sinn Fein-IRA that will encourage them so to do. Equally, there has been no other gesture, such as the revelation of the location of the unmarked graves of some of those who have disappeared. It is only if one speaks to victims' families that one realises how important it is to know where a loved one has ended up and is buried. All of us who have read Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report—I commend the Government on accepting it in full—will realise just how harrowing and trying that is.
      I should like to quote from a letter that I received from Families Against Intimidation and Terror. The first quote relates directly to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and underlines strongly the points that she made in her intervention. It states:
      "In the last month, we have been inundated with reports of IRA threats and harassment. In the three weeks of the Assembly Election campaign, the IRA called a complete halt to virtually all of their violent activities. They have now resumed."
      That vividly illustrates the point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall that the IRA can turn the tap on and off if it so wishes.
      4.15 pm
      In conclusion, it stated:
      "It is the view of FAIT that IRA activity remains at an unacceptably high level for Sinn Fein to take up positions in the Government of Northern Ireland. If Sinn Fein were allowed to sit in the Executive, while IRA violence continues then many would lose a lot of confidence in the Good Friday Agreement."
      The Minister will be aware that that organisation strongly supports the Good Friday agreement and is a force for good in the Province that is doing a great deal of excellent work.
      I make no apology for taking a little time to set out what is happening in the Province. It is all to easy for those of us with mainland constituencies, sitting here comfortably in the House of Commons, rightly supporting the Belfast agreement, rightly commending a positive vote in the referendum and rightly delighted that the people of
      1272
      Northern Ireland have elected themselves an Assembly that is starting to work effectively, to think complacently that all is well. That is just not so for many ordinary, decent families across the Province who, more often than not, are the poorest and most vulnerable in the community.
      Our amendments seek to strengthen the Bill in a way that we believe does not in any way breach the agreement, so that members of Sinn Fein-IRA cannot take up ministerial positions unless all violence, including the so-called punishment beatings, has ceased for good and the IRA is fully complying with the decommissioning commission. It is not for the Committee, and certainly not for me as shadow Secretary of State, to say who should or should not be Ministers in the Assembly. In fact, I see positive advantages to members of Sinn Fein, now that they have gained sufficient seats in the Assembly, taking up ministerial positions and taking some responsibility. However, in a free democratic society, people can hold ministerial and Executive positions only if they have totally, completely and permanently renounced violence.
      As I have already said, renouncing violence does not just mean a military cessation; it means no punishment beatings and co-operating with the decommissioning commission so that all guns and explosives are handed in within two years. I do not for a moment question the integrity of the Secretary of State or any of her foreseeable successors, but, like the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, the Bill as it stands is woolly and uncertain on that point.
      The Secretary of State has only to take into account whether Sinn Fein-IRA is fully co-operating. That leaves her open to political pressure which, at a particular point, could lead to her saying, "Yes, I have taken into account that they are not decommissioning. They are still kneecapping, but there are other good reasons why I think that they should continue to be Ministers." That is too great a risk for the House to take—too great a risk for democracy. Our amendments would ensure that Sinn Fein-IRA had to show the Secretary of State and the Assembly—both rightly have responsibilities—that they had given up violence for good and were decommissioning fully.
      Anyone foolish enough to suggest that Sinn Fein has nothing to do with the IRA and no influence over it need only look at what Families Against Intimidation and Terror has said and listen to the Secretary of State, who repeated on Second Reading what she has said regularly—that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked. I agree with her, as does every commentator in Northern Ireland. Any reasonable person would agree.
      Mr. John D. Taylor: The Secretary of State confirmed on Monday night that she believed that the IRA and Sinn Fein were inextricably linked. The Dublin Government hold that opinion, and I am glad that Her Majesty's Opposition hold it. The Ulster Unionists are worried that Social Democratic and Labour party Members, even when challenged on Monday night, did not confirm that they considered the IRA and Sinn Fein to be inextricably linked. Their failure to confirm that casts doubt on the role of the SDLP in the Assembly when an Executive comes to be formed.
      Mr. MacKay: The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on the SDLP's policy on that or

      1273
      any other matter. I note that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is in his place and he may try to catch your eye later, Mr. Lord. I am sure that he will wish to answer that point.
      The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) knows that we have taken every opportunity to emphasise and underline the inextricable link, which needs to repeated again and again. In fairness to the Secretary of State, she has always done the same, as have the other Ministers present today.
      Mr. Andrew Hunter: We cannot make policy pronouncements on behalf of the SDLP, but is not any ambiguity in that party's position about the inextricability of the link between Sinn Fein and the IRA a matter of deep regret?
      Mr. MacKay: It would be a matter of regret. I do not want to act as a pundit, commentator and armchair critic. In defence of the SDLP, many of its prominent members, including Members of Parliament, have courageously stood up to IRA intimidation in their communities. I praise the hon. Member for South Down, his parliamentary colleagues and others for what they have done. They have been braver than some of us might have been in the same circumstances.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: If the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the two are inextricably linked, how does he define the term? Does it not mean that they are one and the same and can never be separated?
      Mr. MacKay: I find it difficult to speculate about whether the two will be inextricably linked for ever. That is a matter for Sinn Fein and the IRA. All that matters in this debate is that every reasonable person with any knowledge or understanding of Northern Ireland knows that, for the time being, they are inextricably linked and that Sinn Fein is responsible for the actions of the IRA. We have already illustrated that in the debate.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara rose—
      Mr. Robert McCartney rose—
      Mr. MacKay: I am not making much progress, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and then to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney).
      Mr. McNamara: Clause 23(6) states:
      "If the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the Assembly ought to consider—

      (a) a resolution…in relation to a Minister; or

      (b) a resolution…in relation to a political party".

      In other words, if a party is not fully committed to peaceful and democratic means, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may bring that to the attention of the Assembly and ask the Presiding Officer to table the necessary motion. The Assembly has that same power. As the Bill implements and mirrors the agreement extremely well and covers the hon. Gentleman's points, why is he seeking to undermine the agreement, precisely as he
      1274
      sought to do in debates on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill? He knows perfectly well that the position of my right hon. Friend and of the Government is that stated in the Bill, which reflects precisely his points.
      Mr. MacKay: If the hon. Gentleman had been slightly more patient, he would have heard me fully address that in my second and final point. I shall answer the point, although I should first give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Down, who I suspect will raise another point. When I fully answer the hon. Member for Hull, North, he will see that at no stage have we tried to undermine the agreement. We have acted as a responsible Opposition and done our job of scrutinising legislation. When we think something is wrong, we say so without fear or favour.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: My point is very short and, perhaps, semantic. How can two bodies be inextricably linked "for the time being"? Inextricable means that they cannot ever be separated. What the right hon. Gentleman said is like saying that one is permanently committed to something for the time being.
      Mr. MacKay: I have no intention of entering into a semantic debate with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Nothing would please him more than for me to do so; he would have a great deal of fun. I shall stick to saying that everybody believes that, at this moment and for the foreseeable future, Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked, but there could be a circumstance in future in which they might separate. Such speculation is for later and is not relevant to the debate. As this is a time-limited debate, I am not serving the Committee by pursuing that red herring.
      The hon. Member for Hull, North suggests that we are in breach of the agreement. He should take that up with the Prime Minister, whose words I quoted in a previous debate on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. During Prime Minister's Question Time on Wednesday 6 May, the Prime Minister made it clear from the Dispatch Box that decommissioning was relevant and linked not just to the release of prisoners but to Ministers taking office. When pressed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, he fully confirmed that. I have no doubt that he made it clear when he went to Northern Ireland in the final days before the referendum—campaigning for a yes vote, as were my right hon. Friend and I. That was the Prime Minister's interpretation of the agreement; it is my interpretation of the agreement.
      If the Minister accepts my amendment, he will not be in breach of the agreement. He will merely be following what his Prime Minister said on the Floor of the House. We all wish the Minister well in the reshuffle in the next few days. I may embarrass him by what I am about to say.
      Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman may endanger the Minister's chances.
      Mr. MacKay: Indeed, what I say may ruin the Minister's chances in the reshuffle. We have the greatest respect for the Minister's negotiating skills and his work—very much behind the scenes—throughout the run-up to the Good Friday agreement. We hope that he stays in his present post, but we should be delighted if he were further promoted.
      Mr. Winnick: There was no need for the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) to apologise for

      1275
      describing to the Committee the acts of intimidation and violence; we have a duty to be kept informed. We are informed by reading about those acts, but we should discuss them, too, at the appropriate time, which is now.
      The right hon. Gentleman also said that it is easy for us on the green Benches of the House of Commons to be somewhat isolated from what is going on. Fortunately, on the mainland we are not subjected to such acts of thuggery. None the less, as British citizens are subjected to them, it is only right that every opportunity should be given to discuss and denounce what are undoubtedly crimes.
      As I said in my intervention in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, Labour Members deplore without exception all the acts that he described. However, it is important to recognise that what is written in the agreement and what is clearly set out in the Bill is a commitment to non-violence.
      At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that when we talk about violence we do not mean military action alone. I certainly agree. Of course the continuation of the ceasefire by the IRA and the loyalist groups that are observing it is welcome. That is how things should continue indefinitely; that goes without saying. However, the acts that the right hon. Gentleman described are clearly outlawed by the agreement, too.
      4.30 pm
      Annexe A to strand 1 contains a pledge of office that those who take up Executive positions have to take, as well as agreeing to all the other matter set out in the agreement. Item (b) of annexe A is a
      "commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful democratic means".
      There is no ambiguity about that. If those who take up office are in any way involved in, or support, acts such as those that the right hon. Gentleman described, under the agreement they have no right to hold that office. There is no ambiguity about that either.
      Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I have to dispute what the hon. Gentleman says. Nothing in the agreement prevents the representatives of paramilitary organisations from taking up ministerial office. They have to sign a pledge of office or give a commitment to a pledge of office, part of which includes a supposed commitment to peaceful means—but there is no way of testing that. We have seen in the past that Sinn Fein-IRA are prepared to sign up to the Mitchell principles and then they will drive a cart and horse through them—and there is nothing that anybody can do about it. Let people not be mistaken: Sinn Fein-IRA representatives will take ministerial office in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the IRA will continue its acts of barbarism and violence.
      Mr. Winnick: I am coming to the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said. He is, as he is entitled to be, totally opposed to the agreement, and he will find every possible argument and justification for trying to ensure that it is not put into practice and is not successful. I understand his point of view. I totally disagree with it, but I understand it; it comes from his particular political viewpoint.
      The hon. Gentleman says that anybody can sign the pledge but that it would not mean anything. That is possible; no one denies it—but that is not the end of
      1276
      the matter. The hon. Gentleman said what he thought would happen, and he would have us believe that no further action would be taken—that all that anyone who is either a party to violence or involved in violence has to do is give a pledge and that is the end of the matter.
      That is not so. If it were, the Committee would be right to be concerned. However, clause 23 clearly sets out that the Secretary of State will give an opinion at the appropriate time on
      "whether the Minister or party concerned…is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve his or its objectives"
      and
      "has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence".
      Mr. Donaldson rose—
      Mr. Winnick: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman again, let me say that it is wrong to give the impression that the pledge has only to be given and no further action will be taken. As is clearly set out both in the agreement and in the Bill, the Secretary of State has powers that no doubt she would use when it was alleged that a Minister was committed to violence.
      Mr. Donaldson: My point—there is a distinction—is that the Secretary of State is not called on to give that opinion before the individual takes up ministerial office. She may give that opinion afterwards, but nothing in the Bill requires her to do so before the individual takes up office—there is no effective mechanism to prevent an individual from taking up office. I agree that the mechanism could subsequently be used to have the person removed from office, but where is the bar to someone taking up office? It certainly does not lie in the Secretary of State's hands.
      Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman criticises the way in which someone can take up office, but he has conceded that the Bill contains appropriate safeguards and that giving a pledge is not the end of the matter for all time.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has laid much emphasis on the safeguards relating to the exclusion from office of a person or a party involved in terror, but is he aware that, since 1 January this year, the Provisional IRA, for which Sinn Fein is a front—there will be two Sinn Fein Ministers—has shot 31 people, a number of them fatally? None of that has made the Secretary of State say, "You folk, while you continue to behave like this, will never get into the Assembly, let alone into Executive office."
      Mr. Winnick: I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman was present at the most recent Northern Ireland questions, when the Secretary of State made it perfectly clear that, if there was evidence that people were a party to or supported violence, she would take appropriate action. None of us knows exactly who is involved in acts of violence. The Provisional IRA may be involved, and I am no more likely to act as an apologist for that organisation than is the hon. and learned Gentleman. However, we read about breakaway groups from the IRA—
      Mr. Robert McCartney indicated dissent.
      Mr. Winnick: The hon. and learned Gentleman dismisses that, as he wants us to believe that the IRA and

      1277
      Sinn Fein are continuing to engage in violence and that the agreement is bogus. Apart from the two Democratic Unionist party Members, no one is more opposed to the agreement than he is.
      Mr. Robert McCartney rose—
      Mr. Winnick: No, I shall not give way. The hon. and learned Gentleman strenuously opposed the agreement.
      Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman has a long and distinguished record of speaking out against terrorism and violence, and I applaud that. Splinter groups may have been committing some of the so-called military activity on the border and elsewhere, but it is equally clear from the evidence given by Families Against Intimidation and Terror, the security forces and local residents that the IRA is behind the punishment beatings. Given that, does he agree that, until those beatings well and truly stop, Sinn Fein members cannot become Ministers in the Assembly?
      Mr. Winnick: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and I agree that acts of violence should be condemned at every opportunity, whichever side of the sectarian divide commits them. It is part of the responsibility of the Secretary of State, as set out in the agreement and clause 23 of the Bill, to decide whether action should be taken once the Assembly is up and running and the Executive is working.
      The right hon. Member for Bracknell spoke kindly about my opposition to terrorist violence, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her ministerial team are no less opposed to acts of violence. They denounce acts of violence in the same way as the right hon. Member and I do. There is no exclusive club for denouncing those acts.
      We should bear in mind the fact that the purpose of the agreement is to bring about a situation in Northern Ireland that is totally unlike what has occurred in the last quarter of a century. The right hon. Member will agree with that. We want to bring about a peaceful future for Northern Ireland. In dealing with terrorist organisations—or with those who have been involved in such organisations—there is always the possibility that they could resort to acts of terror.
      We are taking a gamble—no one would deny that. The difference between those of us who support the agreement and those who oppose it is that we believe that that gamble is worth taking. The ceasefire has taken place, and we have written into the proposed legislation safeguards to prevent those who are involved in violence from holding ministerial office in Northern Ireland. That is very important.
      Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman is never slow in giving the Committee his opinion, but he has failed to say whether he personally—in the light of compelling, overwhelming evidence that the IRA is continuing punishment beatings—would recommend that its representatives should not take office. When he says that we should take a gamble, does he mean that we should turn a blind eye to punishment beatings? If he does, that would be unfortunate and it would not match his record in the House.
      Mr. Winnick: I meant that we were taking a gamble on whether the agreement will work and whether it will
      1278
      lead to a peaceful future for Northern Ireland. There is no guarantee that any agreement will work. Those who support the agreement take the view that it is worth taking a chance—perhaps the word "gamble" was inappropriate—to see whether non-violent means work and to ensure that those who engage in violence will no longer be accepted.
      The right hon. Member for Bracknell asked me a direct question. The right answer is that, if a Secretary of State comes to the view that those involved in ministerial office in Northern Ireland are—despite their pledge of office—involved in violence or support it, they should not be involved any longer. There is no difference between us on that.
      The difference is whether the amendment is necessary. It goes outside the agreement, and we should be careful that we legislate precisely for what the agreement stands for. If we are against those holding ministerial office being involved in violence, that is right and proper, because such people would be breaking the agreement. Therefore, in giving every opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to have a chance to live in peace, like the rest of us on the mainland, our responsibility is to legislate along the lines of the agreement—word for word, to a large extent. The amendment is unnecessary, because the safeguards already exist.
      Our detestation of violence—which the right hon. Member for Bracknell stated—is written into the agreement and the Bill. We should proceed on the basis of the Bill.
      Mr. David Trimble: As the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and others have said, the entire process has been based on the fundamental principle that there must be a commitment to peace and democracy. That is the objective of the process—to put in place provisions that fill the democratic deficit that has existed in Northern Ireland for far too long, and to do so on the basis of peace. That has been the objective throughout.
      In some aspects, we have been travelling in hope, rather than having a sound basis at every turn—particularly in terms of violence. However, travelling in hope is one thing; engaging in wishful thinking is another. We need to distinguish between the two. I disagreed with the use of the term "gamble" by the hon. Member for Walsall, North. I do not like to think that we are gambling with the security of a society and with the peace, livelihoods and lives of people. It may be necessary occasionally to take risks, but those should be carefully calculated and we should be careful of the threats involved.
      The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) referred to some of the appalling acts of violence in recent weeks. I will not labour the point with regard to them, except to underline some aspects which relate to the Bill. Those acts of violence are not the only ones; there have been others which we abhor and condemn. I would not want anyone to run away with the notion that, because we are focusing, for the purpose of this debate, on the actions of certain paramilitaries—particularly republican paramilitaries—we have forgotten other acts.
      4.45 pm
      Cases have been mentioned which occurred over the last weekend, including the attack on Vincent McKenna.

      1279
      The key point is that Mr. McKenna—a former republican activist who knows who he is dealing with in the area—said to journalists afterwards that he recognised among his assailants two leading members of the IRA in the lower Ormeau area. That is clearly evidence.
      Then, there was the attack on Mr. Kearney, which resulted in his death. As the right hon. Member for Bracknell pointed out, the number of people involved and the circumstances show that that was not just a casual matter, but involved an organisation. We should bear it in mind that Mr. Kearney considered himself under threat, to such an extent that his mother went to Sinn Fein some time ago and received an assurance from Sinn Fein that her son would be safe. However, after that, he got into another row with a godfather in west Belfast.
      It is interesting that RUC officers are saying privately that Mr. Kearney's killing has all the fingerprints of the IRA—a term which I am sure is used metaphorically. That underlines what is obvious to anyone familiar with the situation in Northern Ireland. Those things happening in certain places, at certain times and in certain circumstances give rise to strong presumptions, which point in a particular way.
      There was a case in Downpatrick a couple of weeks ago—in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady)—in which an attack was carried out by, we believe, the IRA. The victim was shot six times in the legs and once in the back, aiming for the spine—what the IRA call a 50-50 job, as it gives the person a 50 per cent. chance of survival.
      There was also the mortar attack in Newry. In Newry, the local council chairman is a Sinn Fein councillor. The mortar attack was claimed on behalf of persons close to the 32 County Sovereignty Committee, which is described as a republican dissident organisation. The Sinn Fein council chairman refused to condemn the attack when challenged to do so—he merely wished that those involved would stop it. We need something stronger than that.
      A month or two ago, some hints appeared from Sinn Fein that it might finally be about to face up to its responsibilities—because Sinn Fein has responsibilities also. Hints were dropped by the leader in the Maze prison that the IRA might contemplate decommissioning their weapons at some point. At around the same time, leading members of Sinn Fein were briefing the press that they would deal with the issue of the disappeared. We were told that there would be an announcement soon, when they would reveal the whereabouts of those who have disappeared—believed kidnapped by the IRA, and murdered—over the past 20 years. Those hints were given in briefings to the press by senior members of Sinn Fein. They created the expectation that they were going to face up to their responsibilities.
      Since then, the tempo of incidents stemming from dissident republicans has increased. Although they are rightly described as such, we cannot forget that the person close to the 32 County Sovereignty Committee who is believed to be directing operations is a former IRA chief of staff, who has access to IRA material and is believed to have received assistance from members of the IRA. The increased tempo of operations gives rise to suspicions.
      Mr. Winnick: As I said, it may well be that the IRA—what we would usually refer to as the Provisional
      1280
      IRA—is responsible, and we know what action needs to be taken in such circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman referred to dissident IRA groups. Is it not interesting that those groups, who totally oppose the agreement—so much for the claim among Unionists that what has happened is a victory for the IRA—have undoubtedly carried out other acts of thuggery, if not those particular incidents, because they want to discredit the agreement as much as possible and to destroy it? They view it as a betrayal of the original intention to bring about a united Ireland.
      Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is certainly accurate with regard to some groups—for example, members of Republican Sinn Fein, which has existed for a long time, who have throughout predicted that the current leadership of the republican movement would sell them out. Continuity IRA is linked to that group, so the hon. Gentleman's comments were appropriate in that regard.
      The situation is murky when it comes to the group that is close to the 32 County Sovereignty Committee, which is a more recent development. Although a small number of people are known adherents, there is good reason to suspect that they are receiving practical assistance from members of the mainstream IRA. It is also believed that they have connections with people in the Belfast area who are still prominent in the current leadership of the mainstream IRA. The situation is not clear-cut.
      We do not know all the ins and outs of the operations of the republican movement. Assuming that there are hawks and doves within that movement is a common mistake. There are no doves within that organisation, just hawks and fiercer hawks—I think that that is the best description. There is certainly jockeying for position within the organisation, and there may well have been a shift in emphasis as regards its objectives, but we do not know. We can only consider the circumstances, and I have been focusing on recent events, pointing out that the tempo of the operations of the 32 County Sovereignty Committee seems to have increased, which is a concern, particularly as we suspect linkages with and assistance from the mainstream IRA.
      The leadership—or professed leadership—of the republican movement has not behaved responsibly in recent weeks. I am thinking in particular of the behaviour of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness), who was returned to serve that constituency but has not carried out his obligations in that respect. During the recent difficulties, he made a highly publicised visit to the Garvaghy road, not to render assistance or reduce the temperature but to increase it and wind the situation up at the beginning of the weekend of 12 July. No doubt he did so in the hope of inciting loyalists there to further violence. I am sure from his behaviour, demeanour and what he said that that was his intention, and that too shows where the republican movement may be at present, as do the beatings and killings, to which we have already referred.
      On Second Reading on Monday, I referred to clause 23, in particular clause 23(2), pointing out that, although there may be some doubt about whether clause 23(1), which refers to individuals, could operate before people took up office, no such doubt can exist with regard to subsection (2), which refers to a "party". That subsection would make it perfectly possible for the Assembly to declare, prior to any individual taking up office, that it

      1281
      lacked confidence in the commitment to peace and democracy of a political party. In such a situation, one should be focusing on the party and not the individual.
      I believe that at least one Sinn Fein representative in the Assembly has not been an active terrorist—or at least I have been told so by journalists, and I occasionally respect what they say, although I have no other basis for the belief. I think that there is only one such representative, although there may be more. It is important to focus on the party and, given the characteristics of the organisation concerned, it would be appropriate to proceed against the party as a whole and record a lack of confidence.
      As things stand, neither I nor anyone else who looks at the circumstances honestly and clearly can say that we have confidence in the commitment of Sinn Fein-IRA to peaceful means and the democratic process.
      Mr. Lembit Öpik: What does the right hon. Gentleman imagine would be the impact of the amendments if there turned out to be a split within Sinn Fein, or any organisation involved in the Northern Ireland political environment, with one side committed to democratic progress and the other willing to embark on violence? Would the amendments not make it more difficult for the pro-democrats to win, and would they not be more likely to lose to others who are not committed to progress?
      Mr. Trimble: I caution the hon. Gentleman against too quickly coming to the conclusion that there are hawks and doves within the republican movement and that it embraces people who genuinely want to move to a democratic process. I do not exclude the possibility of people changing, but we need evidence of that. We can only proceed on the evidence that is there, and the events of the past few weeks seem to show that that is pointing one way. We must take account of that fact.
      I referred to the debate on Monday. I was particularly pleased at the comments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who concluded:
      "We stand by that agreement in all its manifestations, in its entirety and its integrity."—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 839.]
      We should reflect on that final word. It is essential not only that we maintain the entirety of the agreement, of course, but that we maintain its integrity. Fundamental to the agreement is the commitment to peaceful means and the democratic process.
      The Conservative amendment departs from the terminology that the Government have used in clause 23(7). There are arguments both ways. There are three main differences between the amendment and subsection (7).
      The Bill directs the Secretary of State to "take into account" various factors. "Take into account" may be a weak formulation. The Bill says:
      "the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account"
      the factors listed. The amendment uses the term "if he believes". I am not sure that that is any stronger. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other.
      The amendment refers to the commitment in the agreement to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms by 22 May 2000. That may be bold, but
      1282
      the agreement clearly states a two-year time scale, running from 28 May. That part of the amendment would amplify, rather than change, the agreement, which would be a benefit.
      5 pm
      The insertion of the word "assisting" in paragraph (c), so that it reads
      "directing, assisting or promoting acts violence committed or planned by other people",
      could also be beneficial. That paragraph is directed towards terrorism conducted by proxy, and the terminology in the amendment would be preferable.
      The best amendments in terms of terminology are Nos. 200 and 201, because they make express reference to the "so-called punishment beatings". I appreciate the fact that those amendments are starred and cannot be made today, but I hope that the Government will consider them carefully on Report or in another place. I strongly support that appropriate change.
      It has been said that, at the end of the day, it is for the Assembly to decide whether the exclusion provisions will operate. I understand the reasons for the concern that the system may not operate as it should. The first sentence in the relevant paragraph in the agreement 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…for failure to meet his or her responsibilities including…those set out in the Pledge of Office."
      The second sentence is of a somewhat different character:
      "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."
      That sentence takes a much more peremptory approach. That is why I tabled amendment No. 115, which would move matters from being purely for the Assembly to decide, and would state the basic principles under which a person would not be entitled to hold office. That would be entirely within the letter and spirit of the second sentence in the paragraph and would make the matter justiciable, taking it out of the sole purview of the Assembly and allowing it to come before the courts.
      Some may say that such matters would be difficult to prove in court, but being civil matters they would have to be proven only on the balance of probabilities. Some may apply extremely high standards and may not be convinced even by evidence that most reasonable men would regard as proving a case beyond reasonable doubt, so there may be some value in the balance of probabilities being sufficient.
      It is essential to have the power to exclude those who are not committed to peaceful means and the democratic process. We have operated in the hope that people will move to a clear, unequivocal commitment to peace and democracy, and the talks process, the agreement and the Assembly have offered the opportunity to participate—that is the carrot that is held out—to people who may wish to move along the path to peace, but it is essential to retain the sanction against those who are not so moving, and especially those who think that they can take the benefit of the agreement without excepting the obligations that go with it.
      Exclusion of Sinn Fein, for example, would not be the end of the Assembly. In case anyone has misinterpreted what we have said, let me underline the fact that we are

      1283
      not following an agenda of exclusion. At the Assembly's first meeting, I said that we had never said that, because a person has a past, he cannot have a future.
      We recognise that it is possible for people to change. We have seen it happen, not only with people but with organisations that were once involved in paramilitary activity and have emancipated themselves from it. I am thinking, obviously, of the official IRA—official Sinn Fein—which has moved over the years so that it is now in the democratic left, and clearly committed to peace and democracy. We trust that the same path is followed by some parties that were formerly involved in loyalist paramilitarism.
      We want such change to occur. We want people to commit themselves unequivocally to peace and democracy, but we must say to them, with all the emphasis that we can muster, that they must indeed reform themselves, and that, if they do not, we will not be deceived by a few soft words and will insist on a course of conduct that is consistent with the changes that are necessary. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, it is essential to maintain not only the entirety, but the integrity of the agreement.
      Kate Hoey: I know that amendments Nos. 200 and 201 cannot be voted on, but I hope that the Minister will consider how they may be introduced at a different stage.
      What the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said about the integrity of the peace settlement is absolutely crucial. I campaigned for a yes vote in Northern Ireland, and I was absolutely delighted at the result, but I know from personal experience that the vote was finely balance a right up to the last, and the result looked extremely dodgy—to use a perhaps unparliamentary term—in the final week.
      People had a desperate desire for peace. They wanted a coming together, and to feel that they could work with people from different communities. Underlying their hopes, however, was fear that paramilitary groups on both sides did not mean what they said. Parliament owes it to those who were influenced by the feeling that they wanted peace above all to make sure that the Bill does everything possible to act on fear of continued violence and fear that people are not committed to the democratic road.
      The terminology of clause 23 is vital. I cannot see why the Minister cannot accept amendment No. 15. Decommissioning must be mentioned somewhere in the Bill. It was mentioned in the agreement, and it played a great part in the last few days of the referendum campaign.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: The hon. Lady emphasises how fragile the vote was right up to the last moment. Does she agree that the Prime Minister's pledges on Thursday 21 May on the release of prisoners and on whether Sinn Fein could sit down in government without decommissioning allayed the fears of many of those who ultimately voted yes?
      Kate Hoey: The hon. and learned Gentleman pre-empts me. I was going to say how important the Prime Minister's words were. My right hon. Friend made it clear that Ministers in the Government must be committed to peaceful means. He did not give a commitment that his every word would be in the Bill, but there is no doubt that
      1284
      the people of Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, felt that that was what their Prime Minister meant. How his words are implemented is up to Parliament.
      Clause 23(1)(c) includes the incredibly wide ranging definition, "for any other reason". Given that definition, I cannot understand why the Bill cannot include a reference to
      "not co-operating fully with any Commission",
      which would send out the straightforward message that we mean what we say about decommissioning. I mean it—and I hope that the rest of Parliament means it—when I say that decommissioning must happen. I do not say that every armament must be handed over, but parties and Ministers must make a commitment to co-operate with the commission.
      Families Against Intimidation and Terror is a well respected organisation. Its development officer, Glyn Roberts, has done an enormous amount of work, just as her predecessor did. FAIT works within the community where some of the worst atrocities are happening. It is that sharp end of day-to-day experiences that those of us who represent constituencies in the rest of the United Kingdom cannot possibly understand. Although I come from Northern Ireland, and go home there regularly, I never feel able to talk about what it is like to live on the peace line in north Belfast, or to live in places where there is intimidation, fear and a threat of violence that might affect one's own family, children or parents.
      5.15 pm
      FAIT does not speak without thinking, so I am worried by the fact that it has said clearly that the level of IRA activity is so unacceptably high that Sinn Fein cannot take positions in the Government of Northern Ireland. Horrific events over the past few weeks include the Vincent McKenna incident and the killing of Mr. Kearney, which are both being investigated by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If, at the end of the investigations, there is categorical proof that Mr. Kearney was killed by members of the IRA, will that mean, even at this stage, that representatives of Sinn Fein cannot sit down in Government in the new Assembly?
      It is all very well to talk in parliamentary language, but the people of Northern Ireland want to know what proof is required to demonstrate that the IRA or the paramilitaries on the so-called loyalist side are still engaging in terrible actions. If we can prove that only breakaway groups on either side are conducting those actions, those groups must be chased by the authorities. However, there is a real possibility that, in our desperation to make the agreement work, to make the Assembly work and to bring about reconciliation, we will continue always to give the benefit of the doubt to the terrorists. The Minister must reassure us that that simply will not happen.
      Why is it impossible to accept the amendments tabled by the First Minister of the Assembly? It is right that we are passing the Bill as quickly as we can, but we must not forget how much time we spent on similar legislation for the Scottish and Welsh assemblies. Some of my hon. Friends have shown irritation at anyone who wants to question parts of the Bill. They seem to have the idea that, since the agreement has happened, we should all just pass the Bill. That is not what Parliament is for. We must get

      1285
      the Bill on the statute book as quickly as we can, but reasonable people must be allowed to ask reasonable questions. We should try to learn from those who live in Northern Ireland, and who know what is happening there. That is why the Minister should ensure that action is taken against those involved in the so-called punishment beatings, intimidation and terror that happen in Northern Ireland every day—although, strangely enough, they all stopped during the Assembly elections. The people of Northern Ireland must be treated with the same dignity that we expect for our constituents.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: The way in which we deal with clause 23 will determine the extent to which the Assembly is likely to function properly. I want to deal with the deceit and hypocrisy surrounding dealings before, during and after the referendum on issues central to clause 23.
      First, I should say to the Minister that, for the most part, I regard the references in clause 23 as a faithful representation of what is outlined in the agreement. It contains some excesses and we have tabled amendments to deal with those excesses, which principally relate to clause 23(1)(c). For the greater part, the clause puts into legislative form the commitments made in paragraph 25 of the Belfast agreement.
      When I read that agreement and interpreted it, I, like many of my colleagues, concluded that it meant precisely what the Minister and the drafting staff have put into the Bill. We went up and down the country warning the people of Northern Ireland that, if the measure was passed by the House of Commons and given support in a referendum, Sinn Fein would automatically have representation in Government and there would be no effective way of removing its representatives from Government. Therefore, whoever else in the Committee might be surprised when they see in bold relief the terminology used in clause 23, no one among my colleagues will be in the least surprised at its impact.
      Paragraph 25 of the agreement states:
      "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, those set out in the Pledge of Office."
      I shall come to the remaining part of that paragraph later, having reached a very different conclusion from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
      Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman says that he and his colleagues did everything they could to warn the electorate in Northern Ireland about the agreement, yet, despite that warning, the people of Northern Ireland by an overwhelming majority decided to support the agreement. Should we not follow the large majority in Northern Ireland who made that decision in a democratic way?
      Mr. Robinson: I shall come in a moment or two to the reason why people in Northern Ireland voted for the agreement in the numbers that they did in the referendum. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the speech made by his hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), he would have heard about some of the issues that led the people of Northern Ireland to vote in the way that they did.
      1286
      During the referendum campaign, when my colleagues and I held meetings up and down the Province and indicated our understanding of the agreement and what it would mean, there were voices that said, "That is rubbish. Don't listen to these men—they are misleading you. We shall be able to control whether Sinn Fein-IRA get into an Executive. The Unionists themselves will be able to control that matter." That was a commitment given to the people by the Ulster Unionist party.
      The Belfast News Letter of Saturday 9 May carried an article under the heading "Unionists must go forward with confidence in themselves". The article consisted of Mervyn Pauley interviewing the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. In that interview, the right hon. Gentleman said:
      "I think the unionist community has confidence in itself. We have the capacity ourselves 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 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."
      The words were clear. The right hon. Gentleman said, and I repeat:
      "We have the capacity ourselves to exclude Sinn Fein from office."
      The "we" is defined as the Unionist community.
      Having made the challenge on Second Reading, I make it again: where in the Bill—or, indeed, the agreement—will the Unionist community have the capacity to exclude Sinn Fein from Government? Clearly, it cannot be done. The people of Northern Ireland were deceived by the right hon. Gentleman on that vital issue.
      However, the right hon. Gentleman was not the only one who made remarks of that sort. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had received opinion polls and reports from focus groups, all of which showed him that, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, support was moving away from the yes campaign; and that the arguments of the no campaign that Sinn Fein would be in government and could not be removed from government were beginning to hold sway in the Province. Something had to be done, and the Prime Minister took control of the yes campaign in Northern Ireland. His office almost moved to Northern Ireland, and it was his spin doctors who started working in the Province.
      What did the Prime Minister have to say to the people of Northern Ireland on this vital issue? I quote from the Belfast News Letter of 14 May the Prime Minister's words:
      "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."
      Of course, under the Bill, it will happen. Under the Bill, there is nothing to stop it happening.
      The Prime Minister came to Balmoral. It is remarkable that he came all that distance to that function apparently primarily to convince an individual who was not at Balmoral, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). During the speech he made there,

      1287
      he listed a series of factors that were crucial to the question whether the terms and spirit of the agreement were being met by the participants. Throughout, there were clear indications that the Prime Minister was speaking to the people of Northern Ireland and telling them, "Don't worry about these issues. When it comes to the legislative process, I'll take care of it." That is what the people were led to believe—that the Prime Minister had it all in hand.
      However, still the people were not entirely convinced, and the Prime Minister had to make another journey to Northern Ireland. On large billboard posters in handwriting, he signed five pledges to the people of Northern Ireland, one of which was to exclude from the Government of Northern Ireland those who would use or threaten violence. Again, under the Bill, there is no provision for such people to be excluded from Government, save if they themselves are not prepared to accept the pledge of office, or if the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady)and his party decide that they want them to be excluded. [Interruption.] From what has been said, there can be little doubt about that, and I can almost guarantee support from the Unionist-designated Members of the Assembly.
      If the hon. Member for South Down would like me to give way so that he can state that, on the basis of what he knows today—based simply on the cases of Vincent McKenna and Andrew Kearney—he recognises the involvement of Sinn Fein-IRA in the killing and beating and that they have breached the conditions set down in the Bill, I shall give way. If he wants to tell me that, on that basis, he would be prepared to have them excluded or removed from office, I shall give way to him. The hon. Gentleman does not want me to give way, which is telling.
      As the spokesman for the official Opposition, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, the Prime Minister made, in this House, the clearest possible statement demonstrating that he wanted substantial decommissioning before Sinn Fein could enjoy the benefits of prison releases or its presence in the Government of Northern Ireland.
      The Prime Minister had earlier written to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann:
      "I understand your problem with paragraph 25 of Strand 1 is that it requires decisions on those who should be excluded or removed from office in the Northern Ireland Executive to be taken on a cross-community basis. This letter is to let you know that if, during the course of the first six months of the shadow Assembly or the Assembly itself, these provisions have been shown to be ineffective, we will support changes to these provisions to enable them to be made properly effective in preventing such people from holding office."
      5.30 pm
      To the casual reader, the uninitiated and the layman, that letter might seem to provide a guarantee from the Prime Minister, and the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to take it as such. However, the more careful reader will have noted the use of the word "support". The letter said,
      "we will support changes to these provisions".
      It does not say that the Prime Minister is committed to changes to the provisions; it says simply that he will support changes.
      The Prime Minister had to use the word "support" because it is not up to him, or even the House, to make that determination. He uses that word because he
      1288
      recognises that there are others whose support is also required. They are those who signed up to the Belfast Agreement on 10 April. It is a multi-party agreement and cannot be unilaterally changed, which is why the Prime Minister did not give a commitment unilaterally to change it. He said that he would simply be one of those who supported changes if the provisions did not meet the requirements of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann.
      Will the Minister confirm or deny my interpretation of the Prime Minister's letter? Will he, in responding to the debate, make it clear that the support referred to in the letter would be provided along with the support of others, or are the Prime Minister and Government prepared to introduce legislation to change the provisions of the Bill if it does not prove to be effective? I suspect that my initial interpretation of the letter is accurate, and that the Prime Minister has no intention of acting unilaterally.
      I find it difficult to accept the amount of hypocrisy on this subject. I find it difficult to listen to Members telling the House or the Committee how they need to make changes to the Bill when they accepted its provisions in the first place. If those provisions are not good enough, why did they sign up to them on 10 April? If these matters needed to be dealt with, why did they not include them on 10 April before they signed? They signed up to the agreement, including the provisions that the Committee is now discussing. Not only that—in the opening part of the agreement, they pledged to work in good faith
      "to ensure the success of each and every one of the arrangements to be established under this agreement."
      Having made that pledge, they now, at least publicly, state that they are seeking to have the arrangements improved beyond the agreement's initial provisions.
      More than that, those people went out and sold the agreement to the electorate in Northern Ireland. Now the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has profited by becoming the First Minister designate in Northern Ireland. While his amendment—and the Tory amendment—would slightly strengthen the terminology in the Bill, and to that extent would be welcome, it is unworkable. Even though the wording in various subsections might be tightened, the responsibility would still fall on the Assembly, in a cross-community vote. A political decision will therefore be made. A decision will be made by nationalists about whether they will ditch Sinn Fein. Even if every Unionist in the Assembly and an overwhelming majority of Assembly Members voted for the exclusion of Sinn Fein, its Members would remain in the Executive unless the SDLP voted to exclude them.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the agreement and the Bill to give effect to it are the product of the Hume-Adams agreement in 1993, and that it is certain that the SDLP will never move to have its partner, Sinn Fein, removed from the Assembly?
      Mr. Robinson: I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Nobody labours under the assumption that SDLP Members will wake up one morning and decide that it is time to exclude Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness from the Assembly. No matter what they do, that will not happen. It is therefore necessary for the Government to include in the Bill a mechanism whereby they can be excluded which does not require consensus in the Assembly. The amendments in my name and those of

      1289
      my hon. Friends would have had that effect. They would have turned the situation around and required Sinn Fein Members to get a cross-community vote to remain in office.
      I cannot speak to those amendments, Nos. 80 and 81, because unfortunately they were not selected. Strangely, however, much of their substance is included in amendment No. 75, which was selected, even though it relates to clause 15, not clause 23. I am sure that it would have been better if the Chairman of Ways and Means had selected amendments Nos. 80 and 81 instead of amendment No. 75. I can, however, discuss the principle because it is the same in each case—and, as I know that the Government will not readily accept any of the amendments, it will probably make no practical difference in the end.
      Our amendment would have put the onus on Sinn Fein-IRA to convince the Assembly, rather than the other way round. The Committee needs to deal with that matter. It is not good enough for the Government to hope that things might turn out all right on the day. The killing of Andrew Kearney was clearly carried out by the Provisional IRA. Nobody but the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) seems to be in any doubt about that. The RUC, the newspapers and the family recognise that the killing was carried out by the IRA. On that basis, I am entitled to ask what would happen if we were in the Assembly today, making a decision about the exclusion of Sinn Fein-IRA. I do not need to ask, because I know.
      Exactly the same criteria apply with regard to the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. Has anyone heard the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland make a statement to the effect that, because of the killing of Mr. Kearney by the Provisional IRA, its prisoners will not be released because the killing was a breach of the provisions of that Bill?
      There was an attempt to kill the well-known bomber republican—but now "peace activist"—Mr. Vincent McKenna. He identified among his assailants well-known members of the battalion from the Ormeau road of the Provisional IRA. There could not be better evidence; but the Secretary of State and others continue to bury their head in the sand, and will not take action. The Secretary of State is required to take action now on that issue, not simply as a result of the Bill, but on the basis of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. If she is not prepared to operate on the basis of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, she will not operate on the basis of the provision that we are debating.
      Let no one therefore rely on the third of the three mechanisms for dealing with this matter—the mechanism whereby the Secretary of State, considering that someone has breached the provisions of the Act, asks the Presiding Officer to have the matter dealt with by way of a resolution. That will be the slowest of the mechanisms, and the least likely to be used. Even if it was used, the decision as to whether that person was expelled would not be for the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can only have the matter referred to the Presiding Officer and, through the Presiding Officer, to the Assembly. Ultimately, the decision—once again—will be a political
      1290
      decision; a decision which will fall when the hands of the SDLP refuse to co-operate to have their colleagues in Sinn Fein expelled from the Executive.
      The sad reality, therefore, is that this is an unworkable provision. It is a facade, a pretence and a deceit. The Committee should not support such hypocrisy.
      Mr. McGrady: Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate, Mr. Lord.
      The right hon. Members for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) have given a series of vivid descriptions of the violence that continues to be perpetrated in our community. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said that those of us who live in Northern Ireland have greater personal experience of the tragedy of that violence. I have visited the scenes of murders by both loyalist and republican paramilitaries and their offshoots—whatever name they may use—seen the bodies, and visited those maimed and the families of victims. I have seen those things within miles of my home and throughout my constituency.
      One of the major driving forces behind the Belfast agreement is the desire to eradicate from our community that type of violence. The second is the desire to set up structures by which we shall be better governed in ways that affect the economic and social aspects of life, our standard of living and our way of life. In my view, those two main pillars have been the thrust of the agreement, and they are the reason why it is so important that it is sustained against the onslaught of those who oppose it for their own moral, political, party or personal purposes.
      No one ever pretended that, on a given day, at midnight, a key could be turned by which the violence of a quarter of a century would be immediately turned off. Any sensible person knows, and would anticipate, that elements of violence would continue, sometimes perhaps orchestrated, sometimes individually perpetrated. We could not have come through 25 or 30 years of the most extreme form of personal violence without being left with a legacy in the shape of those who, having perpetrated acts of violence, are conditioned to do the same again when they are thwarted by events.
      I fear that, in a debate such as this, personal vendettas and grudge bearing, both of which exist, and inter-paramilitary strife—which exists, and has expressed itself in violence from time to time—may be seen as a reason to topple the very delicate series of structures that the two communities have put together and approved. It is important that we do not play party politics with every incident that occurs and every act of violence that is perpetrated in our community. Such incidents will happen, but we must be assured that violence in all organised aspects ceases forthwith, and that the ceasefires that were laid on the table before the agreement was signed are sustained and continued.
      5.45 pm
      We have heard the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and others talk about Sinn Fein being debarred because it is inextricably linked with the IRA. My understanding is that Sinn Fein can be barred only if it is inextricably linked with the IRA, which is organisationally continuing to perpetrate violence. That is

      1291
      entirely different from what has been said. Much of the debate, especially from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), has not been—
      Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McGrady: I will not give way.
      Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman mentioned my name.
      Mr. McGrady: I am sorry; I did mention the right hon. Gentleman's name. I give way.
      Mr. Taylor: As I pointed out earlier in the week and today, Her Majesty's Opposition, the Secretary of State and the Dublin Government have all said that the IRA is inextricably linked with Sinn Fein. Will the SDLP say the same?
      Mr. McGrady: I regret that I made a mistake in mentioning the right hon. Gentleman. Although I shall reply to his question, I was referring to what the right hon. Member for Strangford said—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is the right hon. Member for Strangford."] I am sorry; I meant the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who made much of the semantics of the words "inextricably linked" and made the point that it is not a bar to holding office for a political party to be inextricably linked to a paramilitary organisation, be it republican or loyalist. However, the party would be debarred if that paramilitary element continued violence, and broke the ceasefires that it subscribed to.
      The hon. and learned Member for North Down argued that we must be careful not to interpret individual acts of violence—which we must have, unfortunately, as a hangover of 25 or 30 years of violence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Must?"] I say "must" in the logical sense that such acts are going to happen. People have been desensitised to many of the norms of group behaviour and many aspects of observance of the law. We shall be unable to re-establish the validity of good conduct throughout our community—at least to the level of communities that have not had the violence that we have had—until we have had a time of peace, a time of working together and an opportunity to produce, for the benefit of the people, some of the fruits of that work.
      Many contributions to the debate have been attacks on other parties, such as the Ulster Unionist party—the favourite target of the hon. Member for Belfast, East, for obvious reasons. I remind the Committee that the Democratic Unionist party and the United Kingdom Unionist party withdrew from the talks many months before the agreement was signed. It ill behoves them now to criticise other people who signed the agreement, when they did not even engage in it. Why criticise it now? Why were they not there, criticising, and making the amendments that they are advocating today?
      On, I think, Monday night and again earlier this evening, the hon. Member for Strangford—the right hon. Member for Strangford; I have the nomenclature right on this occasion—challenged me, as did the hon. Member for Belfast, East, on the attitude of the SDLP. Let me make it clear, as I did on Monday night, although I do not think that the right hon. Member for Strangford was in his place
      1292
      at the time, that we will subscribe totally and completely to the letter and spirit of the agreement that we have signed up to.
      That means, and I cannot state it any clearer, that any party—of course, they refer only to Sinn Fein—who is engaged in violence for the furtherance of a political purpose will not receive our support for office in that Assembly. Can anything be clearer than that?
      Mr. John D. Taylor: The more the hon. Gentleman gets involved in this subject, the more he convinces me that one should vote against the Bill. Will he repeat what the Secretary of State has said—that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked? I am not asking him to condemn violence or to run away from the subject. Will he just answer that one question: are they inextricably linked?
      Mr. McGrady: I have no hesitation in subscribing to that view. My party leader said many, many months ago that the IRA and Sinn Fein were one and the same. He said it publicly. What is the mystery? Why has it been brought up now? The right hon. Member for Strangford Gentleman certainly prevaricates in a mischievous way, one day supporting the agreement, the next day opposing it by innuendo, but perhaps he will settle down some time and be either committed to it or against it.
      Mr. Winnick: Is it not a fact that, since the terror campaign begun by the IRA, the SDLP has been, almost on every occasion, totally opposed to those terrorist activities? Have not SDLP activists in Northern Ireland been targeted time and again, and has not the record of my hon. Friend's party been, from the beginning, one of total commitment to constitutional democratic politics and total opposition to terrorism?
      Mr. McGrady: I thank the hon. Member for his helpful and supportive intervention. I did not say that in response to the criticisms from the other side of the Committee, simply because it is a fact that is well known and does not require constant repetition from me or any other member of my party. We have had members who have been killed, blown up, maimed, assaulted, burned out or stabbed to death. We have never, by word, deed, policy or statement, on any occasion encouraged or supported violence. In fact, our total stance for 25 or 30 years has been to fight it, not just in the media, but on the streets of our communities and villages and at election times, when we did it time and again.
      When most other people were keeping their heads below the parapet, it was my party that kept faith with democracy and non-violence. In the long run, although it is now criticised for some reason, that led other people who were engaged in violence out of that violence and into the democratic process, in the hope that we could eradicate that violence once and for all from our community.
      That is what this Belfast Good Friday agreement is about. As I said, one of the twin pillars is to ensure that violence and the gun are taken out of Irish politics once and for all, after hundreds of years of revolution, rebellion and violence. That other pillar is to promote the economic and social well-being of our people, because they do go hand in hand: we cannot have one without the other.

      1293
      However, I warn the Committee not to expect that, in the community that we have created, if you like, in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years of violence, intolerance and desensitising to the horrors of violence, we can magically at 12 o'clock on some appointed day turn off all violence. I would love that to happen, but I am not so stupid as to believe it will. That is why we have to be careful not unnecessarily to drive people who have been cajoled, coaxed and brought from violence to peace, back into violence. That is vital.
      I say to the Committee again, so that I will not be asked the question again, that my party and I will support the Belfast agreement to the letter and spirit of the law. If any party is associated with violence, we will dissociate from it in relation to participation in ministerial position.
      I could extrapolate on this, but I do not want to. We have a phrase in Northern Ireland: "what aboutery". One person says one thing, and another comes back by way of argument with, "What about…?" I could refer to Drumcree, and politicians who were there.
      Violence occurred at Drumcree. A machine gun was used against the police at Drumcree. Blast bombs and steel darts were used. I was not there, but certainly other Members of this House were. Are they associated with that violence? I am not going to make that judgment. I am going to have to wait for the judgment of the police, security forces and the rest as to whether a party is inextricably linked with an act of violence, not with an organisation of violence. Then, rightly, the agreement, in spirit and law, must be applied.
      The amendment is restrictive, because the simple language already in the Bill is all-embracing and does reflect, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East and the right hon. Member for Bracknell have quoted, paragraph 25 of the agreement, which states:
      "Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means".
      That is all-embracing, and that is what the Bill is saying. In fact, the agreement goes much further, and makes it a condition of office that the pledge of office be faithfully and fully implemented.
      The Bill goes even further, which causes me concern, although I have not tabled an amendment on it. It states that the Assembly may resolve that a Minister no longer enjoys the confidence of the Assembly "for any other reason". That is all-embracing for persons or parties. I draw the Committee's attention to clause 23, which says that individuals can be debarred not only for their personal act, but for the acts of their party. That is clearly stated. That has not been highlighted in some of the debate that we have had so far.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, East said that he went up and down Northern Ireland saying that Sinn Fein, as he said, although I am sure that he meant anyone else, could not be removed from office if its members were found to be guilty of participation and association with an act of violence. Clause 23 clearly states that there are several mechanisms by which they can be removed—by the Assembly, by the Secretary of State and by the Presiding Officer, with cross-community support. There are at least three mechanisms by which a Minister can be removed from office.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: I think that the hon. Gentleman misquotes the hon. Member for Belfast, East
      1294
      (Mr. Robinson), who is not in his place. The hon. Member said that the Unionist community could not have those people either excluded or removed from office because of the requirement for cross-community consensus. If that cross-community consensus were not made available by the SDLP, they would remain. That is the point he made.
      Mr. McGrady: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes his valid point. I heard what I heard, but I am subject to that correction. I will certainly read Hansard in the morning, because it was said on two different occasions this evening. On one occasion, it was certainly said that, if these people are put in office, they cannot be removed. There was no qualification as to by whom and by what mechanism.
      Ministers who are appointed and who contravene the spirit and the law of the Belfast agreement can be removed under clause 23 by the Assembly, by the Presiding Officer, and by the Secretary of State acting through the Presiding Officer. Those are three clear mechanisms and they can be brought into operation by saying that those persons did not use only democratic and non-violent means. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) give the broadest possible reasons for such mechanisms to be applied and voted upon.
      6 pm
      I understand the intent of the right hon. Member for Bracknell in his amendment, and I understand what lies behind the amendment of the hon. Member for Vauxhall. However, in a real way the provisions in those amendments are totally embodied in the general descriptions in subsection (1). If we were to move away from that general description, I would be fearful of restricting the rights of the Assembly, the Presiding Officer or the Secretary of State, and of circumscribing their actions.
      I feel, without feeling very strongly, that we should leave the clause as it is. It is all-embracing and would deal with a catch-all situation that we might not anticipate tonight, but which may arise in the months ahead. I am inclined to leave the Bill as it stands.
      Mr. Öpik: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman does not object in principle to the general content of the amendment. What would we lose by the additional clarification that the amendment would provide?
      Mr. McGrady: Amendment No. 15 states that we should leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert the five paragraphs. Those five paragraphs are specific, whereas what would be removed is general. The general is always better than the specific. The right hon. Member for Bracknell and the hon. Member for Vauxhall rightly drew attention to decommissioning, punishment beatings and other aspects and attributes of violence, but they are all there in the terms of the agreement. Although I understand the reasoning and the sentiment behind them, I believe that the amendments would restrict the ability to deal with matters not specifically mentioned.
      Mr. Hunter: I want to speak primarily to amendments Nos. 15 and 16. Many of the salient points have already been made, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and there is no reason to

      1295
      revisit them. In passing, I must say how strongly I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). I want to re-express one of her points in my own way. We are so heartily sickened by Northern Ireland's sectarian violence and so earnestly yearn for it to end that there is a danger that we will suspend our critical faculties and, like automatons, support any measure or gesture that purports to promote peace. There is a danger in so doing that we will defeat the objective.
      I am glad that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has returned to the Chamber. I listened carefully to his speech, and I want to make my main points in reply to his arguments. He said—I paraphrase—that we should not, could not, must not or cannot legislate outside the agreement. My arguments in support of amendments Nos. 15 and 16 comply with the remit that the hon. Gentleman wishes to impose on the debate. I do not agree with him that we must not, could not, should not, or cannot legislate outside the agreement. My understanding of the triple lock is that Parliament has a proactive role in the process and has every right to interpret and implement the agreement. However, that is not my main point.
      I recognise the imperfection and inadequacies of amendments Nos. 15 and 16. They were pointed out by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. However, I believe that the amendments are a distinct step in the right direction, and I shall argue that they are entirely consistent with the agreement. They arise essentially from the same arguments as those put by Conservative Members during the debate on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. I cannot really understand why the Government will not accept them. I will clarify and enlarge on that point.
      Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that he is against the agreement and that he voted, as he has every right to do, against the Bill on Second Reading?
      Mr. Hunter: Oh, yes. I have never sought to conceal that. It is irrelevant to the amendment, but my opposition to the agreement is on public record.
      Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 consist of five unnumbered paragraphs. The essential point is that all those unnumbered paragraphs are entirely consistent with the spirit and the letter of the agreement. The first unnumbered paragraph reflects closely and is a re-expression of clause 23(1)(a). The second unnumbered paragraph is as near as possible identical to subsection (7)(b). The third paragraph is a re-expression of subsection (7)(c) and the fifth paragraph is virtually identical to subsection (7)(d). We immediately establish in four of the five paragraphs of the amendment that there is no difference in degree or kind from the content of the Bill as it stands.
      The one area in which the amendments introduce a novel dimension is in the fourth paragraph. We need to compare that paragraph with paragraph 3 of the section entitled "Decommissioning" on page 20 of the agreement. I defy any hon. Member to say where that paragraph differs in substance, significance or meaning from paragraph 3 of the decommissioning section in the agreement. This is the issue on which many Conservative Members had difficulty in understanding the Government's opposition to a comparable amendment to the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill just a month ago.
      1296
      We are tabling amendments that are entirely consistent with the spirit and the letter of the agreement as interpreted by the Government in the Bill and in the agreement itself. I do not believe that our argument was answered adequately by the Government during the debate on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, and, like many other hon. Members, I look forward to what will be said today.
      Reduced to simplicity, amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are consistent with the agreement and comply with the requirements demanded by the hon. Member for Walsall, North and, within the hon. Gentleman's remit for the debate, they cannot be rejected.
      There is a second basis of argument for my belief that the amendments are essential. I pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East, and perhaps made also in an intervention by the hon. and learned Member for North Down. It is a generally agreed fact that very many Unionists voted yes in the referendum because of their understanding, and the media's reporting, of what the Prime Minister said on two visits to Belfast—one on the Thursday just over a week before referendum day, and the other on the day before polling day. There was also the handwritten note, and the letter that he wrote, which was published in the Irish News and the Belfast News Letter. I should like briefly to concentrate on that letter.
      The Prime Minister's letter appeared in those two major Northern Ireland newspapers on the morning of referendum day. He wrote:
      "Representatives of parties intimately linked to paramilitary groups can only be in a future NI government if it is clear that there will be no more violence and the threat of violence has gone.
      That doesn't mean just decommissioning but all bombings, killings, beatings and an end to targeting, recruiting and all the structures of terrorism."
      The Prime Minister continued:
      "I have set out the tests for this. They will be enshrined by law and these tests will be applied".
      That is what the Prime Minister said. However, the perception remains that he and the Government have yet to deliver on that pledge.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Those such as myself—perhaps lawyers—accustomed to the language felt that the Prime Minister's pledges had as many holes as a colander. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the undoubted intention of the pledges was to persuade the electorate of their substance, regardless of the escape clauses with which they were festooned?
      Mr. Hunter: I very strongly agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that that is indeed the case. If one analyses extremely carefully the Prime Minister's quoted words, one realises that they equate with neither the media presentation nor the general public's perception of them.
      A point that I have made more than once is that the media presentation and public perception of those words were public matters—published in the press—and that the Northern Ireland Office did not issue any statement of correction or denial. Unwittingly, I have no doubt—I must be charitable—it perpetuated and enhanced the misunderstanding.
      I come to the end of the argument that I want to present. First and foremost, amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are consistent with the agreement and with the Government's

      1297
      interpretation of the agreement as presented in the Bill. Secondly, the Government have still to account for the perception and the reality of the Prime Minister's as yet unfulfilled pledges.
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I affirm my own total and unequivocal opposition to violence in politics within a democracy—in case any Committee member wishes to ask me about my position on the matter. In fact, I am so opposed to such violence that I should include in my definition of it not only life-threatening actions but intimidatory or insulting behaviour within a political body that might silence those who have a view to express. That definition should express the fulness of my commitment to anti-violence. I am not a recent convert to that view, but have held it throughout my political life.
      The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) expressed my own thoughts so well that I have curtailed my speech, and will add only a few further thoughts.
      If the words of clause 23 did not fit the agreement, I am quite that Ministers would themselves have tabled amendments for debate today so that the words fit the agreement entirely. As they have not tabled such amendments, I can only presume—as I have not been involved in the talks that arrived at the agreement—that the Bill's words fit the agreement.
      This debate has lasted for the best part of three hours, and it is interesting that the violence committed by only one quarter has been mentioned. Let me say—having expressed my total opposition to violence of any kind—that it is interesting that only violence committed by the nationalist side of the equation has been mentioned, except when the hon. Member for South Down, correctly, said that he was opposed to violence from any quarter, nationalist or Unionist.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Lady aware that the reason for concentration on what might be loosely called "republican" violence—as opposed to so-called "loyalist" violence—is that, under the d'Hondt principles, the only representatives inextricably linked with violence who have any prospect of becoming a Minister in the Executive are those associated with republican violence? However, I am sure that every Committee member will endorse her sentiments—with which I should like expressly to be associated—about opposition to violence of any kind.
      6.15 pm
      Mrs. Fyfe: I am aware of the d'Hondt principles, but let me continue with the point that I was making.
      Opposition Members would have done their case more credit if they had been even-handed in their references to violence. We have, after all, only in recent weeks seen extreme violence at Drumcree. Can it be the case that not a single person aiming missiles at police and the Army is a member of any political party? Perhaps that is so. However, if any person taking part in the violence was a member of a party, I wonder what that party is doing about expelling that member? It cannot be taken for
      1298
      granted that that party is totally opposed to violence if it ignores a member behaving in that manner. Although I certainly do not know for certain, it is hard to credit that not one of those engaged in that extreme violence against our own police and Army has membership in any political party.
      I agree with another point made by the hon. Member for South Down—about how senseless it is to expect that violence will totally stop. South Africa, for example, would still be in the throes of apartheid if, on both sides, its people of good will had not been willing to come together and acknowledge that extremists on both sides would regard some actions of people on their own side as a sell-out and refuse to accept them. We have to try to move forward, and the Bill is a part of it.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Fyfe: I shall continue.
      Far greater risks come from not supporting the Bill. I was really worried when I heard an Opposition Member—whose constituency I forget, but we are colleagues in the Council of Europe, and we agree on so many things—say that he is now dubious about the Bill. I am seriously worried about that.
      Committee members have criticised what they consider to be the loose terminology of the phrase "any other reason", which is mentioned in two parts of the Bill. The phrase is all-inclusive, and could mean any type of violent activity. If one is going to object to someone on the grounds of only one particular aspect of violence, we will be back to an exercise of, "What about?" Human ingenuity can create endless ways in which to act violently or to intimidate others. Should the Bill contain an endless list of every form of violence that anyone has imagined? Of course not. The phrase "any other reason" has therefore been included in the Bill, so that the Assembly itself can act as it sees fit in each case.
      Mr. MacKay: I know that the hon. Lady would not want deliberately to mislead the House, and I shall help her put the record straight. I made it clear in my opening remarks that I condemned all violence, and I mentioned the number of paramilitary punishment beatings as well as the number of IRA punishment beatings. The hon. Lady was present for Second Reading on Monday, and heard me condemn what had happened at Drumcree and elsewhere. I suspect that she was also present last Wednesday during Northern Ireland questions, when the same condemnation was made. At no point, have I or any member of my party been anything but even-handed in our condemnation of terrorism, violence and intimidation.
      We are now discussing the Assembly, however. As the hon. and learned Member for North Down said, there is only one paramilitary party that, under the d'Hondt principle, could possibly take ministerial office, and that is Sinn Fein-IRA. Inevitably, we have had to concentrate on that.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I missed the opening sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, so he possibly made that reference then, but it was not in my hearing. I apologise if I have misrepresented what he said, but I find—I am sure that Hansard will show me to be correct—that most of the debate has been about violence from one side.

      1299
      Opposition Members are talking about the current situation, but we are talking about creating an Assembly which, we must surely hope, will last for many years, so the same issue could arise in future in respect of a member of some other group, Unionist or nationalist. My point is that it is perfectly reasonable to retain the words "for any other reason" in the Bill, because that allows the widest possible interpretation of what the Assembly itself could decide was unacceptable conduct. To return to my earlier point, I would even include in the term "any other reason" intimidatory behaviour in the Chamber.
      Mr. Öpik: I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees that one of the biggest problems in this debate, and, one can predict, one of the biggest problems of the Assembly's actions in regard to violence, is likely to centre on interpretation. How does the hon. Lady feel about what I presume to be the intention behind the amendment, which is to specify as much as we can in order to reduce the element of subjectivity—and, more to the point, the vagueness—which could cause enormous dispute within the Assembly itself?
      Mrs. Fyfe: I thought that I had dealt with that point. If we were to attempt to include every possible activity that could be counted as a violent act, the Bill would have umpteen pages, and still leave something out. It is better to leave the words "for any other reason", so that the Assembly has the authority to act on what it finds unacceptable.
      I hope that what I have said has contributed to the debate. It is important to get behind the Bill, and behind the agreement. We all know what will happen if they should fail.
      Mr. Donaldson: Government Members, especially the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), have referred many times to those of us who oppose the agreement. The referendum is over, lest the hon. Gentleman has not noticed. The people of Northern Ireland voted for the agreement, and that is why we are discussing the Bill. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying that any issue that we raise is invalid because we oppose the agreement. I hope that that is not the case, but he keeps asking the same question and one wonders what his motive is.
      We are dealing specifically with the issue of the holding of ministerial office. It is important to focus on that aspect of the clause, because some of the contributions today have ranged very widely.
      For the benefit of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), let me make it clear that my colleagues and I have always opposed terrorist violence, from whatever quarter it comes. When I was 18 years old, I joined the Ulster Defence Regiment, part of Her Majesty's security forces, to fight terrorism. I had the option to join the Ulster Volunteer Force, but I am opposed to paramilitary, terrorist violence and went out to defend the community against all forms of terrorism and paramilitary organisations. Let the hon. Lady be in no doubt that my colleagues and I oppose terrorist violence from wherever it comes.
      Let us understand what we are dealing with. The only terrorist organisation with political representatives in the Assembly that is eligible to hold ministerial office is
      1300
      the IRA. That is the reality. The UVF's representatives—the Progressive Unionist party—secured only two seats in the Assembly, so they would not be eligible for ministerial office. The Ulster Democratic party, representing the UDA, had no one elected to the Assembly and has not the remotest prospect of holding ministerial office. The only organisation eligible to hold ministerial office is the IRA, and we are focusing on that because the clause deals with the holding of ministerial office. I hope that the hon. Member for Maryhill understands why that has been the focus of our attention. We have to deal with the reality.
      The IRA has the prospect of holding ministerial office in the Northern Ireland Assembly—and I mean the IRA, because many of the members of Sinn Fein who have been elected to the Assembly are senior members of the Provisional IRA. The hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) and for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness), who do not take their seats in the House, are both acknowledged publicly to have been in the past, if they are not at present, members of the army council of the IRA. Those are the very people who are about to become Ministers in the Government of Northern Ireland. Let us understand the reality of the situation.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand my hon. Friend's argument, but does he accept that the legislation would cover any party or any person engaged in violence? Therefore, it is not aimed at any particular party or person, although I understand my hon. Friend's argument in the context of the current situation.
      Mr. Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, the principle applies to all paramilitary and terrorist organisations. We believe that the provisions in this Bill, like those in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, are inadequate. They do not define clearly the requirement for paramilitary-linked political parties to be committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. I know that Labour Members say that the agreement and the Bill state that people holding office should be committed to peaceful means, but there must be some accountability. There must be some means of holding people to that commitment. Our view is that the Bill's provisions are inadequate for holding people to account. That is where I am coming from.
      I was present during the talks that led to the agreement. I was present because I wanted a fair and honourable agreement that provided the basis for a way forward for Northern Ireland. I voted against the agreement because of the situation that we are discussing now. I am not prepared to accept as Ministers in the Government of Northern Ireland people who are members of the IRA army council—members of an organisation which has not given up violence for good.
      What we have is a ceasefire from the IRA. It was breached at the weekend by the murder of Andrew Kearney. It was breached by the beating of Vincent McKenna, and it has been breached on numerous occasions since it was brought into effect. It is not a permanent end to violence; nor does it represent a commitment to exclusively peaceful means. Those who hold ministerial office should be committed to peaceful means, and the organisations to which they are linked must demonstrate that in a tangible form before people become eligible to hold ministerial office. I object to the

      1301
      Bill because it contains nothing that would prevent representatives of Sinn Fein-IRA from becoming Ministers in the Government of Northern Ireland.
      6.30 pm
      I understand that the Secretary of State will lay before the House next week an order specifying the organisations that will benefit from the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill by having their terrorist prisoners released early. It will be interesting to discover what she does—whether she specifies that the Provisional IRA will benefit from the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill in the aftermath of the murder of Andrew Kearney and the beating of Vincent McKenna.
      That will be the first test of the commitment of the Government and the Secretary of State to hold those organisations—including the Provisional IRA—to the commitment to exclusively peaceful means. We shall see whether the Government have the courage to take those people on and hold them to account or whether, when it comes to the test, they will do what they have done in the past, and will no doubt do in future, and fudge the issue and walk away. The prisoners will be released, the murderers will walk on to the streets early, and representatives of Sinn Fein-IRA will hold ministerial office.
      There are transitional arrangements in the agreement to cover the period between the establishment of the Assembly following the election on 25 June and the transfer of power from Parliament to the Assembly. The transitional arrangements include provisions for shadow Ministers. Paragraph 35 of the agreement refers to
      "those…serving as shadow Ministers".
      Even before the provisions of the Bill can be implemented, representatives of Sinn Fein-IRA will be entitled to be appointed as shadow Ministers. So what will happen on the transfer of power? Schedule 14 states:
      "Any nomination of a person to hold a Ministerial office made before the appointed day shall on and after that day have effect as if it had been made under section 15."
      In other words, when representatives of Sinn Fein are appointed as shadow Ministers without any of the provisions of the Bill and the so-called safeguards in it coming into effect, they will automatically become fully appointed Ministers. So how can we prevent them from taking up office? How can we hold them to the commitment to exclusively peaceful means?
      The only real provision is for a cross-community vote in the Assembly. The three options set out in the Bill to exclude people from office require the passing of a vote in the Assembly based on cross-community support. In effect, that gives a veto to one political party in Northern Ireland—the SDLP. Will the SDLP ever vote to remove Sinn Fein-IRA from office? That question was posed to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), but he has not yet answered it. It was also posed to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and he has not yet answered it.
      What are the circumstances in which the SDLP will vote in the Assembly to have Sinn Fein-IRA removed from office? I do not believe that it is in the interests of Northern Ireland or in the interests of the agreement—
      1302
      even though I opposed it—and the workability of the institutions established by it to leave one political party to decide whether Ministers who are linked to an organisation that is engaged in violence should continue to hold office. If that continues to be the only effective mechanism whereby those people can be excluded from office, I do not believe that the agreement or the institutions created under it will work effectively or properly.
      Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a precedent in the attitude of the SDLP at the talks at Dublin castle? He will remember that we went there for a week, but the talks never took place because the IRA had committed an offence just the day before. The question arose whether Sinn Fein representatives should be expelled from the talks, and the SDLP was against their expulsion.
      Mr. Donaldson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right. On the one occasion when the SDLP was put to the test on the exclusion of Sinn Fein from the talks, on the basis that the IRA had breached the Mitchell principles, it opposed the expulsion of Sinn Fein.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the Committee what was the punishment for the deaths of two Roman Catholics? Two of its own co-religionists were murdered and it was proved that they were IRA killings. What punishment did Sinn Fein receive?
      Mr. Donaldson: I can answer that. The punishment was two weeks' expulsion from the talks process. It was one week for one murder. That was the penalty, and it was opposed by the SDLP. What confidence can I or the people of Northern Ireland have in the mechanisms in the Bill that provide that people who breach the commitment to peaceful means will be removed from office I am afraid that I have no confidence in those mechanisms.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): We have had an extremely important debate—possibly one of the most important debates during our consideration of the Bill in Committee. It partly, but not completely, mirrors the debate on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. The circumstances are different and we are considering a different law, but some of the points that were made in respect of that Bill were made in respect of this one, too.
      I fully acknowledge the importance and seriousness of the issues that reflect real concerns not just of right hon. and hon. Members, but of very large numbers of people who live and work in Northern Ireland.
      I also understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). I know that he is fully committed to the agreement and its success. I am grateful to him for his kind words. I do not know whether he knows everything that I know, but I admire the fact that he spoke in the spirit of the agreement that he and I support.
      I accept that those who did not support the agreement spoke with complete sincerity on the basis that we need to address the issue. We have partly done so in this debate. I hope to answer a number of points that have been raised, and to make some points of my own.

      1303
      The debate is set against a backcloth of appalling violence and civil unrest in the past three weeks in Northern Ireland. There has been violent disorder, disgraceful attacks on the forces of law and order, and the deaths of three young boys. Many right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the dreadful beating of Mr. McKenna and the murder of Mr. Kearney. Of course, the Government join all right hon. and hon. Members in utterly condemning such murders and so-called punishment beatings which, as a number of hon. Members have said, have no place in a civilised society. A vigorous police investigation into Mr. Kearney's death is under way. The RUC is pursuing the possibility that the murder was carried out by the Provisional IRA. We await the outcome of those investigations.
      It is important to consider the issues in the context not just of what has happened in the past three or four weeks, but of what has happened since the referendum. The issues were rightly raised during the referendum campaign. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sought to respond to those concerns carefully, responsibly and within the terms of the agreement. He clarified them in his speech at Balmoral on 14 May. Clause 23 reflects what the parties negotiated in the agreement and what the Prime Minister promised during the referendum campaign.
      The details of the clause are important, but we must not lose sight of the fundamental principles underlying the agreement. The first is set out in paragraph 25 of strand 1, which says:
      "Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means and those who do not should be excluded or removed from office".
      As my right hon. Friend said in his Balmoral speech:
      "Those who have used the twin tactics of the ballot box and the gun must make a clear choice. There can be no fudge between democracy and terror."
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister saying that what the Prime Minister said was not outside the terms of the agreement?
      Mr. Murphy: The Prime Minister clarified the agreement during the referendum campaign. He made it clear what he, as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, believed to be the case on the agreement. Taking all the responsibilities of his office, he assured people of the issues to which I have referred.
      The second fundamental principle of the agreement is that the new institutions of government in Northern Ireland are open to all those who share a common commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said when he addressed the first meeting of the new Assembly:
      "We are not saying, and we have never said, that the fact that someone has a certain past means that he cannot have a future. We have always acknowledged that it is possible for people to change."
      The third fundamental principle is that the agreement stands or falls as a package. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Balmoral:
      "The agreement is what has to be implemented in all its parts."
      There can be no cherry-picking. The agreement was negotiated by the parties and was approved overwhelmingly by the people of Northern Ireland. Our task is to implement it fairly and fully.
      1304
      That means that we must work to implement all the elements of the agreement—those that benefit us and those that are uncomfortable for us. We have listened carefully to the arguments, but we cannot accept proposals that call those fundamental principles into question.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is clearly the responsibility of Members of Parliament to stand by the side of the victims—those who are still being intimidated and beaten up, and those who have been killed. The actions of paramilitaries are directed at generating publicity and public reaction—local or national. Our job is to try to ensure that the publicity and the public reaction work against them. Will the Minister make it clear how we can turn the temperature up so that those who might exclude themselves by association with continuing violence will say so openly, or stop the violence so that there are no more victims?
      Mr. Murphy: That is achievable in the context of the clause. Our overriding task is to give effect to the agreement. Paragraph 25 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, 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."
      That paragraph makes some fundamental points: any decision on exclusion from ministerial office is for the Assembly; such a decision must be taken on the basis of cross-community voting; the relevant grounds are any failure to meet the Minister's responsibilities; and, in particular, those grounds include any breach of the commitment in the pledge of office required of all Ministers, to
      "non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
      The clause reflects each of those elements. It is right that the grounds for exclusion emphasised in subsections (1) and (2) reflect the agreement's emphasis on the use of only democratic, non-violent means and embrace other breaches of the pledge of office.
      6.45 pm
      I understand the thinking behind the amendments, but I cannot accept them, because they would replace or add to the grounds for exclusion set out in subsections (1) and (2), which closely reflect the terms of paragraph 25 of strand 1 of the agreement and the accompanying pledge of office, with other tests and criteria, however well meant or sensible. To do so, would be to move away from the specific terms of paragraph 25 of strand 1. I am confident that the wide grounds available under the clause fully meet the requirement of the agreement that those who do not use only democratic and non-violent means should be excluded from office.
      I cannot accept the amendments tabled by the Democratic Unionist party, because they would remove the requirement for cross-community support, which is a key element of the agreement, repeated twice in paragraph 25.
      We have set out to give effect to the promise of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his Balmoral

      1305
      speech to give legislative expression directly and plainly to the factors that he set out. The Prime Minister's starting point was:
      "The Agreement is what has to be implemented in all its parts."
      That is also the starting point of the clause. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
      "In clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the agreement are being met and whether violence has genuinely been given up for good, there are a range of factors to take into account".
      The four factors that he set out are in the Bill. He said:
      "Those factors provide evidence upon which to base an overall judgment—a judgment which will necessarily become more rigorous over time."
      Subsections (6) and (7) provide for the Secretary of State to reach such an overall judgment, taking into account the four factors that the Prime Minister set out. The Secretary of State can then communicate her opinion to the Assembly and require it to consider whether to exclude someone from ministerial office. However, the final decision is for the Assembly. That is vital to the agreement.
      Mr. William Thompson: Is it not a waste of time for us to be here considering the Bill in Committee if everything must be exactly as set out in the agreement? Does that not show that this Parliament, which is supposed to be sovereign, has to give way to an agreement? If this is a sovereign Parliament, we have the right to put forward amendments, which the Minister should consider on their merits, rather than being stuck with an agreement that appears to be set in stone, like the laws of the Medes and the Persians.
      Mr. Murphy: I do not know too much about Medes and Persians. The people of Northern Ireland were clear about what they wanted. They voted for the agreement by a large majority in the referendum. The fact that we have spent the past three hours debating just one clause of an 82-clause Bill shows that our time has not been wasted and that the House of Commons is an important place for such discussions. Indeed, in the next 15 or 20 minutes, we shall doubtless be voting on whether we should accept the clause.
      It is no surprise to be faced with amendments very similar to those tabled to the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. They fall broadly into two groups. Some propose new factors, and some seek to turn the factors from ones leading to an overall judgment to ones leading to four separate tests or hurdles. Some try to do both. Of course, we listened during proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. As the Committee will know, the factors were changed and improved as a result of those debates. In particular, factor (d) was expanded, at the urging of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, to make it clear that there must be full co-operation in implementing the decommissioning section of the Belfast agreement. I cannot accept amendments that would add to the factors set out by the Prime Minister. Nor can I accept those that turn the factors into separate tests. As the Prime Minister said:
      "We are not setting new preconditions or barriers."
      Of course gaps must be filled. In answer to the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), another reason why the House of Commons must debate such matters is precisely that there are gaps to fill. In places
      1306
      where the agreement is silent, we, as a House of Commons, must legislate. We have in all events to follow the spirit of the agreement The agreement is silent on the length of any period of exclusion, for instance, so we have inserted a 12-month period of exclusion. Additionally, there is provision in the Bill to exclude parties. There could also be breaches that give grounds for exclusion that are not personal, but have to do with party policy or the position of the party as a whole. In such cases, it would be nonsense to exclude one Minister, only to see him or her replaced by another from the same party who, for exactly the same reason, would be in breach of his or her responsibilities.
      I have received representations from hon. Members, particularly those representing Northern Ireland, regarding the phrase "for any other reason". Indeed it must be rethought. We shall be consulting parties during the next month or two before the Bill goes to the other place to see whether we can make an acceptable change to that part of the clause A number of the concerns expressed come down to this: the provisions in the clause sound fine in theory, but will not be used in practice; they will prove ineffective. If so, the Prime Minister has made it clear that we shall support changes to make the provisions effective.
      I assure the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take her responsibilities extremely seriously. Where she considers that a genuine issue arises on whether a party or an individual has breached the fundamental commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, she will act to ensure that the Assembly considers the issue. She will, of course, closely consult security advisers, particularly the Chief Constable. She will particularly take into account not only the activities of an individual or a party, but those of any paramilitary organisation to which an individual or party is clearly and inextricably linked in a relationship of support.
      The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) referred to cases that have arisen in recent weeks. If it is found that the murder of Mr. Kearney may have been carried out by members of the Provisional IRA, the Secretary of State must take that factor into account during her deliberations. All such matters can be taken into account only by her, because she receives the proper advice from the Chief Constable, the security forces and others.
      Then—this is the essence—the matter will be relayed to the Assembly, which can discuss it if one of three triggers is used. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister can initiate a debate; the Assembly, with its 30 Members, can ask for and initiate a debate; or the Assembly can be obliged to debate a matter if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so writes to it as a result of the four factors to which I have referred. Those factors are to be taken in the round by the Secretary of State as an indicator of whether there is a genuine commitment to non-violence and to democracy.
      Ultimately, it is and must be the Assembly which has control over such matters. I am responsible to the House of Commons as a Minister; an Assembly Minister is responsible to the Assembly. That is a very important concept, which the Assembly must take into account.
      I simply repeat that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indicated—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has, too—that, in the event of this not working properly, we shall have to look at it again, when that time

      1307
      comes. Of course, I hope that that time will never come. I also hope that the right hon. Member for Bracknell will feel inclined to withdraw his amendment.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister has said that he is answerable to this House and, therefore, for its decisions. What would he say if a majority of Tories, rather than a majority of his own party, was required to keep him in office?
      Mr. Murphy: I should be a very lucky man.
      Mr. MacKay: On behalf of the Opposition, I cannot guarantee that we would keep the Minister in office, much as we admire him.
      I have listened carefully to the Minister's very reasonable response, but I regret to say that I am still convinced that we would be right to press our amendment to the vote. The Prime Minister clarified the agreement on the Floor of the House on 6 May and subsequently in his Balmoral speech. Our amendments are within the scope of the agreement. They would strengthen the working of the Assembly. Given a background of violence, punishment beatings and—so far—no co-operation with the decommissioning commission, it is in the interests of the House and of the Assembly that the amendments are agreed.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 144, Noes 272.

      Division No. 347]

      [6.56 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Arbuthnot, James

      Evans, Nigel

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Faber, David

      Baker, Norman

      Fallon, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Beggs, Roy

      Flight, Howard

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Bercow, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fraser, Christopher

      Boswell, Tim

      Gale, Roger

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Garnier, Edward

      Brady, Graham

      Gibb, Nick

      Brake, Tom

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brazier, Julian

      Gorrie, Donald

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gray, James

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Greenway, John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Burnett, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Burns, Simon

      Hammond, Philip

      Burstow, Paul

      Hancock, Mike

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Cash, William

      Hawkins, Nick

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hayes, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Chidgey, David

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Chope, Christopher

      Horam, John

      Clappison, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Colvin, Michael

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Cotter, Brian

      Cran, James

      Key Robert

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Day Stephen

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      1308

      Leigh, Edward

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lidington, David

      Spring, Richard

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Steen, Anthony

      Luff, Peter

      Streeter, Gary

      McCartney, Robert (N Down)

      Stunell, Andrew

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Swayne, Desmond

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Syms, Robert

      MacKay, Andrew

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thompson, William

      Madel, Sir David

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Maples, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Trend, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Trimble, Rt Hon David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Norman, Archie

      Viggers, Peter

      Öpik, Lembit

      Walter, Robert

      Ottaway, Richard

      Wardle, Charles

      Page, Richard

      Waterson, Nigel

      Paice, James

      Wells, Bowen

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Prior, David

      Whittingdale, John

      Randall, John

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Willetts, David

      Rendel, David

      Willis, Phil

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Ruffley, David

      Yeo, Tim

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Mr. Oliver Heald and

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Mr. Tim Collins.

      Noes>

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Caton, Martin

      Ainger, Nick

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clapham, Michael

      Allen, Graham

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clelland, David

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Coaker, Vernon

      Banks, Tony

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Cohen, Harry

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Colman, Tony

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Connarty, Michael

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corbett, Robin

      Berry, Roger

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Betts, Clive

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cox, Tom

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cranston, Ross

      Boateng, Paul

      Crausby, David

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cummings, John

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Browne, Desmond

      Darvill, Keith

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Davidson, Ian

      Byers, Stephen

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Caborn, Richard

      Dawson, Hilton

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Denham, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Dobbin, Jim

      Cann, Jamie

      Doran, Frank

      Caplin, Ivor

      Dowd, Jim

      Casale, Roger

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      1309

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lock, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Love, Andrew

      Efford, Clive

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McCabe, Steve

      Ennis, Jeff

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      McDonnell, John

      Fisher, Mark

      McGrady, Eddie

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McIsaac, Shona

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Flint, Caroline

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Follett, Barbara

      McNamara, Kevin

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McNulty, Tony

      Foulkes, George

      McWilliam, John

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Gapes, Mike

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gardiner, Barry

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Godsiff, Roger

      Martlew, Eric

      Goggins, Paul

      Maxton, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Meale, Alan

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Milburn, Alan

      Hain, Peter

      Miller, Andrew

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hanson, David

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Healey, John

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Morley, Elliot

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mudie, George

      Hill, Keith

      Mullin, Chris

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hoey, Kate

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Norris, Dan

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Olner, Bill

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Hurst, Alan

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Hutton, John

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Pearson, Ian

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pickthall, Colin

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pike, Peter L

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Pound, Stephen

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Purchase, Ken

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kemp, Fraser

      Radice, Giles

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Rammell, Bill

      Khabra, Piara S

      Rapson, Syd

      Kidney, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Laxton, Bob

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lepper, David

      Rogers, Allan

      Levitt, Tom

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rooney, Terry

      Livingstone, Ken

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ruane, Chris

      1310

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Timms, Stephen

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Salmond, Alex

      Touhig, Don

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Sawford, Phil

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Vaz, Keith

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Singh, Marsha

      Watts, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      White, Brian

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Soley, Clive

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Stevenson, George

      Winnick, David

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Wise, Audrey

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wood, Mike

      Stringer, Graham

      Worthington, Tony

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wray, James

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mr. John McFall and

      Mr. David Jamieson.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Seven o'clock, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.
      Question agreed to.
      Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 14

      FIRST MINISTER AND DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 7, leave out lines 13 and 14.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 72, in page 7, line 15, leave out 'Two candidates standing jointly', and insert 'Candidates'
      No. 73, in page 7, leave out lines 26 to 28.
      No. 99, in page 7, line 27, leave out from 'otherwise' to end of line 28 and insert
      'the Secretary of State may by Order permit the other to continue in office for not more than seven days.'.
      No. 141, in page 7, line 27, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 28 and insert
      'hold office as a caretaker for up to three months pending the election of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister'.
      No. 74, in page 7, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert—
      '(7) Where the office of either the First Minister or the deputy First Minister is vacant, an election shall be held under this section to fill the vacancy.'.
      No. 142, in page 7, line 29, after 'Where', insert 'either'.
      No. 143, in page 7, line 30, leave out 'to fill the vacancies'.
      Mr. Robinson: The amendments are probing, as the Minister will recognise. It is remarkable that the principal

      1311
      position in the Assembly Executive will be held jointly. Will the Minister say whether there are any circumstances in which the First Minister can act independently of the Deputy First Minister? I see none.
      Paragraph 9 of schedule 12 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 was a Prime Minister in the old Parliament in Northern Ireland and a Chief Executive under the power-sharing arrangement. Under the Bill, however, two people must at all times act jointly, but what will happen when it is physically impossible for them to do so?
      It seems as though the First Minister and his deputy are joined at the hip; I doubt whether they can even go to the water closet without each other. The system seems most unworkable. Is the Minister prepared to add provisions to the Bill to allow the First Minister some independence, so that, at some stage, he can be his own man rather than the prisoner of his deputy?
      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I draw the attention of the Committee to amendment No. 99, which I tabled because I believed that the Bill contained a flaw: it does not provide for what would happen if—I hasten to add that I do not want this to happen—either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister died in office. There is a problem about what would happen in what I call the interregnum between the expiry of the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister and the election of a successor. The Bill requires the Assembly to provide for the election of a replacement under its Standing Orders.
      7.15 pm
      If either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister dies, the other one no longer holds office and, I believe, the Ministry will fall or be in paralysis. Clause 18 states:
      "The executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in Her Majesty…As respects transferred matters, the prerogative and other executive functions of Her Majesty shall be exercisable on Her Majesty's behalf by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly."
      I invite the Committee to consider that, if there is no First Minister or Deputy First Minister, power cannot be conveyed to subordinate Ministers, who, under clause 18(3), derive their functions from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly.
      We must be sensible and provide for what would happen if the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) or their successors were suddenly to lose office—most likely by dying, although I hope that that does not happen. Northern Ireland needs a continuing Government; I do not have to remind the Committee that a lapse of Executive authority even for a few hours could be catastrophic. If either of the offices was vacant, it would clearly take some days for the vacancy to be filled under the Standing Orders of the Assembly.
      Amendment No. 99 would allow the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister to continue in office for seven days—that would allow the Ministry to continue. I shall
      1312
      be interested to hear whether my hon. Friend the Minister believes that my contention is legally flawed. I do not think it is; I think that the flaw in the Bill is the problem.
      If my suggestion of extending the power of the surviving office holder by seven days does not commend itself to the Minister, I hope that an amendment will be tabled in another place to provide for a list of automatic succession so that, if a vacancy occurs, a named or designated postholder in the Ulster Unionist party or the SDLP would click in for long enough to allow the parties to regularise the appointment.
      I do not want to labour the point, although the matter does need to be resolved in Committee. The Minister may say—as was said to me sotto voce a couple of nights ago—that the matter is provided for in the Assembly Standing Orders. With respect, I do not believe that it can be—no matter how those Standing Orders are drawn up, a vacancy cannot be filled instantly. The vacancy may occur while one of the office holders is on holiday in another part of the world. Nevertheless, at that moment, the other Minister falls and, I believe, the whole Ministry will fall or be paralysed, as its powers derive from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
      I hope that my amendment commends itself to the Minister. If not, I would like an undertaking that this void or flaw in the drafting of the Bill will be remedied in another place.
      Mr. Trimble: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) makes a good point. It is, as he says, very much a Committee point, and there is a certain sense of relief at getting down to some real Committee points in this Committee. It is a pity that we have the ghastly programme which does not give us time to look at all the Committee points in the Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in his contention.
      The way in which the exercise of Executive functions is provided for in the Bill is a mess. All I can say in defence of the draftsmen is that the hon. Member for Thurrock should have seen the earlier draft—it was a worse mess. I do not know how many more drafts there will be, or how long it will be before we get something that is workable. However, what we have at the moment has clearly not been thought through, and some provision has to be made.
      I am not sure that the absence of a Government is truly catastrophic. There is a lot to be said, in certain circumstances, for minimal government. There is a tendency for those in government to think that they should always be doing things.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: Like giving themselves decent holidays.
      Mr. Trimble: I am certainly thinking of the holidays which I hope to have within the next few days, and which I hope will be decent.
      The seven-day continuation contained in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock is inappropriate. If either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister resigns, we have a crisis. There might be a different situation if either stepped in front of the proverbial bus. Some of the police officers on duty here have reproved me for jumping off buses before they stop,

      1313
      but that is by the way. If there is a resignation, we will have a crisis. It is optimistic to assume that that crisis will be resolved that quickly.
      That is why our amendment contains the provision for the survivor, if I can use that term, to continue on a caretaker basis for a period. Using the term "caretaker" in the Bill may be inappropriate, and the draftsman may wish to reflect on that. The amendment suggests a period of three months, but that is just picking a term. That matches with the provisions in amendments that we have tabled which we shall debate later.
      If there is a resignation—and therefore a crisis within the Administration which may or may not be resolvable—we could have a deadlock. Something will have to be done to resolve the deadlock, and the obvious thing is to provide for an election. However, we are dealing with a body with a fixed term. While there might be circumstances which might precipitate an election—or in which an election becomes inevitable—it should not be an easy option.
      If it is an easy option, that undermines the concept of a fixed-term Assembly, and it becomes an Assembly with a maximum term of four years which can be terminated earlier than that. We need a period so that people are under some pressure to try to find a way of resolving the crisis. Amendments Nos. 141, 142 and 143 deal with that situation, but there is a need to provide for a vacancy and for Executive functions to be discharged on a better basis.
      I have said to the Minister that the best way to do that is to follow what is done in the Government of Wales Bill, where Executive functions are vested in the Assembly as a whole. We then provide for those functions to be exercised in accordance with standing orders in the Assembly as a whole to reflect the fact that we will not have in the Northern Ireland Assembly a Cabinet or Executive bound by collective responsibility.
      We are not analogous to Scotland. We will have a looser form of Administration and vesting the matter in the Assembly, subject to it being exercised in accordance with standing orders, preserves the safeguard for minorities which exists with the need for standing orders to be approved on a cross—community vote. We will deal with the problem flexibly, but we must still take account of the need to protect minorities.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made some points in a characteristic fashion, and he had a substantial point. Repeatedly in the Bill, functions are conferred on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister jointly. As has been made clear, the Bill's purpose is to carry into effect the agreement, and it is important that we stick to the agreement. I defy anyone to find in the agreement any significant functions that are to be exercised in the way envisaged in the Bill. A couple of minor functions are to be exercised jointly by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, but general governmental functions are not.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, East made a useful point, but he chose the wrong clause on which to make it. The election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister is the clearest point in the agreement. The agreement says that that is to be done jointly. It is consistent with that principle that the death or resignation of one should call into question the position of the other. We then have to
      1314
      look at the practicalities of providing for the continuation of the Administration and for re-election. However, the basic principle—that, as the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have been elected jointly, the survivor cannot continue indefinitely if there is a death or resignation—is clearly right. That it is clear in the agreement.
      I believe that my amendments deal with the practicalities better than the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock. However, the Minister may have a better way, and we wait to hear what he has to say. The practicalities have to be dealt with, but the general point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East must be addressed. As I said on Monday, it seems to me that, every time the draftsman encountered a difficulty, he decided to dump it on us. That is not appropriate. I would prefer to dump it on the Assembly as a whole.
      Dr. Godman: I was struck by what the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said about the two roles seeming to be "joined at the hip", and I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who referred to the First Minister in the Welsh Assembly.
      I would like to ask Ministers a question. Paragraph 18 of strand 1 of the agreement says:
      "The duties of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will include, inter alia, dealing with and co-ordinating the work of the Executive Committee and the response of the Northern Ireland administration to external relationships."
      The term "inter alia" can be used liberally.
      Let us put away such terrible things as people falling under buses. What happens if the First Minister is absent from Northern Ireland? Can I assume that the Deputy First Minister takes on the role in his absence? If any emergency arises, would he have the right to deal with everyday matters and any critical matters that might arise?
      The right hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned the Welsh Assembly, but I wish to refer to the Scottish Parliament. Clauses 42 to 44 of the Scotland Bill provide for the appointment and term of office of the First Minister and the Ministers, and that is entirely different from what is proposed here.
      The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast, East have raised critical questions, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). Can I assume that a deputy would deputise and take on the role of First Minister in his colleague's absence? It might be worth looking at the appropriate clauses in the Government of Wales Bill and clauses 42 to 44 of the Scotland Bill, which may provide the means by which those questions can be answered sensibly and democratically.
      Mr. Öpik: First, I must echo the practical concerns about what would happen should one of the positions become vacant. The Northern Ireland Assembly is not comparable with the Welsh Assembly, and the difficulties are not the same. In the former, indivisibility is there for a purpose, and a sensible purpose at that. As the agreement is absolutely clear, we do not need to debate that matter. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann elucidated, we are discussing a practical question and, far from decoupling the two positions, we want to maintain some continuity should one or other of the individuals disappear from the role.

      1315
      7.30 pm
      Can the Minister give us some assurance that continuity in the event of a vacancy will be considered during the summer, perhaps as a drafting amendment? One thing is sure: if a crisis leads to the resignation of the First Minister or Deputy First Minister for whatever reason, that crisis would be exacerbated if both roles became vacant at once. The intent of the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is to prevent a crisis from deepening because of poor planning for the continuity of the two roles.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: I shall be brief. Much of the difficulty arises because of the looseness of the terminology. To describe as First Minister and Deputy First Minister the roles designated to the two Executive officers is a misnomer. Clearly, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is in no sense the deputy of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). They are joint consuls, as in imperial Rome, each with the power to stop the other.
      Mr. Trimble: Like Rome perhaps, but not imperial Rome.
      Mr. McCartney: We will leave Caligula and Nero out of it for the moment and concentrate on the consuls rather than the emperor.
      Mr. McNamara: And the hon. Gentleman is one of the vestal virgins.
      Mr. McCartney: I do not think so. As the father of four children, even in a male sense I do not think that there is any justification for that remark.
      The concept of a deputy is that, if the principal is, for any reason, unable to discharge his functions, the deputy will assume the executive role of the principal. In the Assembly, the deputy would immediately have to leave office should anything happen to his principal, and vice versa.
      The terminology is indicative of the louche way in which the Bill has been drafted. It is meant to feed the Unionist electoral majority with the idea that, the leader of the largest party is in some way a First Minister and the leader of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour party—the second largest party—is in some way a deputy. That is the image that the language is intended to project, which is completely out of kilter with the essence of the provisions.
      We talk about introducing democracy, but there is no democracy as it is popularly understood in the arrangement. Such is the distrust, or mistrust, that, if one of the joint consuls is incommoded in any way—whether by falling under a bus, or becoming of unsound mind, memory or understanding—the whole thing is scuppered. It is unreal nonsense.
      Mr. Trimble: I hope that what I am about to say is accurate and I am sure that I will be corrected if it is not, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that there is no provision to remove either Minister on the basis of his being of unsound mind.
      Mr. McCartney: I am prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurances, but the test may ultimately become objective rather than a subjective demonstration of any weakness of the mind.
      1316
      The issue is that the language used in the Bill in no way reflects the reality of the situation. Some people would say that it is another manifestation of the Government's obsession with making form much more important than substance.
      Mr. Paul Murphy: This has been an interesting debate and I shall deal with one of the least contentious points first. Hon. Members referred to the prerogative powers mentioned in clause 18, which are a tiny proportion of all the powers. Ministers will continue in office with full powers. In that case, prerogative powers merely encompass public holidays and a few other specialist powers.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I hesitate to intervene, but although I think that I understand what prerogative powers are, clause 18(2) also mentions
      "other executive functions of Her Majesty",
      and it would seem that everything and anything that a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly does is derived from that subsection. With the greatest respect, I hope that the Government will reflect on that.
      I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister if I am wrong, but it seems to me that, if both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister posts are vacant, Ministers will be denied the capacity to exercise their statutory functions, and there would be paralysis in the Administration. They might say, "That's only convention. We can skip over that." However, any actions that they took, or that were taken on their behalf, in the interregnum would then be subject to the vulnerability of challenge in the courts.
      Mr. Murphy: The vast majority of Ministers' powers derive from statute and not from clause 18. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with the later clauses and may be able to elaborate on that. The points about vacancies are important, and I will deal with them in a moment.
      On the more general aspects of the First and Deputy First Ministers, I must admit that it is not the most elegant of language, but that is what was decided in the talks and in the agreement and that is what people voted for. As for the concept of having a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister, to reflect the top parties' electoral mandate and success in the Assembly elections—effectively, the largest nationalist and the largest Unionist party as reflected in membership of the Assembly—that effectively means that co-operation and consensus between the two traditions in Northern Ireland are reflected in those offices. That was one of the great attractions of the whole agreement. Of course there were contentious issues, but I think that hon. Members who were involved in the referendum campaign will agree that that issue did not exercise people or cause controversy, because it is a good idea in itself.
      Of course, the arrangement is nothing like a joint presidency. I know the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister well, and I do not have the slightest doubt that they will exercise their independence in many circumstances, but the idea of having those two Ministers was in the agreement, and I believe was supported by those who voted in the referendum.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: The Minister has made constant reference to what people agreed to in the

      1317
      referendum, but he knows well that the focus groups ordered by his Department produced some important information about the number of people who had read the agreement, the number who had read it completely and the number who had only skimmed through it. To suggest that every word of it was endorsed in the referendum is a flight from reality.
      Mr. Murphy: The hon. and learned Gentleman would not disagree that, when people elected him to represent North Down in the House of Commons, they did not read his manifesto carefully. When they voted for him, they voted for what was in that manifesto, just as the referendum was based on what was in the agreement. The Government cannot construct a Bill based on an agreement on the assumption that people did not read it.
      The concept of having a First and a Deputy First Minister representing the two largest parties—effectively, the largest Unionist and the largest nationalist party—was an attractive concept that people liked, and it was written into both the agreement and the Bill.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: It was neither in the agreement nor in the Bill. Anyone can be nominated. Candidates do not have to be from the largest party of either designated tradition. Two Unionists could be nominated.
      Mr. Murphy: Yes, of course, but that was not the reality, and everyone knew that it would not be. The agreement is based on co-operation between both traditions, and if that had not been the case, the referendum majority would not have been as big as it was.
      There are areas in which the First and Deputy First Ministers must act jointly, according to the agreement, but other areas are not so significant. When we have further consultations here and in another place, we will be able to examine those areas carefully.
      Some valid points have been made about vacancies, by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and others. We need to have another look at that part of the clause, and in the summer I will consult the parties in both Northern Ireland and Westminster, with a view to adding some clarification in another place. I hope, as a consequence, that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: My purpose was to seek a list of those occasions when the First and Deputy First Ministers could act independently. I did not get one suggestion from the Minister as to any such occasion. I suppose that the only circumstance in which they could act independently would be if they were to take another ministerial post in the Executive, which of course they would be entitled to do. It is perfectly clear that the two of them must at all times act together. The amendment raised the issue and will let people see that we have, effectively, joint First Ministers in Northern Ireland, and that each is a prisoner of the other. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 5 agreed to.

    Clause 15

      NORTHERN IRELAND MINISTERS
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 144, in page 7, line 41, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 42 and insert 'Assembly'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 145, in page 8, leave out lines 1 to 3.
      No. 178, in clause 16, page 9, line 13, leave out 'of the Assembly'.
      No. 147, in clause 18, page 9, line 30, leave out from first 'the' to the end of line 34 and insert 'Assembly'.
      No. 77, in clause 18, page 9, line 30, leave out
      'and the deputy First Minister acting jointly'
      and insert
      'with the approval of the Assembly voting on a cross—community basis in accordance with section 4(5).'.
      No. 78, in clause 18, page 9, line 32, leave out 'those Ministers so determine' and insert—
      'the First Minister so determines, with the approval of the Assembly voting on a cross—community basis in accordance with section 4(5),'.
      No. 149, in clause 22, page 10, line 38, after 'policy', insert
      ',the initiation of legislation, the approval of secondary legislation and such other matters as may be provided by Standing Orders'.
      No. 184, in clause 40, page 21, line 24, leave out
      'First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly'
      and insert
      'Assembly'.
      Mr. Trimble: The amendments give us the opportunity to continue the debate that was conducted under the previous group, as largely the same issues are involved.
      The agreement contains some novel features, which are there to reflect the particular circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland. That is why we have the concept of both a First and a Deputy First Minister; there is symbolic importance in having two persons who are, by virtue of the arrangements in the agreement and in the Bill, closely related to each other.
      There is no need for the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) to make such heavy weather of that. The same arrangements apply when coalitions exist: if there are two parties whose votes are necessary to provide an effective majority in an institution, the two party leaders are not necessarily in a very close relationship. In its essence, there is no great dissimilarity between such a situation and the situation provided for in the Bill.
      My concern is that the Bill's draftsman has departed significantly from the agreement and given some precise functions to the First and Deputy First Ministers that are not given, or even hinted at, in the agreement. The agreement provides for them to be elected jointly, and that is clearly a joint function. It also provides that they are to preside over the meetings of the Executive Committee.

      1319
      Paragraph 18 of strand 1 says:
      "The duties of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will include…dealing with and co-ordinating the work of the Executive Committee and the response of the Northern Ireland administration to external relationships."
      Co-ordinating is a general function, rather than a precise executive function.
      The only precise executive functions given in the agreement to the gentlemen in question is with regard to the civic forum in paragraph 34 and, under paragraph 2 of strand 2, with regard to making alternative arrangements for representation, although, by virtue of paragraphs 13 and 18, they have to co-ordinate general arrangements for representation with external institutions. Their role is symbolic and co-ordinating. I think that the draftsman has made a mistake in giving them so many precise executive functions.
      The disadvantage is clearly shown by the matters covered in amendments Nos. 144 and 145, which deal with determining the number and functions of Northern Ireland Ministers. That point was covered in the Assembly's very first sitting, at the end of which it charged the First and Deputy First Ministers with a role: to consider the shape and structure of future administration and the arrangements to be made for both the British-Irish council and the north-south ministerial council. There are certain matters that have to be dealt with in accordance with the agreement.
      Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
      Mr. Robert McCartney rose—
      Mr. Trimble: I shall choose the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney).
      Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand it, he objects to the fact that certain functions have been given to him that were not spelled out in the agreement, but is not the real charge that the function that the Assembly gave the two Ministers was not the Assembly's choice but the result of a fixed agenda presented to it by the Secretary of State? The Assembly did not choose what to do: it was told what to do.
      Mr. Trimble: The Assembly chose to do it when the Assembly passed the necessary resolution. The agenda was drawn up by the Secretary of State, but she did it after consultation.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: With whom?
      Mr. McCartney indicated dissent.
      Mr. Trimble: I cannot say. The Secretary of State consulted me, and I am sure that she consulted other people. The agenda did not appear out of the blue, but that is a peripheral issue.
      At the end of its first sitting, the Assembly passed a resolution charging the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister with making studies, considering matters including the shape of the future Northern Ireland Administration, the British-Irish council and the north-south ministerial council, and bringing proposals to
      1320
      the Assembly, as we hope to do in the autumn. The Assembly will be able to debate those proposals, to amend them or to tell us to go back and think again. It may decide to ask for someone else's proposals. The decision rests with the Assembly, and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will merely offer proposals.
      The practical reality underlying that is that the Assembly requires an effective majority if it is to function. As matters stand, and as we see them in the future, that majority will be provided by a form of coalition between the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Ulster Unionist party. If proposals to the Assembly are approved by the leadership of those two parties, it is likely that the Assembly will endorse them. The Assembly can also endorse proposals on a cross-community basis, as cross-community voting can be invoked in particular circumstances. The right way to proceed is to focus on the Assembly, and to create an effective majority in the Assembly, which will make us work closely together.
      Clause 15 is the wrong way round. It says that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are to act together but without the Assembly to make a determination that the Assembly will have to approve. That puts the cart before the horse, suggesting that power rests essentially with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Their decision may be vetoed by the Assembly, but decisions will not be taken properly. The same point arises in a different context in relation to amendment No. 147.
      The right way to proceed is to give the power to make a determination to the Assembly, with its ability to take decisions on a cross-community basis when that is necessary. To give too many precise functions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will tend to lead to a joint presidency, and that was not the intention of the agreement. We need the draftsman to rethink the clause to bring it closer to the agreement.
      Dr. Godman: Clause 15 allows the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister jointly to determine the number of Ministers and their functions. Presumably, their determination will then be presented to the Assembly, which is a coherent and realistic approach. That is in effect Cabinet government, under a Prime Minister, and I expect the Scottish Parliament to work that way. The First Minister in Scotland may head a coalition Government, and he will have to negotiate who his Ministers are to be and what their functions will be before he presents his decision to the Scottish Parliament. Surely the same holds true for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      Mr. Trimble: There is a clear difference between arrangements for Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Scottish arrangements are based on normal British parliamentary practice, so Scotland can have normal Cabinet government. If no one wins an overall majority, there may have to be a coalition, but there will basically be a normal British parliamentary system. That is not the case in Northern Ireland. The d'Hondt formula and the principle of proportionality will mean that there will not be a Cabinet. There will be an Executive, but it will not operate as a Cabinet.
      I thought that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) was going to refer to the conflict between clauses 15 and 17. I have not tabled any

      1321
      amendments on that, not because I approve of it, but because my time is limited. Clause 15, even with my amendment, provides that the functions to be exercised by Ministers are to be determined by the First and Deputy First Ministers. That offers them the temptation to rig the d'Hondt formula's operation by moving functions between Departments so that all the politically sexy functions are in the Departments that they obtain. Perhaps they might even be tempted to manipulate the total number of Departments. Far be it from me to suggest that such ideas will be at the forefront of their minds, but they are exposed to that temptation.
      That runs counter to clause 17, however, as it states:
      "the Northern Ireland departments existing on the appointed day shall be the Northern Ireland departments for the purposes of this Act.
      (2) Provision may be made by Act of the Assembly for establishing new Northern Ireland departments".
      There is an existing power under subordinate legislation for the transfer of functions from one Department to another. That is not being abolished, and there is a consequent conflict between clauses 15 and the existing body of law.
      My main point is that functions should be determined by the Assembly. I am not moving away from the concept of partnership arrangements in saying that it would be a mistake to give those functions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
      I am puzzled about why amendment No. 149 is grouped with amendment No. 144, because it raises quite different issues. It deals with the functions of committees as provided for in clause 22. The draftsman has not taken account of all the functions given to committees in the agreement, which are listed in paragraph 9. The draftsman could reconsider the clause to bring it into conformity with the agreement.
      8 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): It is interesting to hear the views of the First Minister designate, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), in respect of the exercise of these powers. He is right to say that the agreement, in the remarkable time in which it did what it did, could not possibly have solved all the problems that relate to any Bill.
      What we have been trying to do is to interpret the spirit of the agreement. In respect of the setting up of the Departments, we referred the matter to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, which is in fact what the Assembly did. That seemed to us to be a sensible way of proceeding.
      The right hon. Gentleman says that the Assembly should do it, but the Assembly cannot do it en masse; it would then have to refer the matter to someone or to some organisation to accomplish that end. That is what has occurred. We are quite willing to look again at the issue, but that seems to be the sensible way to deal with the bringing into existence of the Assembly, its Ministers and its Committees. However, we shall reconsider the matter and see whether there is an alternative way to proceed.
      I should clarify a point raised several times during this debate and the previous one, which is the question of prerogative powers. I assure hon. Members that the
      1322
      prerogative powers referred to are extremely limited, covering matters such as the organisation of the civil service, public holidays, action in civil emergencies, the honours list and so on. They sound like an enormous matter, but the powers are in fact marginal to the affairs of the Assembly. The bulk of the power that people will have is statutory power, which will go with Ministers in the carrying out of their duties.
      To clarify another point that has been raised, so that it does not dominate our discussions later, I should explain the reference to "other executive functions". Again, that sounds like a major part of the work of the Assembly and of Ministers. It refers to the powers that the Government or a Department can exercise in the same way as a normal citizen; the best example of that would be the power to make contracts. However, the great bulk of the Assembly's powers will be statutory.
      With the assurance that we shall look again at how we go about the business of setting up the Committees and the functions of the Assembly, I ask the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to ask leave to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Trimble: I am glad to hear that the Minister will look again at the matter. I trust that, in doing so, he will consult me and others who are directly involved. I realise that the Bill had to be drafted very quickly and that that limited the opportunity for consultation beforehand, but, had we been given the opportunity, we should have been very happy to elucidate for the Minister the real meaning of the agreement. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in page 8, line 31, at end insert—
      '(9A) If the number of seats in the Assembly which are held by members of one or more political party, reduce or increase, for any reason to such an extent that it alters the number of Ministerial offices entitled to be held by a party, then the procedure set out in subsections (4) to (9) shall be reapplied.'.
      The First Deputy ChairmanWith this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 164 in page 9, line 12, at end add—
      '(16) In this section the number of seats in the Assembly which are held by the political party is determined by calculating the number of members designated as being in membership of that party when signing the Assembly register and a member of the Assembly may alter his party designation in the Assembly register.'.
      Mr. Robinson: Again, the amendment is designed to give the Government an opportunity to clarify their thinking and the intention of the legislation in respect of possible changes in the numerical strength of political parties in the Assembly. Clearly, it can take only a few Members to require a change in the number of ministerial posts to which a political party is entitled. For example, a significant transformation could be achieved by a couple of extra DUP Members and the fall-off of a couple of SDLP Members—perhaps some SDLP Members will join the DUP.
      Mr. McGrady: Me?
      Mr. Robinson: Who knows? The invitation is there for the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady).

      1323
      There is a clear possibility that a small shift in numbers would entitle a political party to an additional ministerial post, or require a political party to lose a ministerial post. The legislation, on the face of it, does not appear to deal with that eventuality. It is possible that the Minister will tell me that Standing Orders could deal with the issue, but I think that it is so important that it is necessary for it to be in the Bill, so that, expressly, if the number of seats in the Assembly held by a political party increased or decreased to the extent that it should cause a change in ministerial numbers, the formula outlined in the Bill in subsections (4) to (9) would be reapplied.
      The second amendment, No. 164, deals with the determination of who is a member of a political party. Currently, that is self-evident: when Members went into the Assembly, they were asked to sign a register, one of the columns of which indicated the political party to which they belong. However, nowhere in the legislation does it say that that is the determining factor in deciding whether somebody is or is not a member of a political party; nor does the Bill say what happens if a person resigns from a political party. If a person resigns from a political party, does the party still hold to the number that it had when that person was elected as a member of that party? The Bill is silent on all those matters.
      I have no doubt that, within four or five years, such problems will arise. It is proper that we face up to them now and amend the Bill to allow them to be dealt with in an efficient and effective manner.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Minister knows that, when we were registering, there was some controversy in respect of the Women's Coalition, whose members wanted to be one thing one day, something else the next day, and something else the day after that. There was a ruling against that by the pro tem Presiding Officer, the person appointed by the Secretary of State. They thought that they could be nationalists when they wanted to be nationalists to get the consensus vote; Unionists when they wanted to be Unionists to get the Unionist vote; and nothing when they wanted to be what they really were. That was what took place.
      Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: No. I am simply saying that that is what the members of the Women's Coalition told us they were during the talks. They said that they were nothing—not Unionist, not nationalist, just themselves. That is what they wanted to be sometimes, but when it suited their voting purposes, they wanted to be Unionists or nationalists. That was not permitted after the ruling from the chair, but what is going to happen in future when people want to change party?
      What happens then, and when voting takes place? What happens if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) says, Members resign from one party and join another? It could change even the Executive if two Members who had resigned from one party joined another party that needed only two more Members to get a third or a fourth seat on the Executive. What would happen then? I think that the Minister needs to be clear when he replies, and to tell us his thinking on those issues. Will he deal with those matters in the Bill?
      I am glad that the House is now learning that the Bill cannot be a replica of the agreement. We have heard Members argue strongly today that the Bill can include
      1324
      nothing except what is in the agreement, but the Minister admitted that it would have to contain points that were not in the agreement.
      Mr. Worthington: The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) must not take my appearance at the Dispatch Box as evidence of a new reasonableness.
      We ask hon. Members to resist the amendments but to acknowledge that there is an issue to be considered. It is important, as we work through the implications of the d'Hondt procedure, that we think of all possible consequences. In the case that has just been mentioned, it would be wrong to deny Members the opportunity to cross the Floor. In any democracy, there are circumstances in which people wish to reclassify themselves, and it would be wrong for us to state in legislation that a person who was elected with a particular designation had to keep it for ever. We therefore resist the thinking behind the amendment.
      I pay tribute to the people who have drafted the Bill. What has happened over the past few months is simply remarkable. I think of my background as a Member of Parliament for a Scottish constituency and how we have been talking about devolution all my adult political life. Devolution will happen in Scotland—there will be an election next May and the Parliament will sit a year later. We seek, in this Bill, to set up an Assembly in Northern Ireland by early next year. What we are achieving is remarkable.
      I return to d'Hondt and the difficulties that we shall have to tackle later in the proceedings on the Bill which are linked to the points made by the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for North Antrim. What should happen if parties are excluded from the Parliament? Should we then return to the d'Hondt principles? What will happen when parties amalgamate? Again, there may be a need for recalculations.
      Dr. Godman: I can understand the object of the amendment, but surely, if the legislation to set up a finely balanced Assembly cannot comfortably accommodate people who wish to transfer from one party to another, an alternative democratic view is that such Members should have the honour to resign and cause a by-election.
      Mr. McNamara: My point follows that of my hon. Friend, with whom I disagree. The nature of the elections, which are based on a proportional system for the constituencies, means that communities within constituencies are represented. Therefore, if Members cross the Floor or change their position, they deny that community element the representation that it had within the complicated community and constituency-based system. That brings us to the question whether there should be a by-election at all or whether a person should, in those circumstances, resign and be replaced by another party member. There is a world of difference between an Assembly elected for a fixed period and proportional representation, and what happens in this House, where Governments can change if a vote of confidence is lost. That will never happen under the present Administration, I am happy to say.
      Mr. Worthington: In his elegant way, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has demonstrated the complexities that lie behind the

      1325
      amendment. Over the summer months, we need to work out the circumstances in which there would need to be a rerun of the d'Hondt principles. I am not committing myself to what those circumstances might be, but as we consider the Bill, it becomes clear that we need further to explore this matter. I ask the hon. Member for Belfast, East not to press his amendment, and I assure him that we recognise that the Bill needs further work in that respect.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Robinson: I welcome the Minister's remarks. There was confusion in the debate between party affiliation and community designation. We are dealing with party affiliation in the formula for allocating ministerial posts. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to the possibility of a community being robbed of one of its Members if he or she were to cross the Floor. It is unlikely that a Member would cross from the nationalist community to the Unionist or vice versa in the middle of an Assembly term, but it is theoretically possible.
      The difficulty in sustaining the hon. Gentleman's argument is that we were not required, or indeed entitled, to state our community designation at the time of the election. I argued that every person who stood should then state their community designation so that people knew what that would be when Members entered the Assembly and could vote accordingly.
      Mr. McNamara: How Jesuitical the hon. Gentleman is regarding the Alliance party. A Member may not necessarily cross the Floor from nationalist to Unionist or vice versa. There is the question of the separate non-aligned groups—if I may use that United Nations term—some of whose Members might join other organisations.
      Mr. Robinson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but under the Bill, a move does not have the same effect if Members remain within the same community designation. Most of the voting in the Assembly will be based on community designation, so if Members remain in the same community designation, it does not matter which group they sit with. The impact of changing from one political party to another principally has an effect on the number of ministerial posts that that party will have.
      The position is not unlike that in this House. The hon. Member for Hull, North has colleagues who were elected as something other than Labour Members. It is not uncommon for Members of the House to change their affiliation without going to the electorate for a ballot.
      Mr. McNamara: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about community designation, but there would be a problem if a Member moved from the Alliance party and declared himself nationalist or Unionist, depending on the particular brand of Unionism to which he became affiliated and how that affected the party balance under the d'Hondt system. The problem would still arise in that case.
      Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman would have a point if there was something to stop Members changing
      1326
      their community designation tomorrow if they so wished. As it is, they can go into the Assembly today and change their community designation. There is nothing to stop them.
      It is entirely wrong that people can change their community designation overnight just for the sake of the voting impact that it may have in the Assembly. It makes a farce of the way in which the Assembly operates. However, until such time as community designation is tied down, the hon. Member for Hull, North does not really have a point, because the Alliance party members could change that anyway.
      Mr. McNamara: We are not disagreeing.
      Mr. Robinson: In that case, let us end the debate very quickly on that, by way of concord.
      I am pleased that the Minister has undertaken to look at the matter again. In terms of the practical operation of the Assembly, it is essential that we look at it again. I shall examine the Government's response closely when we have it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 16

      THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in clause 16, page 9, line 16, leave out 'chairmen' and insert 'chairman and deputy chairman'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 9, in clause 16, page 9, line 19, at end add—
      '(4) Ministers of the Crown shall not serve on the Executive Committee'.
      Mr. Robinson: I am slightly surprised that amendment No. 76 was chosen for debate, because it very much followed on from our earlier debate about the Siamese twins in the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Strangely, instead of being Chairman and Deputy Chairman, they become joint Chairmen. I wonder why we have that change in terminology. Earlier the Government were trying to bluff people into believing that we had a First Minister and a deputy, but the reality seems to emerge when they are chairing meetings of the Executive Committee as joint Chairmen. Will the Minister help us to understand how two Chairmen will preside over a meeting? Surely, if they are First Minister and Deputy First Minister, they should be Chairman and Deputy Chairman.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: I should like to turn the Committee's attention to amendment No. 9, standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which says that
      "Ministers of the Crown shall not serve on the Executive Committee".
      The issue is something of a hardy perennial. It was under discussion in the House only yesterday, in the context of the Government of Wales Bill and the ambition, in that

      1327
      case, of the Secretary of State to fulfil, for a limited time, the roles of Minister of the Crown and Assembly First Secretary.
      In the view of the Official Opposition, there is a clear constitutional issue, which applies as much to the position in Northern Ireland as it does to that in Wales and that in Scotland. The starting point is simple—the ministerial guidelines, of which the code for 1997 was published in July. The first guideline reads:
      "Ministers must uphold the principle of collective responsibility."
      To that is joined the second guideline:
      "Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account and be held to account for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and next step agencies."
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) say that the Executive Committee is not a Cabinet. Surely the hon. Gentleman is quoting guidelines for Cabinet responsibility—that Ministers must agree, and that they must move in unison. Surely that is a Cabinet structure.
      Mr. Grieve: I am quoting from the rules relating to United Kingdom Ministers. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are also guidelines which are set out in the Bill, and in the Belfast agreement, relating to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly. In particular, schedule 5 of the Bill provides that it is the duty of a Minister
      "to support, and act in accordance with, all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly".
      Of course, in the Northern Ireland connection, the matter goes further, because in Committee today we have heard something about the curious relationship between the First Minister and his deputy. I do not use the word "curious" in a pejorative sense. I accept that we are putting in place a constitutional creation, but it imposes on the two people mutual responsibilities—and, indeed, loyalties—which are explicit, or at least implicit, in the context of the Bill.
      The question arises—I accept that it is a hypothetical question at the moment—how could those two sets of guidelines, one for Northern Ireland and one for Ministers in the United Kingdom, be reconcilable with the possibility of a United Kingdom Minister holding a place on the Northern Ireland Executive, or vice versa? The view of the official Opposition is that the two are completely incompatible.
      We could end up with extraordinary anomalies. How could a Minister observe collective responsibility to both bodies? We could also have the extraordinary situation of a Minister ending up supervising his own actions because, under clause 21(3)(a) of the Bill, it is possible for a Member of the Northern Ireland Executive Committee to act as the agent for a Minister of the Crown of the United Kingdom. We could therefore have the very bizarre situation of a Minister of the United Kingdom giving a delegated agency task to himself in another guise.
      This may appear to be somewhat esoteric, but it is not. I shall explain to the Minister and the Committee why I do not believe that it is. There is already ample evidence that, where one has devolved administrative structures—let alone devolved structures relating to assemblies and government—conflicts can arise.
      1328
      I have to tell the Minister that, only a very few years ago, I was sent up by a Government Department to a port on the north-east coast of England to pick up the debris of a prosecution that had been brought by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, England, against a Scottish trawlerman. In the course of the proceedings, it had become apparent that the directives under which he was acting, which had been placed upon him by the Scottish branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, differed markedly from those that were being operated in the port in Lincolnshire where he had landed his catch.
      The result was a disaster for the Government Department that had brought the prosecution—perhaps rightly so, because it was castigated for the inconsistencies that existed. The fact remained that, because there was, at least, a doctrine of collective responsibility, the fall-out—to which I was not privy because I was there only in the role of advocate—could at least be contained within the Ministry, in the relations between the Scottish Minister, holding his collective responsibility and his responsibility to the House, and the English Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with his responsibilities in relation to his own Department.
      Even with the limited—but important—powers that will be devolved under the Bill, a fisherman coming out of Ardglass, fishing in the Irish sea and landing his catch at Fleetwood might easily encounter an identical problem if the rules were interpreted differently in Northern Ireland and in England. In those circumstances, it would be the clear duty of those holding Executive office in Northern Ireland and those who were Ministers of the Crown of the United Kingdom to resolve that difficulty; and its resolution, in terms of collective responsibility, is incompatible with one person operating in both bodies at once.
      When the issue was discussed in the House of Lords, in the Welsh context, it was suggested that there was no reason why the Bill should not go ahead, because, if the Prime Minister wanted to appoint as a Minister of the Crown a person who happened to be a Member of the Welsh Assembly, he should not be fettered from doing so, and vice versa. However, it is an anomaly which creates its own problems from the moment that it comes into being. The Committee should—and I hope that the Minister will—have the courage to accept that, in this context, and especially in the Northern Ireland context in view of the unusual relationships that will exist within the structure of the Northern Ireland Assembly, that anomaly should be prevented from the outset.
      Mr. Worthington: Amendment No. 76, which is in the name of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), follows a familiar theme of the Ulster Democratic Unionist party. Basically, we are simply following the agreement. Strand 1 of the agreement states:
      "The Ministers will constitute an Executive Committee, which will be convened, and presided over, by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister."
      We feel that this clause and the way in which it is drafted is consistent with the agreement's intentions. All we are doing is honouring the agreement. I do not want to go any further, because I would simply repeat what has been said many times tonight.

      1329
      8.30 pm
      Similarly, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has recognised, this other issue is a hardy perennial that has come up over and again during the devolutionary year. I do not want to repeat points that were made in debates on the Scotland and Government of Wales Bills, but we take the same position on this as on those other Bills.
      If the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) were to take up a ministerial post, we would not want to exclude him from the Executive Committee, but the argument of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is even more exotic than anything else that has come out tonight. In fact, it is not a hardy perennial, but the most tropical and fragile of plants. We take the same position on this as on the devolutionary Bills on Scotland and Wales. We do not think that we should deal with what are fanciful situations that will not occur.
      Northern Ireland Ministers must be Members of the Assembly. It is unlikely—I put it no more strongly—that Members of the Assembly will be Ministers of the Crown, but we do not feel that it is necessary to block that possibility.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I am at a loss to understand the reasoning of the Minister, who refers to paragraph 17 of the agreement to support his contention that there should be joint chairmen. Paragraph 17 says:
      "The Ministers will constitute an Executive Committee, which will be convened, and presided over, by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister."
      Clearly, it does not say that they should act jointly, act together or act at the one time. There is no reason to believe that they have to be either joint chairmen or that they have to act together at the same moment in chairing a meeting. The Minister is reading too much into the agreement. Nothing in the agreement is inconsistent with the amendment that has been tabled in my name.
      I ask the Minister to look at the matter again. I think that he has gone beyond the agreement unnecessarily and I hope that he will report back at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 17 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 20

      INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
      Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 148, in clause 20, page 10, leave out lines 12 to 15.
      This is, I hope, quite a small point. The aim of the amendment is to elucidate the meaning and situations that the Government have in mind with regard to this clause.
      The clause gives the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a power unilaterally to revoke legislation that is made by a Northern Ireland Department of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It gives that power to the Secretary of State in two situations. I find one acceptable—the one in which the legislative enactment in Northern Ireland contains a provision that is incompatible with the United Kingdom's international obligations.
      1330
      However, I have difficulty in understanding the second provision. It gives the Secretary of State power to revoke legislation that is enacted by the Northern Ireland Assembly and that the Secretary of State considers
      "would have an adverse effect"
      on other legislation as it applies to excepted matters.
      I should like the Minister to explain precisely what is meant by "an adverse effect". In what circumstances is there likely to be a situation that would justify the Secretary of State, in a remarkable action, unilaterally revoking the legislation of another body? That should be done only where there is clearly good reason for so doing. I am concerned about the apparent breadth of that phrase "adverse effect".
      Mr. Worthington: As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will know, we have three categories of legislation: excepted legislation, transferred legislation and referred legislation. In some circumstances, the Secretary of State may also give permission for the Assembly to legislate on areas that have been reserved. Again, we will have to look at this issue, but the thought here is that there may be circumstances in which legislation passed by the Assembly under its transferred powers has an impact on the Secretary of State's reserved powers or under the excepted powers.
      Here is an example that has been given to me. The Assembly might introduce legislation on road transport, which might have an impact on the activities of the security forces. We are not talking here of conflict. We are talking just about the interface between different sorts of legislation and different sorts of powers.
      This issue is still being visited under clause 54 of the Scotland Bill; it is clear that we need to be clearer about what is the relationship between different sorts of powers. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, because we will need to revisit the issue at a later stage to clarify the relationships between those three sorts of powers, and to ensure that there is compatibility between those powers and clarity between the different Assemblies and Parliaments.
      Mr. Trimble: I am glad that the Minister is thinking of looking again at the matter to achieve some clarity. That is precisely what I was seeking. I hope that we will have uniformity with the equivalent arrangements in Scotland, which, I regret to say, I have not had the opportunity to study, but I will endeavour to do so. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, and I beg to ask leave to do so.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 21

      AGENCY ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN UK AND NI DEPARTMENTS
      Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 21, page 10, line 31, at end add—
      '(5) Arrangements under this section between the Government of the United Kingdom and a Northern Ireland department shall be known as concordats.

      1331
      (6) The Government of the United Kingdom shall not enter into a concordat unless a draft of the concordat has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
      (7) Northern Ireland departments shall not enter into a concordat unless a draft of the concordat has been approved by the Assembly, by such procedure as standing orders may determine.'.
      This is a probing amendment, but it seeks some answers to another hardy perennial topic that arose in relation to the devolution debates on Scotland and Wales. It is concerned with concordats. It is no criticism of the Government—I am trying to be fair—to say that, because of the way in which the Bill has been introduced, we have not had a White Paper in the accepted sense. Therefore, we have not had any detail about the arrangements that will be arrived at for dealing with devolved matters between the United Kingdom civil service and the Northern Ireland civil service.
      In the two White Papers on Wales and Scotland, we were appraised of the existence of the delightful new concept called the concordat. The concordat is extremely nebulous, because it is not a legally binding agreement. It is usually signed by officials, and it deals with administrative co-operation and the exchange of information. Some concordats may not even be published if they touch on confidential matters which it is not thought to be in the public interest to disclose.
      There is nothing in the Belfast agreement about concordats. Indeed, the agreement is, inevitably, short on the detail of how the devolved Assembly and the relationships in devolved Government will be made to work. Unfortunately, it is perhaps an inevitable feature of the discussion of this Bill—the Under-Secretary and the Minister of State have accepted this—that, because we have been so concerned with certain key issues relating to deeply held political convictions, we are in danger of not providing proper scrutiny of the detail on which, ultimately, the legislation is just as likely to trip up and founder as on the grand perspective.
      I should like to ask the Under-Secretary what is being considered in clause 21 as it stands. I have the explanatory memorandum which deals with agency arrangements—I accept that agency arrangements and concordats may not be one and the same thing. Certainly, agency arrangements would seem to imply that there will be arrangements for the discharge of functions in Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland civil service and Ministers on behalf of United Kingdom Ministers or the United Kingdom civil service.
      If that is all there is on this topic in the Northern Ireland Bill, where are concordats to be raised and dealt with? I shall be surprised if the Under-Secretary, when replying to this amendment, says that there will not be concordats. It seems inherent in the way in which devolved government works that concordats there will be.
      I have in front of me the document placed in the House on Thursday 26 February 1998 relating to the operation of concordats in Scotland—a similar document was placed in the Library in relation to Wales. Is it the Government's intention to do likewise in relation to concordats for Northern Ireland? If there are to be concordats, that raises an important issue that will need to be debated at some point during the passage of the Bill, because the principle of concordats raises enormously difficult problems about accountability.
      There is a suspicion—the suspicion grew as I considered this matter during the passage of the Scotland Bill—that concordats were a mechanism for the exercise
      1332
      of control from the centre over the peripheral parts of the United Kingdom to which devolution was to be granted. The concordats were to be the facilitators for exchanges between civil services which might otherwise have divided loyalties as to who were their masters. It appeared to be a way of circumventing that which had no statutory basis whatsoever.
      I am mindful that this is a probing amendment, and that the question of agency arrangements in clause 21 may not be the same as concordats. However, I hope that, during the debate, the Under-Secretary can at least enlighten us a little further on how the system will operate and what concordats will be brought into being to govern the relationship between the United Kingdom civil service and that part of it which will be operating solely on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      8.45 pm
      Dr. Godman: I will be brief. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) had the grace to say that this was a probing amendment. It seeks to give a legal basis to the term "concordat", which is a concept that the hon. Gentleman described as nebulous.
      Of course, in all sorts of areas, arrangements will have to be made, not just between Belfast and London, but between Cardiff and London and Edinburgh and London, and, indeed, between all four locations. Fisheries are an example of an area where joint decisions have had to be made.
      Mr. McNamara: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to underplay his case. With the Council of the Isles, we will have Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man to consider.
      Dr. Godman: I know my hon. Friend of old. He has a vice—that is what it is—of anticipating what I am about to say. I was about to come on to the Council of the Isles.
      I believe, as does my honourable and equally old Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), that the Council of the Isles may well have to examine the arrangements for what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield called concordats. My hon. Friends will not be surprised to hear me using the fisheries issue as an example. I promise not to dwell on that for long, but you will not allow me to anyway, Sir Alan.
      The issue of agreements is extremely important. It may be that the agreements entered into by the various assemblies and parliaments may one day require legal underpinning, but not by the nebulous idea raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield.
      Mr. Grieve rose—
      Dr. Godman: If I may just continue.
      Under the clause as it now stands, perhaps arrangements established between the United Kingdom and a Northern Ireland department as described in the clause will be examined at meetings of the Council of the Isles or at meetings of officials, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield suggested en passant.
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from his detailed participation in the Scotland Bill that this

      1333
      matter caused considerable concern. The Opposition took the view that, if there were to be concordats, they should be subject to affirmative resolution, or at least approval by the House and by the Scottish Parliament. We believed that to be necessary if they were to be the underpinning arrangements for administrative contact to smooth the wheels and machinery of the operations of state. That was in a Scottish context.
      In the Northern Ireland context, we do not know whether there are to be any concordats, because no one has told us. However, I would be surprised if there were not to be concordats. If there are to be concordats, we would repeat our view that they should be subject to affirmative resolution by the Northern Ireland Assembly and this Parliament. That is how we approach the matter, because we are constitutionalists on this—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We are in Committee, and that is a very long intervention.
      Mr. Grieve: I leave it to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) to reply.
      Dr. Godman: Thank you for rescuing me, Sir Alan.
      The very helpful notes on clauses points out that clause 21 provides for
      "agency arrangements to be between UK Ministers of the Crown and Government Departments, on the one hand, and Northern Ireland Ministers and Departments, on the other, so that either can discharge the functions of the other."
      Such provision is precisely what we debated in our proceedings on the Scotland Bill—which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) participated in and attended assiduously.
      There will have to be agency arrangements between Departments in Belfast and those in London. However, the matter is more complicated than that, as some arrangements will include also the Cardiff Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. That is why I gave the example of fisheries. As we live in island communities, various arrangements may be required, and I should have thought that no self-respecting Member of this Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament would allow arrangements to go unchecked.
      Clearly, democratic checks and balances of the arrangements will be developed over the years, in Belfast, Cardiff and Scotland, and in this place. There is therefore no need for amendment No. 13. Fortunately, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield described it as a probing amendment.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Is it not true that, even in this place, we are concerned occasionally when Ministers inform us of an action after it is has been taken? Would it not be better if Ministers had the approval of the Assembly or of this place before taking some actions? We can do very little about something once it is done.
      Dr. Godman: For many years, the hon. Gentleman and I sat almost side by side on the Opposition Benches, and suffered from the previous Government the type of conduct that he describes. I should hope that matters will
      1334
      be done much differently by the new Administration, although he may be a little more cynical about that than I am.
      Clause 21 allows four types of arrangements, and the Assembly partner may be dominant in some of them. I should think that Scotland would have a bigger role to play than Northern Ireland, or—dare I say it—London, in arrangements on fisheries, for example.
      As amendment No. 13 is a probing amendment, and as the concordat—as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said in his graceful way—is a nebulous concept, we should stick with clause 21 as it is.
      Mr. William Ross: It seems that clause 21 is really just repeating arrangements that existed between the old Stormont Parliament and United Kingdom Parliament on matters such as various national standards, social security, health and agriculture. The question is, how will the chain of command operate? Given that Parliament is supreme and retains its right to make laws, I begin to wonder what need there is for agency status.
      Surely the United Kingdom civil service will still operate, at least to some extent, in Northern Ireland, and therefore will fall directly under the control of the responsible Minister in the national Parliament. Therefore, what will the relationship be between those civil servants and the Minister with responsibility for that particular element of Government service in Northern Ireland—or in Scotland or in Wales? To whom will those civil servants be responsible—to the immediately responsible Minister or to the United Kingdom Minister? If it is to the responsible Minister, will he be responsible to the United Kingdom Minister?
      The arrangements will operate not only in one or two little corners but, presumably, in all social security matters and in many health matters, in health standards and in the training of medical staff. They will operate also in agriculture—at which point we run into the problem of United Kingdom agricultural policies that are, under the common agricultural policy, run in conjunction with European Community agricultural policies. If we are not clear about how the arrangements will operate in the months and years ahead, I think that we will get into an awful lot of very complicated difficulties. We will have to deal also with the whole matter of European money, which goes far beyond the CAP issues that I mentioned.
      The Minister owes us a fairly full explanation of how the arrangements will operate. It is not good enough to say, "We're going to sort the matter out over the next few months." They have not only to sort the matter out now, but be able to tell us about it.
      I am somewhat puzzled about the provision on the Post Office, which I thought was a national institution. I suppose that we will be able to continue using the Post Office for distribution of pensions and social security benefits. Perhaps that was the intention. However, if so, surely the Post Office in Northern Ireland would be acting as an agency of the United Kingdom Government, rather than as an agent of the Northern Ireland Administration?
      Those are a few thoughts on the tip of a very large iceberg. The Committee and the people of Northern Ireland deserve a very full explanation of the matter.

      1335
      Perhaps we do not really need such an agency system. Perhaps it would be far better if many of those matters were dealt with directly by this place.
      Mr. Worthington: I have reached my advanced age without bothering with concordats, and I do not think that, because of this amendment, I should change my life style now. The Opposition are trying to complicate the relatively simple but—I agree with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—important issue of relationships, which will have to be worked out, between this Parliament and the Assembly. In all fairness, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman all the answers now, but hope that I will be able to deal with the points that he raised.
      There are relationships between the Northern Ireland Office, the Northern Ireland civil service and bodies in Great Britain. I can give some examples of how relationships will in future have to be worked out. The lottery, for example, will remain a United Kingdom function. However, some aspects of the lottery are currently dealt with by Northern Ireland institutions—so that, in sports and arts matters, the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and the Sports Council for Northern Ireland administer the lottery on behalf of the United Kingdom lottery.
      I see no reason to change that relationship. It seems perfectly sensible to maintain it, although there will have to be an agreement on that. Although the Northern Ireland Assembly will have responsibility for administering aspects of the lottery in relation to the Sports Council and the Arts Council in Northern Ireland, the responsibility for the administration of the lottery will remain with the UK Parliament.
      Another example of an existing relationship that will have to be worked out involves the Child Support Agency. The CSA is run as part of the structure of the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland and deals with Northern Ireland cases, but it also administers cases for a large part of eastern England. We shall have to work out how that will be administered in future, but there would seem to be a need for an agency arrangement.
      Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister assure the House that a paper similar to that produced for Scotland and Wales will be produced before the conclusion of consideration of the Bill?
      9 pm
      Mr. Worthington: I cannot give that assurance, because I am sure that dozens of papers have been produced for the Bills dealing with Scotland and Wales. The hon. Gentleman has to be much more specific. If he will write to me with details of his request, I shall deal with it.
      Concordats may well be developed in future between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the UK Parliament, but they will not, as has been suggested, be a means of central control. A concordat involves concord or agreement between two equal parties which decide of their own free will to do something that benefits both of them.
      There will be no problem about divided loyalties in the civil service. The devolved administration will be served very professionally by the Northern Ireland civil service. There may well be concordats but, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) recognised, clause 21
      1336
      re-enacts section 11 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, under which a number of agency arrangements have been agreed.
      The clause 21 arrangements do not affect the ultimate responsibility of the principal Department or Minister for the discharge of the functions in question, and so do not involve any fundamental transfer of those functions to an alternative responsibility. They work at an operational level, not at a policy level. With a concordat, we would be dealing with policy and the development of different policies. We are simply saying that it makes sense in this context to have an operational agreement between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the UK Parliament. That is the sensible way to carry on.
      Mr. William Ross: If a Northern Ireland Department is simply administering a UK function, to whom are the civil servants who are doing the work responsible? Are they responsible to their own Minister and, through the chain of command, to the Minister in this House, or to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? What is the chain of command and responsibility?
      Mr. Worthington: I cannot answer hypothetical questions. The agreement would be different in each case. In each case, the chain of command and responsibility would need to be worked out between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the UK Parliament. When we ask a body that is part of the Northern Ireland Assembly to undertake what is essentially a UK responsibility, it seems sensible to promote good relationships between the two bodies. I therefore have to resist the move towards concordats, and I ask the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. William Ross rose—
      The Chairman: Order. The Minister has sat down.
      Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but it does not sound as if the matter has been considered as fully as it might have been. That might be a reflection of the way in which Northern Ireland has been governed over the years. It is a happy development that we are discussing a Bill that will bring about a great change in that respect. Will the Minister examine the issue carefully and, if necessary, discuss it with the Secretary of State for Scotland who has great knowledge of it?
      Mr. William Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, perhaps he will inquire of the Minister whether the arrangements will be informal, or made by order so that the House has a chance to look at them?
      Mr. Grieve: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will ask the Minister precisely that question.
      Mr. Worthington: I am sorry that I did not spot earlier that the hon. Member for East Londonderry wanted to intervene. Obviously, when one is dealing with millions of pounds, as in each of those cases, formal administrative agreements would be drawn up. Clearly, it would not be on an informal basis.
      Mr. Grieve: I am grateful for a little more clarity being cast. On the basis that, when I write to the Minister I shall

      1337
      have a more detailed reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 22

      STATUTORY COMMITTEES
      Mr. Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 11, line 2, at end insert
      ', except that the chairman shall not be a member of the same party as the Northern Ireland Minister being advised and assisted by the statutory committee.'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 152, in clause 22, page 11, leave out lines 17 to 20 and insert—
      '(5) Standing Orders shall provide that, where the figures given by the formula for two or more political parties are equal, each of those figures shall be recalculated using the formula:
      S/1+C+M
      Where the figures given by this formula for two or more political parties are also equal, each of those figures shall be recalculated with S being the number of first preference votes cast for the party at the last general election of members of the Assembly.'.
      Mr. Moss: Clause 22 seeks to establish a number of statutory Committees to advise and assist each Northern Ireland Minister with the formulation of policy and to monitor the work of each Department. It seeks to put into legislation paragraphs 8 and 9 of strand 1 of the Belfast agreement.
      Paragraph 8 of the agreement provides a definition of how the "Chairs and Deputy Chairs" of the Committees will be determined. The strange use of language in the agreement has been translated in the Bill to Chairman and Deputy Chairman. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman are to be
      "allocated proportionally by the d'Hondt system"
      which is outlined in subsection (4).
      Paragraph 9 of the Belfast agreement details specific powers to those Committees. It states:
      "They will have the power to:
      consider and advise on Departmental budgets and Annual Plans in the context of overall budget allocation;
      approve relevant secondary legislation and take the Committee stage of relevant primary legislation;
      call for persons and papers;
      initiate enquiries and make reports;
      consider and advise on matters brought to the Committee by its Minister."
      However, the Bill does not detail those powers. It states simply in clause 22(2)(a) that Standing Orders shall make provision
      "for establishing committees of Members of the Assembly to advise and assist each Northern Ireland Minister in the formulation of policy with respect to matters within his responsibilities as a Minister".
      1338
      The emphasis is on the formulation of policy and there is no mention of the role in paragraph 9 of the agreement to monitor the work of the Executive and scrutinise primary and secondary legislation. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point, because, on the face of it, those detailed functions of the Committees seem to have been overlooked.
      The agreement goes to great lengths to achieve political and community balance in the Assembly. Clause 4 sets out clear rules with regard to weighted majorities under the definition of cross-community support. Why, then, does the Bill not seek to extend such checks and balances to the operation of statutory Committees? As I interpret clause 22(3), it is more than likely that, by operating the same d'Hondt system for choosing the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Committees, the nominated officers of the respective political parties could and may choose to select statutory Committees that parallel the ministerial Departments that they have already chosen. That could lead to exclusive control by one party of one or more of the Northern Ireland Departments.
      Ministers and Chairmen of Committees could work hand in hand to dominate the work of that Department and the Committee, to the detriment of the best interests of fairness and balance in the working of the Assembly and of good government in Northern Ireland.
      The amendment would prevent such exclusive control by ruling out the possibility of a Chairman of a statutory Committee being of the same party as the Minister heading the relevant Department. However, a Deputy Chairman of the same party as the Minister could still be selected under the d'Hondt system.
      We believe that the amendment is compatible with the Belfast agreement and would reinforce the sentiments of fairness, balance and accountability. It would block off an obvious and potentially damaging loophole in the Bill.
      Mr. Öpik: When I was just a schoolboy, way back in the 1980s, at the Royal Belfast Academical Institution, algebra was one of my favourite subjects. I remember the adage that was occasionally shared in my class that two plus two equals nought—if we rounded it down to the nearest 10. To some extent, that is the basis for my amendment. An injustice is built into what happens if there is a tie break in the nomination for Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the statutory Committees.
      Clause 22 says:
      "Standing orders shall provide that, where the figures given by the formula for two or more political parties are equal, each of those figures shall be recalculated with S being equal to the number of first preference votes cast for the party at the last general election of members of the Assembly."
      Without going too far into the mathematics, that means that the formula that applies to the allocation of Ministers in the event of a tie break also applies to the allocation of Committee chairmanships.
      The problem is that using the same tie break rule could result in an unbalanced outcome. For example, a party with 14 seats could get two Ministries and two chairmanships, while a party with seven seats got none of either. That does not conform to the spirit of the agreement, which is clear about proportionality. Paragraph 5(a) of strand 1 refers to the
      "allocation of Committee Chairs, Ministers and Committee membership in proportion to party strengths".

      1339
      The system will not be completely proportional if the situation that I have described results.
      My amendment would modify the formula, to right that wrong and give the small parties a chance of getting a chairmanship in the event of a tie break. The amendment would remove subsection (5) and insert:
      "Standing Orders shall provide that, where the figures given by the formula for two or more political parties are equal, each of those figures shall be recalculated using the formula:
      S/(1+C+M)
      Where the figures given by this formula for two or more political parties are also equal, each of those figures shall be recalculated with S being the number of first preference votes cast for the party at the last general election of members of the Assembly."
      In essence, the amendment proposes that, in the event of a tie, the number of Ministries already allocated should be considered in decisions on allocating chairmanships. The proposed formula clearly follows the spirit of the Belfast agreement, which refers to proportionality for Ministries and chairmanships collectively, not just separately. The amendment is important because it creates a collective calculation.
      Safeguards must be workable; I am glad to say that there would be nothing complex about applying the proposed formula following an election—even though it might be complex to explain in the Chamber. It ensures that all sections of the community can participate and work together, and that justice is seen to be done even for smaller parties that might otherwise be bereft of any meaningful positions of responsibility in the Assembly. There would be no downside for the larger partie because the proposed formula would kick in only when they already have the lion's share of ministerial positions—possibly all ministerial positions—and chairmanships.
      One point that has not been mentioned in the debate is that the smaller parties actually received many votes. The other benefit of the amendment is that it acknowledges that minority parties have a right to play a significant role in the functioning of the Assembly. Once again, that is in the spirit of the agreement. Will the Minister give me an assurance that what I can only assume was an oversight will be seriously reconsidered over the summer recess, and that technical amendments to right a wrong facing smaller parties will be tabled at a later stage?
      Finally, I suppose I must thank the mathematics department of the Royal Belfast Academical Institution for making the amendment possible by giving me a reasonable education.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. McNamara: I am not sure whether hon. Members, particularly those on the Government Front Bench, would congratulate the Royal Belfast Academical Institution, although I am sure that the subject of the amendment will be of great interest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and will occupy his mind throughout the summer recess. I am sure that, when we return, he will send many pages of squared notepaper covered with work to their Lordships, most of whom had the benefit only of a classical education rather than that of the RBAI.
      I should like to take up one point made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). On the face of it, his proposition that the Chairman and the Minister being advised by the Committee should be of different parties appears very sensible, sound and secure.
      1340
      Although, normally, I would go along with that, in this case, we would be providing one safeguard too many. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will have their parties and colleagues to consult on such matters. Perhaps the allocation of such posts is better left to them and their parties and to the other parties. We should be considering the ability of people in certain relationships.
      I accept that there may be a danger of exclusivity and of certain areas being hived off as nationalist or Unionist, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested. Although those difficulties might emerge, we should leave matters of chairmanship to the good sense, good will and what we hope will be the spirit of the new Assembly.
      Mr. Worthington: Following the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Minister of State that I reply to the debate on this group of amendments, I realised belatedly that it includes the d'Hondt principle. I looked through the amendments and rejoiced that nothing tested my algebra—until I came to the amendment tabled by the honourable anorak on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). [HON. MEMBERS: "That is unparliamentary language."] I do not think that it is, but that could be tested.
      The Chairman: Order. It might be unparliamentary if there is a ruling by tomorrow morning.
      Mr. Worthington: I had better withdraw it then, and apologise profusely.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) pointed out, there is a danger here. I understand why the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has a desire to help small parties—it has been bred into him—but there can come a time when helping small parties overcomes the principle of proportionality. We must ensure that that principle, which is at the centre of the Bill, succeeds in the end.
      The d'Hondt principle will certainly work for the Ministers, and perhaps 20 times again, for Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Therefore, many people will have positions of influence within the Assembly. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman that we will embrace his amendment, but there is a link between it and amendment No. 14, which was moved by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the amendment to the Committee.
      Mr. Öpik: May I emphasise, for the sake of the record, that our amendment exactly enshrines the principle of proportionality? That is why I tabled it.
      Mr. Worthington: We wish to safeguard the principle of proportionality. That was the spirit behind amendment No. 14. It would be unfortunate if the Minister and the Chair of the Committee were from the same party. That situation is not specifically provided for in the agreement, but, in the spirit of the agreement, it would seem desirable that a Committee Chair should come from a different party, if the Committee is to carry out the scrutiny part of its role effectively.
      However, there may be circumstances in which an overlap is unavoidable. We cannot accept the amendment as it stands, but we intend to introduce a similar

      1341
      amendment at a later stage, while repeating that, no matter what the system may be, we cannot guarantee that there will always be perfect balance across, say, 10 Committees with Ministers, Chairs and Vice-Chairs. We recognise the idea behind the amendment, and we will consider it over the summer. I can give the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that promise, and, in considering that principle, we will also take into account the principle raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Coming from the Methodist college, I shall support the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who comes from the rival institute, in suggesting that the Minister's latter comments are most welcome. I refer to the 1975 constitutional convention, when we went further and the Committees had to be divided 50:50 between those who were on the executive and those who were not. The chairmanships, too, had to be 50:50. That contrasts with the lack of generosity in this place, where the Government must always have a majority on Standing or Select Committees. As the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) pointed out, the smallest two parties returned to the Assembly have very able Members who could perform a useful role in the Committees.
      Mr. Worthington: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I hope that, in the light of my assurances, the amendment will be withdrawn.
      Mr. Moss: We are grateful for the Minister's comments, and, on the basis of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Dowd.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): 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),

    ROAD TRAFFIC
    That the draft Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment (Amendment) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.
    ANIMALS
    That the draft Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.
    ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND)
    That the draft Security for Private Road Works (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Worker's Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Amendment Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Question agreed to.

  M62 (Junction 8)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  9.24 pm
  Helen Jones: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise two matters that are of great concern to my constituents: traffic congestion and the need to create more jobs. Those matters crop up week after week in my surgeries and in letters and telephone calls from the people whom I represent. The missing junction 8 on the M62 could be part of the solution to both problems.
  Warrington's traffic is a nightmare because the town grew very rapidly without the necessary roads infrastructure. Problems are particularly acute, first, for those who live in the Westbrook and Callands areas of my constituency, where residents often cannot even get out of or into their homes because of congestion along Cromwell avenue and around the Gemini area, where Warrington's big retail developments are. Secondly, those who live at Winwick and along the A49 in Warrington also suffer congestion because of the knock-on effect on junction 9 of the M62.
  The new junction 8 is intended to relieve both problems, but it should also open access to the Omega site, which is one of the most important sites for economic development in the north-west. Not only is that vital for my constituents; it has strategic importance for the entire region.
  My constituents have been very badly served by the way in which the project has been handled. When the M62 was built in 1972, it had two junctions: junction 7 at Rainhill near St. Helens and junction 9 at Winwick near Warrington. Provision was made for a junction 8 to be added later as the Warrington new town expanded.
  We are still waiting 26 years later. The project entered the Government's trunk roads programme in 1994, and my constituents are becoming very impatient waiting for progress. I should make it clear that the reason for the delay has nothing to do with money, as the project is a section 278 scheme, which will be funded by the Commission for the New Towns—no Government money is involved.
  We might reasonably have expected that the project's path would be fairly smooth, subject to the usual statutory inquiry procedures. However, that has not been the case. Over the past year in particular, some of us have felt that we were living in a "Through the Looking-Glass" world—the twists and turns of the plot were becoming very complicated.
  I must give some of the details of that plot to explain why my constituents feel angry and frustrated waiting for the new junction. When the Government announced their roads review on 19 June last year, the sponsors of the scheme were told that it would be put on hold pending the outcome of that review. That caused consternation in Warrington—we could not understand why a section 278 scheme would be affected by the review. Telephone calls went back and forth between my office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that it was very difficult to get an answer from the Department about whether the scheme was included in the review.
  1344
  Eventually, the Department confirmed that the scheme was not included. On 7 July last year, I received a letter from my noble Friend Baroness Hayman, in which, she said:
  "I have decided that, in line with other section 278 funded schemes, it should be allowed to proceed through the approval process in the normal way."
  At last we thought we were getting somewhere, and matters proceeded. There were discussions between the various interested parties, and the Highways Agency told my local authority that it expected the scheme to proceed to public inquiry in June or July this year. However, there were yet more delays.
  In January this year, I wrote to the Highways Agency and to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, only to be told that the timetable had slipped again. In a letter to me on 6 February, Baroness Hayman said clearly and unequivocally that
  "the scheme will go to Public Inquiry this autumn".
  Sighs of relief all round. We were disappointed that the timetable had slipped, but at least we thought that we had a firm date.
  Perhaps we should have known better. When we did not get a date for public inquiry, I put down a further question. On 12 May, I was told:
  "The scheme is being considered as part of the … Roads Review."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 62.]
  Letters went back and forth, and the Department corrected the answer on 14 July. The letter I received at that point, while confirming that the scheme was not in the roads review, did tell me that the public inquiry could not start now until early next year.
  The reasons given for that were that the Government's new transport policy would include a new approach to the appraisal of such projects, and that the Highways Agency would need to show that the appraisal of the scheme had taken account of the new policy. I accept that that is the case—this scheme must be decided according to the new policy.
  I do not accept that that is an argument for delay, because much of the work on the scheme has been done by the Highways Agency, and much of the information is there. In any case, if the scheme had proceeded according to plan, that inquiry would be up and running and would not have been affected at all. Instead, my constituents have been subjected to further delays, yet more traffic congestion and—most importantly—a denial of job opportunities.
  As far as we in Warrington are concerned, this is an economic development issue and not just a roads issue. The Omega site, which the junction would open up, is a key strategic employment site for the whole region. It has 500 acres which, it is estimated, could supply 10,000 jobs—jobs which are badly needed, not simply in my constituency but in the area round about. Moreover, the aim of the site is to supply manufacturing jobs, which are needed badly in Warrington. The manufacturing sector has lost more than 8,000 jobs since 1981—that is 18 per cent. of the total. That is higher than the figure for Cheshire as a whole, and more than the figure for the north-west. It is more than the average for the whole country.
  Without junction 8, Omega cannot be developed. The consequences of a failure to secure that development cannot be underestimated. Not only is the site one of the

  1345
  nine identified as major inward investment sites for the north-west, it is generally considered by the market to be the best opportunity in the north-west of England for major economic development.
  To understand why, it is necessary to know about the location of the site. It lies at the axis of the north-south and east-west transport spines, and has been identified in regional planning guidance as the primary development corridor for the region. It is also halfway between Manchester and Merseyside, and is well placed to take advantage of international transport links, whether by sea or by air. It is only two miles from the west coast main line, so it can be served by rail freight traffic as well. In fact, if one had to design a development site from scratch, it would be difficult to come up with a better one, or one that would fit more neatly with the Government's integrated transport strategy. Also, it is close to areas with objective 1 and 2 status, so the development of Omega would help to provide jobs and spin-off benefits for some of the most depressed parts of the region.
  If my hon. Friend the Minister looks at the early-day motion, she will see that it is signed, not only by hon. Members representing the immediate vicinity, but by those representing Liverpool and Manchester as well because they recognise the benefits of the development. That is why about £9 million has already been invested in the site, in acquisition, site clearance, services and marketing. I cannot see the logic of promoting the development of the region and trying to reverse the decline in manufacturing industry, while at the same time delaying the development of a road that is vital to both.
  I represent a constituency that, despite many of its economic successes, still contains some of the most deprived areas in north Cheshire—areas that have suffered second, and even third, generation unemployment. My constituents look to the Government to develop the employment opportunities that they so desperately need in such sites. We are still waiting, and while we wait the traffic chaos increases.
  I mentioned the problems of people living in the Callands and Westbrook areas of my constituency. I can testify to those at first hand. I have turned back in that area at peak periods because the traffic simply does not move along Cromwell avenue. That situation has arisen because the Commission for the New Towns and the previous Secretary of State granted planning permission for major retail development without the necessary road infrastructure and without building that road junction. For instance, a huge Marks and Spencer store is in the area, and an Ikea store that attracts 2.2 million visitors a year.
  Regional car traffic comes on to the roads in Warrington, which are simply not equipped to deal with it. Often, the result is almost gridlock-level traffic around Cromwell avenue, up the A49 and back to junction 9 on the M62. Indeed, at peak times one sees traffic queuing to get off at junction 9 to go into Warrington—stationary traffic on the motorway. That situation is beginning to concern the Cheshire police because of the potential for accidents. Furthermore, traffic in Winwick and down the A49 to Warrington is a constant problem, because all the traffic has to come off at one junction.
  The Highways Agency has confirmed that pollution is increasing because of that traffic. On the A49 south of the motorway, standards for carbon monoxide, benzene and
  1346
  oxides of nitrogen are already exceeded, and there is no chance of that improving while the current situation continues because traffic levels north and south of the motorway are expected to increase significantly if the new junction is not built. This is not a case of the often-quoted equation, "More roads equals more cars." In fact, the opposite is true. The lack of a planned highway infrastructure is a major contributor to the congestion that is plaguing local residents, hampering the development of local businesses and damaging the environment in the area.
  It is also true to say that there have been objections to the proposed junction and the scheme around it, although they are few in number compared with the massive support that those have received in the constituency. I believe that most of the objections can be met. Indeed, a number of discussions have taken place among the various parties involved.
  Noise fencing, mounding, tree and shrub planting and full cut-off flat glass lanterns can minimise the impact on the surrounding area. Detailed traffic calming measures are to be put in place in Burtonwood, to discourage traffic from going through residential areas. For both those who support the scheme and those who do not, there has to he an end to the uncertainty, and a decision has to be made.
  I believe that the scheme is important and right for my constituency. It also fits the objectives of an integrated transport policy. It would allow us to create dedicated bus lanes, ease congestion and improve safety for people in residential areas, encouraging them to make more journeys on foot. I certainly would not walk in Callands and Westbrook with the current amount of traffic.
  The scheme will be better for the environment, allowing us to improve air quality and reduce pollution along the A49. It would also allow priority improvements to be introduced for cyclists around junction 9, so we could perhaps encourage more people to cycle from Winwick, on one side of the junction, into the centre of Warrington. Those are the Government's objectives; they are right, and the scheme would help to meet them.
  The scheme is one of those rare creatures, a green road, and people want it. It should be a flagship development, because it is a way of showing how the integrated transport policy can work. Instead, while we wait, the costs are escalating by possibly £1.5 million a year and my constituents are living with chaos.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that the difficulties that we have experienced over the past year cannot go on. For the sake of the environment, of my constituents who need jobs and of a proper integrated transport policy, which we do not have in Warrington at the moment, the junction needs to go ahead. I hope that she will be able to tell me when the public inquiry will be. We need a firm date for it at last. I hope that, after 26 years, we will finally get some progress and the scheme will become a reality.
  9.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) not only on securing this debate, but on her wealth of detail and the no small passion with which she has raised a matter that is obviously of very real concern to her and her constituents.

  1347
  That concern is shared and, indeed, expressed with a similar passion to Ministers, by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth). The issues are not only transport and traffic congestion, but job creation and regeneration in one of the areas of our country that so desperately need it.
  The House will know that the Government are committed to developing a sustainable and integrated transport policy to tackle the serious problems of congestion and pollution that we face, and the publication on Monday of our White Paper "New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" has significantly advanced that process.
  We changed policy and direction away from the previous Administration' s fragmented provision of infrastructure and services towards an integrated approach that will serve the country's needs for a strong economy, a sustainable environment and an inclusive society. Good communications are essential to delivering those aims, so we must reduce our excessive dependency on the car and lorry if we are not to be choked by increasing pollution and gridlocked by increasing congestion. Those problems plague my hon. Friend's constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South even now.
  The scheme formally entered the roads programme in November 1995, although preliminary work had started earlier. It is being undertaken by the Highways Agency on behalf and at the expense, of the Commission for the New Towns, via an agreement under section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 between the agency and the commission, signed in March 1997.
  The scheme provides for a new grade-separated junction on the M62 north of Warrington, between junction 7, which serves the A568 to Widnes, and junction 9, which serves A49 access into Warrington. The M62 would also be widened between the proposed junction 8 and existing junction 9, and there would be new access arrangements for the Burtonwood motorway service area. The scheme is designed to serve major retail and business sites, and to open up new areas for development in Warrington. It will relieve local roads, and junction 9, of traffic congestion related to existing major retail sites.
  In February 1997, draft orders were published as required by the Highways Act 1980, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced to the House on 19 June 1997 that work on such developer-funded schemes would continue because the schemes either had been or would be scrutinised through the appropriate planning processes. The inquiry did not take place immediately, however, because the Commission for the New Towns asked the Highways Agency to consider reducing the scope, and hence the cost, of the works by deleting or deferring some or all of the motorway-widening element of the proposals.
  Following detailed investigations, the Highways Agency concluded that, for safety reasons, widening should remain an essential component of the scheme from the outset, a conclusion that the commission accepted. A public inquiry was programmed to convene in the autumn, but we had developed our approach to road schemes within the context both of our roads review and of our work on an integrated transport policy. Ministers agreed that the scheme lies outside the scope of the roads review because it is 100 per cent. developer-funded, but it is not
  1348
  exempt from our new appraisal approach. It remains a major road scheme, and we must be able to show that we have taken into account all aspects of its impact.
  That impact will be assessed in line with the new approach to appraisal announced in the White Paper on integrated transport. The new approach operates within the framework of our five objectives for road schemes. My hon. Friend has referred to our objectives of integration, safety, accessibility, economy and environment because of their importance to the development and regeneration of her constituency and to the easing of the traffic situation. Although much of the approach uses established techniques and will build on work already done, a considerable amount of data gathered—for example, data on air quality, noise and landscape impacts—needs to be analysed again and re-presented.
  The prospect of further delay to the programme has disappointed the Commission for the New Towns, as well as my hon. Friend's constituents and others in Warrington. The Omega site, situated in the south-west quadrant of the new junction on land that formerly housed the RAF Burtonwood airfield, represents one of the major regeneration opportunities in the north of England. Planning authorisation for employment use having already been secured, it has the potential to generate thousands of new jobs. The commission sees provision of ready access to the M62 as fundamental to its success, and the opening up of the Omega site remains the commission's primary objective in funding the works. A secondary objective is the release of remaining development land on the adjoining Gemini site, with improved motorway access via the proposed Gemini link.
  The scheme will be the first large road scheme to go to public inquiry following publication of the integrated transport White Paper and the roads review report. We have taken the view that the Highways Agency should explain the scheme in terms of our new approach to appraisal, and that will require extra work. If the agency arrived at the public inquiry without applying the new approach, people would rightly criticise it for failing to do so, and that could lead to the inquiry being adjourned. We believe that the extra costs and delays involved in an adjournment would far outweigh those that will stem from the further preparation work that we are undertaking. We have concluded that the earliest possible start date for the public inquiry would be February next year.
  Our new approach is designed to draw together the large amount of information collected as part of the appraisal of a transport problem and alternative solutions. It looks at the contribution of different forms of transport in developing alternative solutions and the potential effect of the new integrated transport approach, including the scope for and the effect of demand-management measures. It is our intention that that new approach, once finalised, will be applied to the appraisal of all transport projects, not only all road schemes.
  As part of the appraisal, the economic impact of road investment is taken into account, largely through the estimated benefits of reduced journey times for commercial, business and other traffic. Techniques are being developed to assess the economic value of journey-time reliability and to identify those improvements which contribute most to reliability. In the interim, the current review has sought to identify such benefits in qualitative terms.

  1349
  Each case must be assessed on its merits. In some cases, road access is essential to provide access to sites that could not otherwise be developed, and the contribution to regeneration is a complex issue. We agree with the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment that improvements are needed to the methods used in local and regional economic impact studies, so that the contribution of transport investment to regeneration can be better assessed.
  1350
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing these important issues to the attention of the House. She has been consistent in advocating, as has our hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South, that the proposed scheme should proceed as quickly as possible. However, given the reasons I have already outlined, I ask my hon. Friend to remain patient over the coming—and, given the time that it has taken for the scheme to begin, comparatively few—remaining months.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Ten o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Director of Public Prosecutions will publish her annual report. [52517]

  The Attorney-General
  The Director of Public Prosecutions has today published her annual report and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Government Lawyers
  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the role of Government lawyers in England and Wales. [52368]

  The Attorney-General
  Lawyers employed by the Government have a central role in assisting Ministers in the discharge of their functions. They are civil servants, and are accountable to Ministers, but nevertheless they are professionally independent and have responsibilities to the Courts and their professional bodies. In recognition of the special nature of the work of Government lawyers, and in consultation with the Treasury Solicitor, I have decided to publish a Guidance Note concerning their role.

  The Note provides guidance to Government lawyers as to:

  1. The inter-relationship between their obligation as civil servants and as members of the legal profession;

  2. Their role regarding other civil servants and the Ministers or office-holders to whom they are accountable.

  3. The special position of prosecutors in the decision-making process; and

  4. The inter-relationship between the role of Legal Advisers to Departments and that of the Law Officers in the provision of legal advice to the Government.

  I am placing a copy of the Guidance Note in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list for(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register, how many vehicles are currently (i) owned and (ii) leased; if he will indicate their (A) fuel types and (B) engine cubic capacities; and how many vehicles are expected to fall due for replacement in each of the years (1) 1998–99, (2) 1999–2000 and (3) 2000–01. [49225]

  The Attorney-General
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: This answer covers the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, the Treasury Solicitor's Department (and the Government Property Lawyers Agency), the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office.
  604
  (i) The Government Car and Despatch Agency owns vehicles used by this Department and I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 21 July 1998, Official Report, column 446.

  (ii) In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service leases a total of 33 vehicles; 26 of which have diesel engines and 7 have unleaded petrol engines. The engine cubic capacities for these vehicles are as set out.

  c.c.

  Number of vehicles

  1300

  1

  1400

  3

  1500

  1

  1600

  3

  1700

  7

  1800

  12

  1900

  3

  2400

  1

  2400

  3

  13 vehicles fall due for replacement in 1998–99, 12 in 1999–2000 and 8 in 2000–2001.

DEFENCE

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's average response time to correspondence from members of the public; and how such response times are monitored. [48665]

  Mr. Spellar
  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.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what target his Department sets for the maximum time to respond to letters from hon. Members; what proportion of letters meets that target; and what is the average time taken to respond to a letter from an hon. Member. [49847]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 13 July 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 13 July 1998, Official Report, column 1.

  Executive Agency Newsletters
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current security classifications of the newsletter produced for the staff of(a) the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency, (b) the Army Training and Recruiting Agency and (c) the Defence Codification Agency; how often each newsletter is produced; and when each newsletter was first produced. [51133]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executives of the Agencies concerned. I have asked them to write to the hon. Member.
  605
  Letter from K. A. Bradshaw to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 23 July 1998:
  Defence Codification Newsletter—DCA News

  1. I am replying to your question to the Secretary for Defence about the newsletter produced by the Defence Codification Agency (DCA), as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive DCA.

  2. The Agency publishes a newsletter called 'DCA NEWS'. This is a document which is published quarterly, it has no classified information content and therefore carries no protective marking. The first issue was dated June 1994.

  Letter from P. D. Foxton to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 23 July 1998:
  I am replying to the recent questions you tabled to the Secretary of State for Defence for those matters that fall within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Supply and Distribution Agency (ABSDA). You asked about the current security classification of the Agency newsletter produced for the staff, how often it is produced and when the first edition was produced.
  The ABSDA staff newsletter, "Baseline", does not have or require any security caveat and it is produced on a bi-monthly basis. The first edition was produced in January 1995, three months prior to the formation of ABSDA, to inform staff of the changes that were to take place.
  I trust I have answered your questions satisfactorily.

  Letter from P. A. Wilson to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 23 July 1998:
  I am replying on behalf of the Chief Executive to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the classification and frequency of publication of the newsletter produced by this Agency, as this matter falls within the responsibility of the Army Training and Recruiting Agency.
  The Agency produces a bi-monthly publication, ATRA News, which is unclassified. The first edition was published in April 1997.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the proceeds of asset sales by his Department have been offset against the estimates of total defence spending published in paragraph 197 of the Strategic Defence Review; [50845]

  (2) what are the assumed receipts from asset sales by his Department in each of the years 1998–99 to 2001–02; [50844]

  (3) if the figures in paragraph 197 of the Strategic Defence Review for total defence spending reflect the deduction of the proceeds of asset sales. [50846]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: The future provision for defence, set out in paragraph 197 of the Strategic Defence Review White Paper, reflects forecast receipts from a continuing programme of asset sales. This includes defence estate disposals, receipts from which should exceed £700 million over the next four years. Additional one-off receipts are expected to be available in 2001–02. Details of assumed receipts form part of my Department's internal plans: these represent projections and assumptions which inform advice to Ministers on the affordability of the defence programme. Accordingly, I am withholding the information requested under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Joint Defence Centre
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the Joint Defence Centre will be co-located with the Joint Services Command and Staff College; [51300]

  (2) if (a) the Commandant of the Joint Defence Centre and (b) the Commandant of the Joint Service Command and Staff College will be required to have attended the Higher Command and Staff Course; [51294]

  (3) what savings will be achieved in single service doctrine centres by the establishment of the Joint Defence Centre; [51295]

  (4) who the Commandant of the Joint Defence Centre will report to in the chain of command; [51296]

  (5) what are the projected costs of the Joint Defence Centre. [51299]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: Following the Strategic Defence Review (Cm 3999) I have established a study team to consider the detailed responsibilities, organisation, location, resources and costs associated with the formation of a Joint Defence Centre. The team is due to report at the end of the year. It would be premature to comment in advance of their findings.

  The work of the Joint Defence Centre will be overseen at the highest level; detailed arrangements for the command and management of the centre are also being examined by the study team.

  I intend that the Joint Defence Centre will be central to development of our joint Service vision and integral to our strategic planning process. As such I place greatest emphasis on the experience and calibre of those appointed to command and staff the centre, as I would for any officer holding a key joint appointment.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the projected cost of the construction of the Joint Services Command and Staff College at Shrivenham. [51298]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: Defence Management (Watchfield) Ltd. is contracted to provide a complete service in support of the teaching and accommodation facilities at the JSCSC at Watchfield, for which it will be paid a monthly service charge on the basis of usage. The Net Present Value of the payments is assessed to be about £200M over the 30 year contract period. My Department does not make a specific payment to cover construction costs.

  RAF Northolt
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the future of RAF Northolt; and if he will list them. [51755]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on 18 July 1998,Official Report, column 264.
  607
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies his Department has(a) made and (b) evaluated relating to the use of RAF Northolt as a possible feeder or reliever airport for Heathrow Airport. [51201]

  Dr. Reid
  The Ministry of Defence has neither undertaken nor evaluated any studies relating to the use of RAF Northolt as a possible feeder or reliever airport for Heathrow Airport.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flights other than RAF flights have used RAF Northolt in the last five years; and if he will list them by category. [51203]

  Dr. Reid
  The information that my hon. Friend requested for the period 1993 to 1997 is set out in the tables. The figures shown are the number of movements, where one movement is defined as an aircraft either landing or taking off. Until 1995 information was collated only in terms of military and civil movements as shown in the first table. Since 1996, military movements at RAF Northolt have been further sub-categorised as RAF, other military, or civil aircraft on Government business. This more detailed classification is reflected in the second table.

  Year

  Military movements

  Civil movements

  1993

  8,310

  4,650

  1994

  7,319

  5,425

  1995

  7,981

  6,492

  Year

  RAF

  Other military

  Civil aircraft on Government business

  Civil

  1996

  5,474

  1,878

  548

  6,469

  1997

  5,129

  1,623

  498

  6,976

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what projections his Department have made of the use by general aviation traffic of RAF Northolt airport in the next three years. [51202]

  Dr. Reid
  None. It is current Ministry of Defence policy to limit use at RAF Northolt to 7,000 civil movements per annum. In addition, the Ministry of Defence has limited opening hours to between 8am and 8pm on weekdays with weekend use permitted only when the station is open for operational reasons. Furthermore, only quieter aircraft which have a maximum capacity of 30 passengers are allowed to use Northolt.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects a decision to be made on the future of RAF Northolt. [51754]

  Dr. Reid
  Early proposals on the future of RAF Northolt are highly unlikely. There are several strands of work currently under way which must be taken into account. Firstly, the Ministry of Defence is drawing up a strategic development plan for the defence estate in the Greater London area, which will include RAF Northolt. In addition, there is work which has been set in hand by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on business aviation in the south-east. Finally,608
  the Integrated Transport White Paper published on 20 July 1998 provides a framework for further work on airports policy.

  War Graves
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial assistance is available from his Department to help in the cost of a person visiting a war grave in a European war grave cemetery. [51241]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since 1985, the Royal British Legion have operated the War Widows Pilgrimage Scheme on behalf of the Ministry of Defence to provide financial assistance to any Service widow, whose husband died and was buried overseas between 1914 and 1967, to visit the grave.

  The Scheme, which entitles any Service widow to make one visit to the grave, is funded by a Grant-in-Aid from the Defence Budget which contributes ⅞ of the cost of a pilgrimage; the remaining ⅛ of the cost is borne by the widow. There are no plans to expand the Scheme to include other family members.

  As I announced in the House of Commons on 5 May 1998, Official Report, column 282, following an approach by the Royal British Legion, I agreed to an extension of the War Widows Pilgrimage Scheme until 31 March 2001. I intend to conduct an automatic review every two years; as long as there are Service widows eligible to visit their husband's grave, this Government will continue to renew the Scheme.

  Nuclear Accidents
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the nature of the contracts between the Nuclear Accident Response Organisation and the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency; how much each contract is worth; how long each contract lasts; and when each was signed. [46821]

  Dr. Reid
  The single contract between the HQ Nuclear Accident Response Organisation and the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency is for the provision of radiological protection services. The contract is renewed annually, runs between 1 April and 31 March and is worth around £75,000.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of currently available space for storage of radioactive waste is currently used; and what percentage he estimates will be used by(a) 1 April 2000, (b) 1 April 2005 and (c) 1 April 2010. [51154]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: I am satisfied that there is sufficient storage space to accommodate safely all my Department's radioactive wastes beyond 2010. Details of my Department's radioactive waste arisings at 1994 are publicly available in the most recent NIREX inventory.

  Details about the anticipated percentage usage of the available storage capacity for the dates 1 April 2000, 1 April 2005 and 1 April 2010 are dependent on future decisions about the timing of decommissioning of facilities and the remediation of sites.

  Sri Lankan Military Officers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Sri Lankan military officers are currently being taught at United Kingdom educational establishments, including military colleges; which institutions they are attending; and how many are at each institution. [51798]

  Dr. Reid
  None.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance has been given to the Government of Sri Lanka to establish their Army Staff College; and if any British personnel are attached to the college. [51800]

  Dr. Reid
  A Short Term Training Team comprising 2 Lieutenant Colonels visited Sri Lanka between 8 September and 21 December 1997 to assist in the establishment of the country's Army Staff College. Since the beginning of this year, one Colonel has served as an instructor at the Sri Lankan Army Staff College.

  Bilderberg Meeting, Turnberry
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 July 1998,Official Report, column 659, on the Bilderberg meeting at Turnberry, if he will list the main topics discussed at the meeting and place copies of (a) the agenda and (b) the minutes of the meeting in the Library. [51550]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I have no Ministerial responsibility for the agenda or production of a record of the Bilderberg meeting which I attended in May this year.

  Kneller Hall
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the Government's plans for the future of Kneller Hall; and what recent discussions have taken place on this subject; [51598]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Royal Military School of Music's future occupancy of Kneller Hall. [51600]

  Mr. Spellar
  There have been no recent discussions on the Royal Military School of Music's future occupancy of Kneller Hall. The Government currently have no plans to move the school from its present site. More widely, Kneller Hall is one of the sites to be considered by the Greater London Strategic Development Plan. This study flows from the Strategic Defence Review and has the objective of identifying opportunities to meet defence estate requirements in the most cost effective manner. A report will be produced at the end of the year and full consultation will take place before we reach any final decisions on those sites that may be affected.

  Armistice Anniversary
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will announce to Parliament the results of his review of death sentences carried out in the Great War prior to the 80th anniversary of the Armistice on 11 November 1999. [51860]

  Dr. Reid
  I hope to make an announcement shortly.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 1998,Official Report, column 440; what were the export control categories of the items which went with the Hawk aircraft; how many items of each equipment category went; and if the licences for any of those items were granted after May 1997. [49412]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence said on 8 June 1998, Official Report, column 440, the timing of the delivery of any equipment is a matter for the exporter, subject to the conditions of any export licence. I understand that on 10 July British Aerospace informed officials at the Ministry of Defence that it had delivered no Hawk aircraft to Indonesia between 2 May 1997 and that date.

  An applicant for an individual export licence must, of course, provide adequate information to enable the Government to decide whether or not to issue a licence, but there is no requirement that a trade name (such as 'Hawk') be specified on an application, or that the details be recorded on the Export Control Organisation's computer databases. Therefore, it is not possible to compile a list of all standard or open individual export licences granted since 2 May 1997 covering the export to Indonesia of goods intended for, or capable of, use with a particular type of aircraft, except by recourse to the paper records of all licences covering exports to Indonesia, which would entail disproportionate cost.

  However, as I stated in an answer to my hon. Friend on 21 July 1997, Official Report, columns 448–49, licences covering the export to Indonesia of Hawk aircraft and equipment, including weapons systems and spares, had been issued on 2 January 1996 and 22 November 1996. The export of this ancillary equipment was controlled under entries ML4, ML5, ML10, ML15, ML16, ML18, ML22, and PL 5017 of Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Domestic Workers
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he proposes to make to the arrangements for overseas domestic workers who accompany their employers to the United Kingdom. [52283]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have been concerned for some time at reports of abuse of domestic workers accompanying their employers to the United Kingdom. We have been working with Kalayaan, the organisation which represents overseas domestic workers, to see what changes we could make to the conditions under which they are admitted, with a view to improving them and preventing abuse.

  With effect from today, only those domestic workers whose duties exceed those set down in the International Labour Organisation' s International Standard Classification of Occupations will be allowed to accompany their employer to the United Kingdom. This means that those whose duties are only cleaning,

  611
  washing and cooking will not qualify. Once in the United Kingdom, they will be allowed to change domestic employment to another employer, provided the nature of their duties meets the above criteria.

  These changes, which we shall include in the Immigration Rules at a suitable opportunity, will reduce the number of overseas domestic workers admitted to the United Kingdom. However, once here, they will be able to change to another employer if they suffer abuse from their original employer. We also propose to regularise the stay of those overseas domestic workers who, because of the shortcomings of the provisions in the past, find themselves in an irregular position through no fault of their own.

  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will lay before Parliament the ninth Annual report of the Firearms Consultative Committee. [52417]

  Mr. Straw
  I have placed in the Library today a copy of the annual report of the Firearms Consultative Committee.

  Forensic Science Service
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will lay before Parliament the Annual Report for the Forensic Science Service. [52418]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today laid before Parliament copies of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) Annual Report and Accounts for 1997–98.

  The Report and Accounts details the Agency's performance against its targets. The FSS continues to grow at a significant pace, and efficiency savings are at the highest level since it became an agency in 1991. The FSS passes on these improvements to customers through

  Certified normal accommodation by prison

  Prison

  Actual 1997–98

  Forecast 1998–99

  Forecast 1999–00

  Forecast 2000–01

  Forecast 2001–02

  Acklington

  662

  682

  782

  782

  782

  Agecroft

  —

  —

  233

  800

  800

  Albany

  436

  436

  436

  436

  436

  Aldington

  145

  145

  145

  145

  145

  Altcourse

  150

  600

  600

  600

  600

  Ashwell

  444

  484

  484

  484

  484

  Askham Grange

  130

  132

  133

  133

  133

  Aylesbury

  318

  398

  438

  438

  438

  Bedford

  343

  352

  352

  352

  352

  Belmarsh

  840

  840

  840

  840

  840

  Birmingham

  719

  734

  737

  737

  737

  Blakenhurst

  647

  647

  647

  647

  647

  Blantyre House

  120

  120

  120

  120

  120

  Blundeston

  416

  424

  424

  424

  424

  Brinsford

  477

  477

  477

  477

  477

  Bristol

  489

  489

  489

  489

  489

  Brixton

  720

  720

  720

  720

  720

  Brockhill

  159

  159

  159

  159

  159

  Buckley Hall

  350

  350

  350

  350

  350

  Bullingdon

  718

  773

  773

  773

  773

  Bullwood Hall

  131

  140

  140

  140

  140

  Camphill

  468

  463

  470

  470

  470

  612
  real price reductions and higher investment in both research and development and infrastructure to improve the quality of products and services.

  The achievement on four main indications was as follows:
  Full cost recovery
  The target was exceeded. The Operating surplus before exceptional items after interest was £3 million, representing a recovery of costs of 105.3 per cent. This is sufficient to recover brought forward accumulated deficit of £2 million;
  Unit cost £80.91
  The target was exceeded. The unit cost achieved was £79.88, representing an underlying efficiency improvement of 5.8 per cent. (against a target of 3.9 per cent.);
  Achieve 90 per cent. of agreed delivery dates;
  72 per cent. of agreed delivery dates was achieved. The increased volume of business made it impossible to achieve this target. The number of delivered jobs was well ahead of expectations, but increase in capacity is in hand to meet future customer demands within the target times; and
  Maintain quality accreditation (NAMAS M10 and BS EN ISO 9001)
  Accreditation was maintained and extended to other scientific areas.

  The total number of delivered jobs—which represent individual parts of a case—showed a greater than predicted increase of 28 per cent. Measures were put in place to minimise the impact on turnaround times.

  The speed of delivery of DNA jobs will be further improved by the recruitment of more scientific staff and the new DNA unit at Huntingdon.

  Prison Accommodation
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the certified normal accommodation for each prison in England and Wales(a) in 1998 and (b) for each of the next seven years. [51404]

  Ms Quin
  The table lists the 1997–98 actual financial year averages and the 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 forecast averages of certified normal accommodation (CNA) for each prison in England and Wales. There are no changes forecast to CNA beyond March 2002, although plans are currently under review.
  613

  Certified normal accommodation by prison

  Prison

  Actual 1997–98

  Forecast 1998–99

  Forecast 1999–00

  Forecast 2000–01

  Forecast 2001–02

  Canterbury

  186

  198

  198

  198

  198

  Cardiff

  530

  518

  518

  518

  518

  Castington

  320

  350

  450

  450

  450

  Channings Wood

  594

  594

  594

  594

  594

  Chelmsford

  448

  449

  449

  449

  449

  Colchester

  32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Coldingley

  298

  301

  334

  334

  334

  Cookham Wood

  120

  120

  120

  120

  120

  Dartmoor

  620

  694

  701

  701

  701

  Deerbolt

  450

  471

  486

  486

  486

  Doncaster

  771

  771

  771

  771

  771

  Dorchester

  147

  166

  170

  170

  170

  Dover

  316

  316

  316

  316

  316

  Downview

  327

  327

  327

  327

  327

  Drake Hall

  281

  281

  281

  281

  281

  Durham

  663

  674

  674

  674

  674

  East Sutton Park

  94

  94

  94

  94

  94

  Eastwood Park

  175

  255

  255

  255

  255

  Elmley

  740

  760

  760

  760

  760

  Erlestoke

  310

  310

  310

  310

  310

  Everthorpe

  438

  438

  438

  438

  438

  Exeter

  266

  317

  321

  321

  321

  Featherstone

  599

  599

  599

  599

  599

  Feltham

  886

  886

  886

  886

  886

  Ford

  529

  526

  526

  526

  526

  Foston

  126

  134

  134

  134

  134

  Frankland

  447

  590

  637

  637

  637

  Full Sutton

  602

  602

  602

  602

  602

  Garth

  603

  633

  633

  633

  633

  Gartree

  364

  365

  366

  366

  366

  Glen Parva

  852

  852

  852

  852

  852

  Gloucester

  220

  235

  235

  235

  235

  Grendon

  245

  250

  254

  254

  254

  Guys Marsh

  360

  474

  487

  487

  487

  Haslar

  158

  158

  158

  158

  158

  Hatfield

  180

  180

  180

  180

  180

  Haverigg

  530

  530

  530

  530

  530

  Hewell Grange

  203

  203

  203

  203

  203

  Highdown

  649

  649

  649

  649

  649

  Highpoint

  679

  770

  800

  800

  800

  Hindley

  531

  531

  531

  531

  531

  Hollesley Bay

  458

  458

  458

  458

  458

  Holloway

  517

  517

  517

  517

  517

  Holme House

  933

  971

  971

  971

  971

  Hull

  536

  572

  616

  620

  620

  Huntercombe

  256

  366

  376

  376

  376

  Kingston

  185

  192

  193

  193

  193

  Kirkham

  702

  702

  702

  702

  702

  Kirklevington

  177

  183

  184

  184

  184

  Lancaster

  218

  218

  218

  218

  218

  Lancaster Farms

  496

  496

  496

  496

  496

  Latchmere House

  192

  193

  193

  193

  193

  Leeds

  1,049

  1,056

  1,056

  1,056

  1,056

  Leicester

  215

  219

  219

  219

  219

  Lewes

  485

  485

  485

  485

  485

  Leyhill

  410

  410

  410

  410

  410

  Lincoln

  434

  442

  454

  454

  454

  Lindholme

  682

  686

  686

  686

  686

  Littlehey

  624

  624

  624

  624

  624

  Liverpool

  1,216

  1,216

  1,216

  1,216

  1,216

  Long Lartin

  456

  480

  602

  602

  602

  Low Newton

  203

  211

  211

  211

  211

  Lowdham Grange

  504

  504

  504

  504

  504

  Maidstone

  542

  551

  551

  551

  551

  Manchester

  964

  948

  953

  953

  953

  Marchington

  —

  —

  —

  275

  800

  Moorland

  650

  740

  740

  740

  740

  Morton Hall

  203

  208

  208

  208

  208

  Mount

  588

  588

  708

  708

  708

  New Hall

  313

  327

  327

  327

  327

  North Sea Camp

  213

  213

  213

  213

  213

  Northallerton

  152

  152

  152

  152

  152

  Norwich

  570

  572

  572

  572

  572

  Norwich

  570

  572

  572

  572

  572

  Nottingham

  391

  421

  425

  425

  425

  Onley

  583

  640

  640

  640

  640

  614 615

  Certified normal accommodation by prison

  Prison

  Actual 1997–98

  Forecast 1998–99

  Forecast 1999–00

  Forecast 2000–01

  Forecast 2001–02

  Onley2

  —

  —

  —

  250

  600

  Parc

  227

  800

  800

  800

  800

  Parkhurst

  476

  482

  482

  482

  482

  Pentonville

  891

  897

  897

  897

  897

  Portland

  526

  526

  526

  526

  526

  Prescoed

  120

  120

  120

  120

  120

  Preston

  440

  445

  445

  445

  445

  Pucklechurch

  —

  —

  217

  400

  400

  Ranby

  519

  662

  710

  710

  710

  Reading

  203

  203

  203

  203

  203

  Risley

  851

  851

  851

  851

  851

  Rochester

  432

  433

  433

  433

  433

  Send

  224

  231

  231

  231

  231

  Shepton Mallet

  159

  171

  174

  174

  174

  Shrewsbury

  180

  182

  182

  182

  182

  Spring Hill

  214

  256

  256

  256

  256

  Stafford

  568

  568

  568

  568

  568

  Standford Hill

  384

  384

  384

  384

  384

  Stocken

  436

  536

  556

  556

  556

  Stoke Health

  516

  646

  646

  646

  646

  Styal

  282

  374

  404

  404

  404

  Sudbury

  511

  512

  517

  517

  517

  Swaleside

  572

  632

  742

  752

  752

  Swansea

  260

  251

  251

  251

  251

  Swinfen Hall

  203

  309

  319

  319

  319

  Thorn Cross

  316

  316

  316

  316

  316

  Usk

  126

  128

  131

  131

  131

  Varne

  552

  552

  552

  552

  552

  Wakefield

  724

  742

  744

  744

  744

  Wandsworth

  1,224

  1,201

  1,187

  1,187

  1,187

  Wayland

  620

  620

  620

  620

  620

  Wealstun

  599

  631

  632

  632

  632

  Weare

  304

  400

  400

  400

  400

  Wellingborough

  354

  374

  524

  554

  5542

  Werrington

  153

  140

  140

  140

  140

  Wetherby

  320

  360

  360

  360

  360

  Whatton

  231

  269

  275

  275

  275

  Whitemoor

  521

  522

  522

  522

  522

  Winchester

  463

  463

  463

  463

  463

  Wolds

  360

  360

  360

  360

  360

  Woodhill

  669

  721

  725

  725

  725

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1,189

  1,189

  1,189

  1,189

  1,189

  Wymott

  809

  809

  809

  809

  809

  Grants and Awards (Wakefield)
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the grants and awards that require bids from applicants which his Department is responsible for administering and awarding(a) nationally and (b) that people and groups within Wakefield Metropolitan District are eligible to bid for; if he will publish the deadlines for these applications; and if he will produce this list on a regular basis. [51273]

  Title of grants and awards programmes that require bids

  Geographical eligibility

  Deadline for applications

  Safer Cities (Wales only)

  Wales only

  Programme is due to end March 1999

  Programme Development

  National eligibility irrespective of geographical area

  3 year grant cycle—next programme for bids expected sometime 1999

  Drugs Prevention Initiative

  12 regional teams invite bids one of which includes Wakefield

  No formal deadline

  Probation Supervision and Accommodation

  National eligibility irrespective of geographical area

  No formal deadline

  Voluntary Services

  National eligibility irrespective of geographical area

  30 September each year

  Reduction of Racial Disadvantage/Ethnic Minorities

  National eligibility irrespective of geographical area

  No formal deadline

  616
  Mr. Straw
  The information requested in respect of grants and awards directly administered by the Home Office is given in the table.

  The Home Office wants its grant and awards programmes to reach as many potential applicants as possible and uses a variety of national and local media outlets, plus its network of contacts, to ensure that this is achieved. I have no plans to produce an aggregated list of these programmes regularly.
  617

  Title of grants and awards programmes that require bids

  Geographical eligibility

  Deadline for applications

  Reception and Resettlement of Refugees

  National eligibility irrespective of geographical area

  End of December

  Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice

  National eligibility irrespective of geographical area

  No formal deadline

  Mental Health Assessment Schemes

  National eligibility irrespective of geographical area

  Last bids exercise 1995. No plans to invite new bids

  Drugs Prevention Measures in Great Britain

  National eligibility irrespective of geographical area

  Rolling programme

  Crime Prevention Partnerships (CCTV)

  National eligibility irrespective of geographical area

  Programme completed

  Section 11 Grants/Ethnic Minorities

  National eligibility irrespective of geographical area

  Following a review, new arrangements will apply after 31 March 1999. Further announcements are to be made

  Philip Lawrence awards

  National eligibility irrespective of geographical area

  Mid September each year

  Small grants scheme for local cadets forces

  National eligibility irrespective of geographical area

  Scheme is due to end October 1998

  CS Spray
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of recorded incidents involving the use of CS gas as a criminal weapon for the most recent five years for which records are available. [51392]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Statistics of the use of firearms in crime are reported by police forces to the Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate broken down into five categories: air weapons; handguns; rifles; shotguns; and other weapons. The 'others' category usually involves the use of some form of prohibited weapons. To provide the detailed information requested would require a manual search of all the returns provided by forces for each of the last five years.

  Party Conferences
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what level of special grant to Lancashire Constabulary has been authorised to assist with the cost of policing at the Labour Party Conference in 1998; and how the level was calculated; [51396]

  (2) what representations he has received from Lancashire Constabulary on the cost of policing the Labour Party Conference in Blackpool in 1998; [51395]

  (3) what charges have been levied by Lancashire Constabulary on political parties to meet the costs of policing party conferences in each year since 1995. [51403]

  Mr. Michael
  There is no question of any police force levying a charge on political parties to meet the costs of policing a national conference. The power to assist with these costs is quite recent, having been provided for in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  The power to pay special grant to police authorities for the policing of party conferences was set out in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. No clear criteria for payment was set down, but we are now trying to develop an appropriate and coherent approach.
  618
  The costs of policing party conferences at Blackpool since 1995, as estimated by Lancashire Constabulary, are set out in the table.

  £

  Year

  Labour Party

  Conservative Party

  1995

  —

  1662,000

  1996

  2,620,000

  —

  1997

  —

  2,245,000

  1Lancashire were only able to provide information on additional costs for 1995

  The Lancashire Police Authority was given a special grant of £750,000 towards the additional costs of policing the Conservative Party Conference in 1997. For 1998–99, we have authorised a payment of grant of up to £750,000 as a contribution to the costs of safeguarding national security at this year's Labour Party Conference in Blackpool. A similar sum is being made available to Dorset Police Authority in respect of this year's Conservative Party Conference. Only £1.5 million was available for allocation between Dorset and Lancashire forces this year. As both forces were expecting to incur similar additional costs, we decided that the grant should be divided equally between them.

  I met members of the Lancashire Police Authority in January about the funding settlement for 1998–99 when they expressed concern at the level of the special grant available for policing party conferences and I have recently met representatives of the Dorset Police Authority to discuss similar issues. I have asked for the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities about the future allocation of this grant, with a view to determining a fair way of assisting police with the activities which are related to the main party conferences. The views of Lancashire and Dorset will be borne in mind at that stage.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public funds have been made available to political parties to assist with the cost
  619
  of (a) the policing and (b) other security measures at party conferences in Blackpool in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1998. [51402]

  Mr. Straw
  (a) No public funds have been paid to political parties in respect of policing costs at party conferences.

  (b)

  1996: £529,000.00

  1997: £575,268.92

  1998: None as yet.

  Citizenship Applications
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for British nationality are currently outstanding. [51538]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As at 30 June 1998, there were approximately 95,500 applications awaiting determination.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents have involved armed officers of the Metropolitan Police in the Greater London area in each of the last three years. [51540]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner tells me that the number of incidents involving armed officers in the Metropolitan Police District is as follows:

  Year

  Number of incidents

  1995

  1,438

  1996

  1,637

  1997

  1,660

  1998

  1923

  11 January to 24 June

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of drug related deaths in prisons in England and Wales in each of the last five years. [51541]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Drug related deaths in prisons in England and Wales

  Year

  Number of drug related deaths

  1993

  7

  1994

  9

  1995

  5

  1996

  1

  1997

  2

  Total

  24

  Shootings
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents of shootings with 620
  handguns have been reported since their possession was made illegal; and how many were reported over the last similar period before the ban was introduced. [51654]

  Mr. Michael
  The Criminal Statistics are collected and published on a yearly basis to 31 December. The figures for the year ending 31 December 1997 are not yet available. Because of this, it is not yet possible to provide the information requested. In the year ending 31 December 1996, there were 2,956 notifiable offences recorded by the police in which handguns were reported to have been used.

  The Firearms (Amendment) Acts 1997 were passed in order to ensure as far as possible that the terrible events which took place at Dunblane Primary School on 13 March 1996 would never be repeated.

  The legislation was not intended specifically to reduce the use of handguns in crime. Nevertheless, the legislation will mean that the several hundred handguns misappropriated from private homes and cars each year will no longer be available to swell the number of illegally held weapons.

  Immigration and Nationality Department
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the planned date for the introduction of the integrated caseworking system in the Immigration and Nationality Department; what problems have been encountered in relation to the supporting technology and software for the system; what was the original estimated cost of introducing the system; what is the revised estimated cost of introduction; and if he will make a statement. [51601]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 22 January 1998,Official Report, column 633, and to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on 21 July 1998, Official Report, column 436. I have undertaken to write to both hon. Members when the timetable for the introduction of the system is known. The resolution of the technical difficulties which have caused the delay is a matter for the service provider, Siemens Business Services (SBS). Under the Private Finance Initiative contract, the costs of introducing the system fall to SBS. After the system is introduced, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will pay a scale of service charges calculated in relation to the level of improvement in efficiency actually achieved.

  Criminal Attempts and Forgery and Counterfeiting Acts
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are currently held at HMP Wormwood Scrubs following their conviction for offences contrary to(a) Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and (b) Section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. [51604]
  621
  Ms Quin
  The information requested could be obtained only by examining individual prisoners records at the prison, which would involve disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were arrested at(a) Heathrow airport and (b) other United Kingdom airports for offences contrary to (i) Section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 or (ii) Section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, in (1) 1995–96, (2) 1996–97 and (3) 1997–98. [51603]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This information is not normally collected centrally. However the Metropolitan police have been able to provide information on persons accused—that is, a count of persons arrested and subsequently proceeded against. The information relates to persons accused in the Heathrow division of attempting to commit a notifiable offence and those accused under sections 3 and 4 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. The information is given in the table.

  To obtain similar information from all police forces which have an airport located in their area would incur disproportionate cost, since manual searches through individual records would be required.

  Persons accused at Heathrow airport

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Accused of attempting to commit a notifiable offence

  201

  232

  206

  Accused of offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981

  50

  43

  66

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what projections have been made of the number of asylum applications to be(a) determined and

  Appeals to the adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority, January to June 19981

  Number of principal appellants

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  Total

  Appeals received by the Home Office

  2,325

  2,410

  2,930

  2,400

  1,985

  2,400

  14,455

  of which:

  Asylum2

  1,425

  1,325

  1,645

  1,635

  1,255

  1,490

  8,770

  Non-asylum3, 4

  905

  1,085

  1,285

  765

  730

  910

  5,680

  Appeals sent to the Immigration Appellate Authority

  2,425

  2,215

  2,680

  2,410

  1,765

  2,650

  14,145

  of which:

  Asylum2

  1,565

  1,485

  1,530

  1,390

  1,190

  1,655

  8,815

  Non-asylum3, 4

  865

  730

  1,150

  1,020

  575

  995

  5,335

  Appeals determined by the Immigration Appellate Authority5

  2,700

  2,795

  2,745

  2,880

  2,800

  3,165

  17,080

  of which:

  Asylum2

  1,745

  1,615

  1,995

  1,605

  1,600

  2,075

  10,640

  Non-asylum3, 4

  955

  1,180

  750

  1,275

  1,200

  1,090

  6,440

  1All figures have been rounded to the nearest 5

  2Information supplied by the Asylum Directorate (casework), IND

  3Information supplied by the After Entry and Appeals Directorate and the Financial Services Directorate, IND

  4These figures will include a small number of statements prepared for appeals to the Tribunal

  5Information supplied by the Immigration Appellate Authority

  622
  (b) refused by his Department in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999, (iii) 2000, (iv) the financial year 1998–99 and (v) the financial year 1999–2000. [51606]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I would ask the hon. Member to await the major announcement my right hon. Friend shall be making on immigration and asylum next week.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the immigration-related applications for leave to move for judicial review in 1996–97 were(a) asylum-related and (b) non-asylum related. [51611]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Of the 1,830 immigration related applications for leave to move for judicial review lodged in the financial year 1996–97, it is estimated that 70 per cent. related to applications for asylum and the remaining 30 per cent. to other non-asylum cases.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many non-asylum immigration appeals have been(a) received by his Department, (b) sent to the Immigration Appeals Authority and (c) determined by the Immigration Appeals Authority in each month of 1998; and how many such appeals are currently awaiting hearing by adjudicators of the Immigration Appeals Authority; [51613]

  (2) how many appeals against a refusal of asylum have been (a) received by his Department, (b) sent to the Immigration Appeals Authority and (c) determined by the Immigration Appeals Authority in each month of 1998; and how many such appeals are currently awaiting hearing by special adjudicators of the Immigration Appeals Authority. [51612]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested in points(a), (b) and (c), relating to asylum and non-asylum appeals is given in the table.

  As regards appeals awaiting hearing, the Immigration Appellate Authority reports that, at the end of June 1998, there was a total of 26,670 adjudicator cases outstanding. Of these, 20,870 related to applications for asylum and 5,800 to other immigration matters.
  623
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum were determined by his Department in each month of 1998; and with what result. [51605]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Initial decisions1,2 on asylum applications, excluding dependants, January to June 1998

  Month

  Total decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants exceptional leave

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave

  January

  3,065

  705

  230

  2,130

  February

  3,035

  405

  390

  2,240

  March

  3,070

  375

  425

  2,270

  April

  2,520

  350

  320

  1,850

  May

  2,360

  420

  250

  1,690

  June

  2,675

  580

  305

  1,790

  1Figures rounded to nearest 5

  2Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications made in 1998

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the reasons for the adjournment of asylum and immigration appeals. [51609]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. It is a matter for the Immigration Appellate Authority to decide whether an appeal should be adjourned. Adjournments may be requested by the appellant or the respondent, or initiated by the Authority itself.

  Bargoed Fire Station
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what access the South Wales fire authority has had to the reports and assessments made available to his Department by Her Majesty's Inspector of Fire Services on the proposed closures of the Bargoed Fire Station; [52017]

  (2) if he will list those to whom his Department has sent Her Majesty's Inspector of Fire Services' report on the proposed closure of the Bargoed Fire Station. [52016]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Such reports have not been made available outside the Home Office.

PRIME MINISTER

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 23 June, if he will list the long-standing differences to which he refers between the European Union and the United States over US sanctions under the Iran Libya Sanctions Act; and what is his estimate of the time scale for Libya complying with UN resolutions. [51525]
  624
  The Prime Minister
  The long-standing differences between the European Union and the United States to which I referred related to secondary boycotts and legislation with extraterritorial or retroactive effect. The agreement at the EU/US Summit of 18 May has laid the basis for resolving these differences, specifically those over the Iran Libya Sanctions Act and the Helms Burton legislation on Cuba.

  The time scale for Libyan compliance with UN Security Council resolutions is in Libya's hands. We continue to press them to fulfil their obligations. UN sanctions will remain until they do.

  Lord-Lieutenants
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 July 1998,Official Report, column 315, if he will list the dates of appointment of the 10 longest serving Lord-Lieutenants. [52010]

  The Prime Minister
  The answer is as follows:Sir Thomas Dunne KCVO—appointed 14 June 1977 as Lord-Lieutenant of Hereford and Worcester, and as Lord-Lieutenant for the separate counties of Herefordshire and Worcestershire on the formation of those counties on 1 April 1998.
  His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensbury KT VRD—appointed 18 June 1974.
  The Earl of Leven and Melville—appointed 21 July 1969.
  The Viscount of Arbuthnott KT CBE DSC FRSE—appointed 31 January 1977.
  Sir Richard Hanbury Tenison KCVO—appointed 9 June 1979.
  Colonel Sir Michael McCorkell KCVO OBE TD—appointed 15 May 1975.
  The Right Honourable Lord Kingdown KG—appointed 31 July 1982.
  Sir David Mansel Lewis KCVO JP BA—appointed 14 February 1979.
  Sir Timothy Colman KG—appointed 19 March 1978.
  Lieutenant Colonel James Stirling of Garden CBE TD—appointed 14 December 1983.

  Lord-Lieutenants may serve until their 75th birthday.

  Policy Unit
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 20 July 1998,Official Report, column 389, (1) how many telephone calls were made by Roger Liddle from No. 10 Downing Street to (a) Derek Draper and (b) GPC Market Access in the four weeks prior to 24 June; [51908]

  (2) if he will list the telephone calls made by Roger Liddle to newspaper reporters on 25 June. [51909]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 14 July 1998,Official Report, column 94.

  In this context, outside organisations obviously includes newspaper reporters.

  Security Services
  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the Commissioner appointed under the Intelligence Services Act 1994 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [52369]
  625
  The Prime Minister
  A copy of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's annual report, for 1997, has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(6) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. The confidential annexe to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section of 8(7) of the 1994 Act. I am grateful to the Commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants and authorisations, and in providing assistance to the Tribunal as provided for in the Act.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the Commissioner appointed under the Security Service Act 1989 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [52370]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's eighth annual report, for 1997, has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 4(6) of the Security Service Act 1989. The confidential annexe to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 4(7) of the 1989 Act and in line with the Commissioner's recommendation. I am grateful to the Commissioner for his work in providing assistance to the Tribunal which operates under the Act and for reviewing the issue of warrants under the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

  Interception of Communications
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister when the annual report of the Commissioner appointed under section 8(1) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 will be laid before the House; and if he will make a statement. [52371]

  The Prime Minister
  A copy of Lord Nolan's annual report for 1997 has been laid before the House today in accordance with section 8(7) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The confidential annexe to the report has been excluded from that copy in accordance with section 8(8) of the 1985 Act in accordance with the Commissioner's recommendations. I am grateful to the Commissioner for his work in reviewing the issue of warrants during the year. I note in particular the

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Unknown

  Security Forces

  Total

  1997

  1998

  1997

  1998

  1997

  1998

  1997

  1998

  1997

  1998

  April

  Deaths

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Shooting Incidents

  7

  9

  5

  8

  5

  1

  2

  1

  19

  19

  Bombing Incidents

  3

  2

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  5

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary attacks

  Shootings

  4

  3

  1

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  7

  Assaults

  5

  6

  6

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  7

  May

  Deaths

  3

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  1

  Shooting Incidents

  6

  5

  2

  2

  3

  5

  0

  0

  11

  12

  Bombing Incidents

  2

  2

  1

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  9

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary attacks

  Shootings

  2

  4

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  5

  Assaults

  7

  8

  4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  11

  11

  June

  Deaths

  2

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  2

  Shooting Incidents

  8

  4

  5

  10

  4

  3

  2

  2

  19

  19

  Bombing Incidents

  3

  0

  2

  5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  5

  626
  Commissioner's view that interception of both postal communications and telecommunications remains an effective and an essential operation in the interests of national security and the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, and the prevention and detection of serious crime.

  Council of Europe and WEU
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the latest information bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union covering the period October 1997 to April 1998. [52037]

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

  Life Peers
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister who by convention, in addition to the Leader of the Opposition, makes regular nominations to the Prime Minister of candidates for possible ennoblement as life peers. [51951]

  The Prime Minister
  The Leader of the Liberal Democrats makes regular nominations for life peers. In addition, I receive nominations from a wide range of people including leaders of other political parties.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many acts of paramilitary violence took place in (i) April, (ii) May and (iii) June; to which paramilitary organisation the RUC has attributed responsibility; and what were the equivalent figures for the same period in 1997. [48299]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The table indicates the number of acts of paramilitary violence which took place during April, May and June of this year and the equivalent figures for the same period last year.
  627

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Unknown

  Security Forces

  Total

  1997

  1998

  1997

  1998

  1997

  1998

  1997

  1998

  1997

  1998

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary attacks

  Shootings

  6

  4

  2

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  8

  13

  Assaults

  2

  8

  1

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  19

  Notes:

  1. It is not possible to be more specific on attribution which is based on information available and may be subject to change or adjustment

  2. Care should be taken not to add all the incidents together as some are included in more than one heading e.g. deaths in April 1998 were as a result of shooting incidents

  3. These figures are based on verified statistics and in a previously published form

  Disappearances
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what records her Department maintains on those people who disappeared during the Troubles; and if she will urge paramilitary groups to release any information which they have on their whereabouts. [48296]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office does not maintain records on people who disappeared during the Troubles. The RUC, however, hold open files on those known as "The Disappeared". The Government have urged paramilitary groups and representatives of such groups to convey information about this matter to the RUC, and will continue to do so in the future. It is vital that the issue is resolved within the context of the Agreement.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been spent on setting up the Parades Commission; and if she will estimate its annual running costs for a full year broken down into(a) payments to the members of the Commission and (b) administrative expenditure. [50147]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Parades Commission has, since its creation, occupied the rented premises previously used by the Parades Review Team and inherited most of its office equipment and material from that team. Staff were deployed from duties elsewhere in the Northern Ireland Office. Actual start-up costs were therefore minimal,.

  The estimated outturn figure for 1998–99 is £1 million, made up of £260,000 Departmental Running Costs, comprising staff pay and general administrative expenditure such as travel and stationery and £740,000 Non-Departmental running costs, including payments to members, accommodation costs for rental, rates and electricity, grants to the Mediation Network, including the salary and support costs of the Authorised Officers and research and consultancy costs.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Immigration and Asylum Appeals
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many asylum and immigration appeals were adjourned in (i) 1996 and (ii) 1997; and what proportion of these adjournments were a consequence of(a) an application by the appellant, (b) an application by his Department and (c) other reasons. [51608]
  628
  Mr. Hoon
  The Immigration Appellate Authority does not retain accurate historical information on the volume, proportion or breakdown of asylum and immigration appeals that are adjourned.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what international comparisons his Department has made of the availability of legal aid for representation at(a) asylum appeal hearings and (b) non-asylum immigration appeal hearings; [51614]

  (2) what international comparisons he has made on the availability of legal aid for representation at asylum appeal hearings. [51610]

  Mr. Hoon
  My Department has not undertaken any research on this subject.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many further appeals to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal against a refusal of asylum were awaiting a hearing on(a) 31 December 1996, (b) 31 December 1997 and (c) 30 June 1998. [51602]

  Mr. Hoon
  The number of outstanding applications/appeals before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal were:

  Applications

  Appeals

  (a) 31 December 1996

  1350

  1250

  (b) 31 December 1997

  1,125

  1,018

  (c) 30 June 1998

  1,576

  1,316

  1Estimated figures as historical data for this period are not accurate

  The number of outstanding appeals before the Immigration Appeal Adjudicators were:

  (a) 31 December 1996: 20,104

  (b) 31 December 1997: 22,484

  (c) 30 June 1998: 20,869.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of(a) asylum and (b) immigration appeals were determined on the basis of the papers only in (a) 1997 and (b) 1998 to date. [51607]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Immigration Appellate Authority does not differentiate between, or keep accurate records of, appeals that are dealt with and disposed of in court, against those that are dealt with on the basis of the papers.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to increase the number of(a) adjudicators and (b) special adjudicators employed by the Immigration Appeals Authority during the financial year (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000. [51615]
  629
  Mr. Hoon
  There is a rolling programme of recruitment to increase the number of adjudicators and special adjudicators. This will continue at least into the year 2000.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what projections have been made of the number of(a) asylum and (b) immigration appeals to be heard and determined by the Immigration Appeals Authority in (i) 1998, (ii) 1999, (iii) 2000, (iv) the financial year 1998–99 and (v) the financial year 1999–2000. [51616]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is projected that there will be 38,455 cases disposed of by the Immigration Adjudicators in 1998 of which 25,865 will relate to asylum. During the same year a further 16,628 cases will be disposed of by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal of which 12,191 will relate to asylum. The comparable figures for 1998–99 are 38,910 Adjudicator disposals of which 27,142 will be asylum and 17,357 Tribunal disposals of which 13,084 will be asylum.

  There are no reliable projection figures of the number of appeals which will be dealt with after April 1999, but as a result of the comprehensive spending review significant extra resources will be made available to the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) over the period 1999–2003, enabling it to increase the number of appeals disposed of substantially.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the block contracts for immigration/asylum legal aid to cover England and Wales will be awarded by the Legal Aid Board. [50906]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has asked the Legal Aid Board to complete the provision of civil advice and assistance, including immigration and asylum cases, exclusively through contracts by the end of 1999.

WALES

  Correspondence
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [50692]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 20 July 1998,Official Report, column 363, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

  North Wales Coast
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the Environment Agency has an independent working computer model of the hydrographic regime of the inshore waters of the North Wales coastal region for planning and management purposes. [51381]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  This is a matter for the Environment Agency. I understand the Agency has identified no need for such a model to discharge its planning and management responsibilities. If it required one, it would commission other organisations to produce it.
  630
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish the factors underlying the recent high turbidity in the inshore waters along the North Wales coast. [51386]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The June rainfall for 1998 has been one of the highest for any June on record. High river flows as a result of the rain will have generated a larger than normal sediment load into inshore waters at this time of the year. In co-operation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which has responsibility for the regulation of dredging, the Environment Agency is also investigating whether possible illegal dumping of dredged material in the area has been a contributory factor.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if his Department will take steps to treat non-toxic algal blooms accumulated on the North Wales coast. [51388]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The dispersion of accumulated non-toxic algal blooms by natural forces usually occurs as quickly as the accumulations themselves. Non-toxic algal blooms are a naturally occurring phenomenon and do not pose a threat to public health; consequently, there are no plans to treat them.

  Agri-environmental Programmes
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish his budget allocation for agri-environmental programmes for 1998–99. [51531]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Government's Expenditure Plans 1998–1999 as published in the Departmental Report by the Welsh Office (Cm 3915) and placed in the Library of the House.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the number of applicants to each higher education institution in Wales in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [51749]

  Mr. Hain
  The information for 1997 is in the table. Data for 1998 are not available until the conclusion of the application cycle.

  Applicants accepted to Welsh higher education institutions—1997 entry

  University or college

  Applicants

  University of Wales, Aberystwyth

  2,185

  University of Wales, Bangor

  1,762

  University of Wales, Cardiff

  3,946

  University of Wales Institute, Cardiff

  1,785

  Carmarthenshire College of Technology and Art

  135

  University of Glamorgan

  2,200

  University of Wales, Lampeter

  540

  The Mid Glamorgan Centre for Art and Design Technology

  31

  University of Wales College, Newport

  866

  The North East Wales Institute of Higher Education

  525

  University of Wales, Swansea

  2,337

  Swansea Institute of Higher Education

  996

  Trinity College Carmarthen

  453

  University of Wales College of Medicine

  400

  Welsh College of Music and Drama

  141

  Total

  18,302

  Source:

  UCAS Annual Report 1997 Entry

  Lord-Lieutenants
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 17 July 1998,Official Report, column 333, if he will list the names of all Lord-Lieutenants in Wales and the dates each was appointed. [52009]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The names of the Lord-Lieutenants in Wales are:

  Clwyd: Sir William Gladstone Bt., appointed on 6 August 1985.

  Dyfed: Sir David Mansel Lewis KCVO, appointed on 14 February 1979.

  Mid Glamorgan: Murray McLaggan, appointed on 1 December 1989.

  South Glamorgan: Captain Norman Lloyd-Edwards, appointed on 17 August 1990.

  West Glamorgan: Commodore Robert Hastie CBE RD* RNR, appointed on 10 April 1995.

  Gwynedd: Meuric Rees CBE, appointed on 31 December 1989.

  Gwent: Sir Richard Hanbury Tenison KCVO, appointed on 9 June 1979.

  Powys: Mervyn Bourdillon, appointed on 15 July 1986 (retires August 1998).

  Lord-Lieutenants may serve until their 75th birthday.

HEALTH

  North Essex Health Authority
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what factors underlie the provision of NHS resources to the North Essex Health Authority at a rate per head of population of 10 per cent. below the English average; [43313]

  (2) if he will increase the level of NHS funding per head of population in the North Essex Health Authority to the average for all English health authorities. [43310]

  Mr. Milburn
  In 1998–99, the allocation per weighted head of population for North Essex Health Authority is 2.3 per cent. below the England average.

  The underlying principle of resource allocation in the National Health Service is equity.

  A capitation formula is used to inform the distribution of hospital and community health services funding between health authorities which weights their populations for relative need.

  The speed at which health authorities are moved closer to their weighted capitation targets is decided annually. For 1998–99, North Essex Health Authority received a real terms increase of £7.8 million or 2.2 per cent. compared to the England real terms average increase of 1.9 per cent.

  Scheme

  Deadline for applications

  Section 64

  18 September 1998

  Opportunities for Volunteering

  Varies according to the 17 agents administering the scheme

  Ethnic Minority Health

  Yet to be finalised, but likely to be around December 1998/January 1999

  Shared Training grants—learning disabilities

  Yet to be finalised

  632
  In addition, North Essex Health Authority has received £4.7 million to target waiting lists in 1998–99.

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many civil servants in his Department(a) have a degree in science and (b) have held a position using that expertise. [50894]

  Mr. Milburn
  At the present time, there are 61 civil servants within the Department who form the Scientific Group and fall within the responsibility of the Head of Profession for scientists. Of these, 60 have held positions using their scientific expertise. Other civil servants within the Department and its agencies will also have science degrees and will have held positions using that expertise, but information on educational qualifications for those staff is not held centrally.

  Hospital Discharge Procedures
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 July 1998,Official Report, column 611, concerning hospital discharge procedures, what timetable departmental officials are working to; and when he expects to publish his decision. [50939]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]: We expect the conclusions of the review of guidance on hospital discharge to be available towards the end of the year.

  Continence Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 July 1998,Official Report, column 451, concerning continence supplies, what monitoring his Department will conduct on how the extra resources are deployed by the health service. [50938]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]: Deployment of these resources will be monitored by regional offices of the National Health Service Executive as part of their performance management role.

  Grants and Awards (Wakefield)
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the grants and awards that require bids from applicants which his Department is responsible for administering and awarding(a) nationally and (b) that people and groups within Wakefield Metropolitan District are eligible to bid for; if he will publish the deadlines for these applications; and if he will produce this list on a regular basis. [51271]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department funds a number of nationwide schemes through which voluntary organisations can bid for grants. None prohibits applications from Wakefield.
  633
  The Department will consider the most effective way of producing this list on a regular basis in the light of the Better Regulation Task Force's report on Access to Government Funding for the Voluntary Sector.

  Hearing Aid Services
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the data collated centrally by his Department concerning adult audiology and hearing aid services; [51420]

  (2) what performance indicators his Department (a) has used and (b) proposes to use for the providers of adult hearing aid services. [51408]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department does not collect specific information about adult audiology and hearing aid services, although some data are available about Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT) services which will include adult and paediatric audiology data.

  Information on the number of ENT outpatient attendances, broken down by clinical speciality, is contained in "Outpatients and Ward Attenders, England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Information on the number of ENT day case and ordinary admissions by clinical specialty is contained in "Ordinary and Day Case Admissions for England", copies of which are also available in the Library.

  There are no national performance indicators for adult hearing aid services.

  Dentists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities have advertised(a) in Scandinavia and (b) elsewhere in the European Union for dentists since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [51456]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information about which health authorities have advertised to recruit dentists from Scandinavia or elsewhere in the European Union is not available centrally. The General Dental Council keeps a record of dentists coming from elsewhere in the EU, whom it registers to practise in this country.

  NHS Medicines
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce the costs of procuring medicines for the NHS. [51052]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]: We intend to approach the procurement of medicines with a view to obtaining effective health care for patients at a cost which is fair.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last reviewed the pharmaceutical pricing scheme for the NHS. [51046]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]: The prices of branded medicines sold to the National Health Service are governed by the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme, a voluntary agreement between the health departments and the pharmaceutical industry, represented
  634
  by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. The last full review of the scheme was at the negotiation of the current agreement, which runs from 1 October 1993.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current rate of return used in calculating drug prices for the NHS. [51049]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]: The Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) sets target rates of return for companies supplying branded medicines to the National Health Service around which there is a margin of tolerance. The prices of medicines reflect this indirectly. The overall return on capital (outturn) for companies' PPRS business was 18.1 per cent. for 1994 (the latest year for which full figures are available); further details are contained in the Second Report to Parliament on the PPRS (December 1997) copies of which are available in the Library.

  Heart Transplants
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many heart transplant operations have been performed in the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [51542]

  Mr. Boateng
  In 1995 there were 319 heart transplants and 58 heart/lung transplants; 278 heart and 53 heart/lung transplants in 1996; and 266 heart and 44 heart/lung transplants in 1997.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the quality of root canal fillings carried out within the General Dental Service and of the level of remuneration for dentists for that work. [51534]

  Mr. Milburn
  The quality of all types of dental treatment from simple to complex, including root canal fillings, are regularly assessed on an individual patient sample basis by the Dental Reference Service. The level of remuneration for dental treatment is set down in a fee scale in the Statement of Dental Remuneration which is reviewed each year in the light of recommendations made by the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body after considering evidence from both the dental profession and the Department.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to withdraw the use of aldehydes as an ingredient for root canal sealers within the National Health Service. [51535]

  Mr. Milburn
  This is a matter of clinical judgment. Dentists have a duty under the arrangements they make to provide general dental services to employ a proper degree of skill and attention and use only suitable materials.

  Stroke Units
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many stroke units there are in the NHS; and where they are located. [51077]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: We do not collect data centrally on the numbers and distribution of specialist stroke units.
  635
  The organisation of health services, including services for people who have had a stroke, and the manner in which they are delivered are matters for health authorities, taking account of the needs of the local population and the priorities set for the use of the available resources.

  The Clinical Standards Advisory Group published a report on clinical effectiveness on 3 June 1998, using stroke as a marker condition. The report contains recommendations to help ensure consistency of treatment across the country. This includes access to appropriate rehabilitation services, including physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech and language therapy, where they can effectively assist recovery.

  Breast Implants
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total costs to the public purse of the work undertaken by the Independent Review Group into silicone gel breast implants. [51674]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 22 July 1998]: The total cost to date of the work undertaken by the Independent Review Group into silicone gel breast implants is approximately £250,000.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the countries in which silicone gel breast implants have been banned. [51677]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 22 July 1998]: To our knowledge, the only country that currently has a ban on the use of silicone gel breast implants is France.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what budget will be allocated for the monitoring and registration of women by the National Breast Implant Registry over the next five years. [51675]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 22 July 1998]: It is not currently possible to estimate the budget required by the National Breast Implant Registry over the next five years. This will be decided once the Department and the Registry have assessed the resources necessary to implement the recommendation of the Independent Review Group on silicone gel breast implants.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the Annual Report and Accounts of the Medicines Control Agency. [52423]

  Ms Jowell
  We have received the report and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  NHS Estates Executive Agency
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the Annual Report and Accounts for 1997–98 of the NHS Estates Executive Agency. [52574]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have received the report and copies have today been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Head Lice
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representation he has received during the last 12 months on head lice; and what assessment he has made of current trends in the incidence of head lice in children of primary school age. [50766]

  Ms Jowell
  We have received occasional representations on the effect that head louse infestation can have upon children and their families. Information on trends in the number of cases of head lice amongst children of primary school age is not collected centrally. Cases are not notifiable and are generally detected and treated within the family home, making accurate counting difficult. The Department will continue to work with the Department for Education and Employment to promote best practice in detection and treatment of this problem.

  Smoking
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the recommendations of the Fowler report, A Call for a More Effective Policy on Smoking Cessation and the Use of Nicotine Replacement Therapy; and if he will make a statement. [52044]

  Ms Jowell
  Our policies on these and other matters relating to smoking will be set out in a White Paper later in the year. Officials are studying the report and its recommendations.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of including staff employed by general practitioner co-operatives in the NHS pension scheme; and if he will make a statement. [51790]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information to estimate the cost of including general practitioner co-operative staff in the National Health Service pension scheme is not available centrally.

  Retired Consultants
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants from ethnic minorities retired from the NHS in each of the last three years; and how many of these were receiving discretionary merit awards at the time of retirement. [51777]

  Mr. Milburn
  Data concerning medical staff retiring from the National Health Service each year are not collected centrally.

  Euthanasia
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of allegations of involuntary euthanasia by(a) hospital staff and (b) general practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [51904]

  Ms Jowell
  Euthanasia is illegal. Anyone alleged to have undertaken such action would be open to a charge of murder or manslaughter.

  It is the responsibility of the police to decide whether to bring charges in individual cases and for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether a prosecution should proceed.
  637
  We have no centrally available information on investigations into such allegations.

  1995 EU Budget
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors led to his decision to continue the United Kingdom challenge to the EU Commission's use of the 1995 Budget to fund demonstration projects in the field of poverty and social exclusion. [50945]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]: I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend for East Ham (Mr. Timms) on 4 November 1997, Official Report, column 103.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Papua New Guinea
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department has taken to provide humanitarian aid to the people of Papua New Guinea. [51903]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We are in close contact with the Papua New Guinea authorities through the British High Commission in Port Moresby. In response to the initial appeal for assistance, we have offered up to £250,000 to meet the immediate recovery needs of those affected by the tidal wave. Of this contribution, £75,000 has been allocated to the International Federation of the Red Cross to provide family rehabilitation kits containing basic household items, and materials to rebuild houses. We have asked other humanitarian organisations active in the region urgently to submit proposals for the remaining funds.

  We shall continue to monitor the situation closely through our High Commission and through the regular reports we receive from the United Nations and the Red Cross and are ready to consider any further appeals for assistance.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 8 July 1998,Official Report, column 533, concerning the 150/500 KV sub-stations project in Indonesia, what has the project achieved to date; what is her assessment of the project's value for money; and if she will place in the Library copies of the project appraisal, monitoring and evaluation reports completed to date. [51733]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Of the 13 substation sites covered by the project, two have so far been completed and handed over to the Indonesian authorities. Constraints on local expenditure on civil works, as a result of the financial crisis, are delaying the completion of five sites and work on the remaining six has been suspended for twelve months. Discussions are continuing between DFID, the Indonesian authorities and the contractor to assess the situation and action required in response of it. It is not possible at this stage to make an assessment of value for 638
  money. I will place in the Library copies of the project memorandum, which contains information relevant to the appraisal of the project, and of monitoring reports to date.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list for(a) her Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register, how many vehicles are currently (i) owned and (ii) leased; if he will indicate their (A) fuel types and (B) engine cubic capacities; and how many vehicles are expected to fall due for replacement in each of the years (1) 1998–99, (2) 1999–2000 and (3) 2000–01. [49236]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: (a) The Department for International Development (DFID) owns no vehicles in the UK. The following details are in respect of vehicles owned by DFID's overseas offices. The figures do not include vehicles provided under the aid programme for the benefit of partner Governments.

  Number

  Total owned

  26

  Petrol

  17

  Diesel

  9

  2000cc or less

  14

  Over 2000cc

  12

  Likely replacements in year

  1998–99

  4

  1999–2000

  3

  2000–2001

  6

  DFID does not lease any vehicles either in the UK or overseas.

  (b) The only public body listed in the National Asset Register for which DFID is responsible which owns vehicles is the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC). The CDC owns a vehicle fleet worth in excess of £1 million dispersed across a large number of locations overseas. The details requested in respect of these vehicles could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuba Mountains, Sudan
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to secure access to the Nuba Mountains of Sudan for the purpose of humanitarian aid. [51536]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Britain and the rest of the donor community together with the United Nations are pressing the Government of Sudan to agree to a UN assessment of humanitarian needs in the Nuba Mountains; and to allow the necessary assistance to be delivered.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Payment of Bills
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of bills were paid on time by Government Departments and their agencies during the financial year 1997–98. [52148]
  639
  Mrs. Roche
  I am pleased to announce that there has been an improvement in the payment performance of Central Government as a whole. The majority of Departments are now meeting the target of paying 95 per cent. of their suppliers bills on time.

  There is no room for complacency, however. New tougher targets for Departments and their agencies will be set by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General, which will ensure that this improvement in performance continues.

  The target for paying undisputed bills on time in the 1998–99 financial year will be 97.5 per cent. and for the 1999–2000 financial year 100 per cent.

  We are committed to improving Britain's payment culture. It is important that the public sector sets an example to business and is seen to pay its bills on time.

  Late payment is a serious problem for business and particularly for small businesses. Not knowing when customers' bills will be paid means uncertain cashflow, increased borrowings, higher costs and reduced profits.

  Government Departments and their agencies are required to monitor their payment performance and to publish the results in their departmental or annual reports. The following table lists, by Department, the proportion of bills paid within 30 days, or other agreed credit period, of receipt of a valid invoice for financial year 1997–98. Similar information for earlier years is held in the House of Commons Library.

  Departmental payment performance 1997–98

  Department

  % of invoices paid on time

  Government Actuary's Department

  100.0

  National Investment and Loan Office

  100.0

  Privy Council Office

  100.0

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  99.7

  Office of National Lottery

  99.7

  Defence, Ministry of

  98.9

  Ordnance Survey

  98.3

  Trade and Industry, Department of

  98.2

  Insolvency Service1

  98.9

  Radiocommunications Agency1

  96.1

  Office of Gas Supply

  98.2

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  98.0

  Office for Standards in Education

  97.3

  Office of Water Services

  98.0

  Registry of Friendly Societies Commission

  97.6

  The Welsh Office

  97.3

  Treasury Solicitor's Department inc. Law Officers Department

  97.3

  Office of Telecommunications

  97.0

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  96.9

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  96.9

  Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce

  96.8

  Serious Fraud Office

  96.6

  Education and Employment, Department for

  96.5

  Land Registry

  96.3

  Lord Chancellor's Department inc. Public Trustee Office

  96.0

  Charity Commission

  96.0

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  95.9

  Home Office

  95.6

  Inland Revenue

  95.6

  National Savings Department

  95.6

  HM Customs and Excise

  95.5

  Health, Department of

  95.3

  Forestry Commission

  95.3

  Public Record Office

  95.2

  HM Treasury

  95.1

  640

  Departmental payment performance 1997–98

  Department

  % of invoices paid on time

  International Development, Department for

  95.0

  Crown Prosecution Service

  95.0

  Cabinet Office (inc. Office of Public Service)

  94.7

  Culture, Media and Sport, Department for

  94.6

  DETR

  93.7

  Health and Safety Executive2

  91.0

  The Scottish Office

  93.6

  Royal Mint

  93.0

  Office of Fair Trading

  93.0

  Northern Ireland Office

  92.9

  Crown Office, Scotland (inc. Lord Advocate's Department)

  91.0

  Social Security, Department of

  90.7

  National Statistics, Office for

  89.4

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  83.8

  1Insolvency Service and Radiocommunications Agency are Executive Agencies of the Department of Trade and Industry

  2Health and Safety Executive is an Executive Agency for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of(a) the contribution of the UK aerospace industry to the UK economy and (b) the role played in the past 10 years of the biennial Farnborough Airshow in securing business for the industry. [51194]

  Mr. Battle
  Aerospace is one of the most important high technology manufacturing sectors of the UK economy. It had a turnover of £15 billion last year (of which 75% is exported). This constitutes around 8% of the total turnover of the UK's engineering sector. The industry makes a positive contribution to the UK balance of trade of over £3 billion and, in 1997, it employed around 120,000 people.

  Over the last ten years the UK industry's turnover has grown from £9.5 billion to the current £15 billion. Some 450 UK companies have exhibited at Farnborough over this period and, at the last show, some £1.8 billion of UK business was announced by the industry, which sees the show as an important competitive advantage for this sector of UK industry. The biennial Farnborough Airshow, which is organised by the Society of British Aerospace Companies, is the world's premier airshow and provides the industry with a vital shop window to display its products to customers around the world. The UK base which the Farnborough Airshow provides is an important competitive advantage for this sector of UK industry.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she intends to publish the results of consultations on the Working Time Directive. [51635]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 22 July 1998]: The views expressed in the responses to the consultation exercise on the draft regulations have been taken into account in finalising the regulations. These will be laid before Parliament before the recess.

  Many respondents also asked for some issues to be clarified in the accompanying guidance. This will be published in the Summer.

  Dounreay
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate memorandum, A Summary of the Dounreay FCA Inspection Findings, was brought to her attention; what assurances she(a) sought and (b) received from the HSE that Dounreay was a suitable destination for the waste from Georgia; what action she took in response to the document; and if she will make a statement. [46786]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 23 June 1998]: The existence of this memorandum was first brought to my attention on 29 May 1998 and it was published by the Health and Safety Executive on 15 June 1998. HSE had sent a copy of the memorandum to DTI officials in June 1997 and they discussed its contents with UKAEA at the time, in particular to satisfy themselves that UKAEA had sufficient resources to address any necessary improvements at the Dounreay site.

  The Health and Safety Executive was consulted before it was decided to accept the Georgian consignment, and it was satisfied that the material could be safely stored at Dounreay.

  Many of the issues raised in the memorandum are now being scrutinised carefully by the safety audit being conducted by the Health and Safety Executive and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Any

  Agency name

  Date of transaction

  Type of Transaction

  Name of buyer/buyers

  Price agreed

  DVOIT

  17 December 1993

  Trade sale

  EDS

  £5.5 million

  National Engineering Laboratory

  1 November 1995

  Trade sale

  Assessment Services Limited

  £1.95 million subject to adjustments as set out in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts which are under negotiation

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist

  31 March 1996

  Share sale

  LGC (Holdings) Limited

  Baseline price of £0.36 million, subject to adjustments, payment of £1.96 million to LGC (Teddington) Ltd. and further possible payment of £0.3 million as set out in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts

  Transport Research Laboratory

  31 March 1996

  Management buyout

  Transport Research Foundation

  £3.1 million

  Natural Resources Institute

  1 May 1996

  Transfer of ownership

  Consortium of the University of Greenwich, Edinburgh University, Imperial College and Wye College

  There was no transfer of funds, but a nominal consideration was paid by Greenwich which is subject to an adjustment

  Chessington Computer Centre

  31 July 1996

  Trade sale

  A consortium comprising and employee buyout team, Integris UK and Close Brothers

  £12.5 million £1.25 million which has been deferred until 31 December 1999

  Occupational Health and Safety Agency

  18 September 1996

  Trade sale

  BMI Health Services

  £350,000

  HMSO

  30 September 1996

  Trade sale

  National Publishing Group plc—as consortium led by Electra Flemming

  £54 million

  Recruitment and Assessment Services Agency

  30 September 1996

  Trade sale

  Capita Group plc

  £7.25 million

  Building Research Establishment

  19 March 1997

  Management buyout

  Management buyout team

  £1.7 million, subject to adjustments which are under negotiation

  642
  recommendations arising from this audit will be made public, and I will expect UKAEA to take all appropriate action.

  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the TRIGA fuel from Billingham to be reprocessed under Dounreay's contract with ICI has been delivered to Dounreay. [48035]

  Mr. Battle
  It has not been delivered. At present UKAEA are not accepting any new nuclear material onto the Dounreay site, and they will not do so until after they have satisfied their regulators.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the executive agencies sold to private buyers since the inception of the Next Steps programme indicating(a) the date of the transaction, (b) the type of transaction, (c) the name of the buyer or buyers and (d) the price agreed. [51618]

  Mr. Kilfoyles
  Eleven agencies have been wholly sold and two agencies have been part sold to private buyers since the inception of the Next Steps programme. They are as listed.
  643

  Agency name

  Date of transaction

  Type of Transaction

  Name of buyer/buyers

  Price agreed

  Paymaster

  1 April 1997

  Share sale

  EDS and Hogg Robinson PLC

  £22.81 million

  ADAS (all of ADAS's consultancy and laboratory services and all of its research and development work has been privatised)

  2 April 1997

  Management buyout

  Management and employee buyout team

  £23.5 million

  DERA (Support Services Division was privatized)

  25 April 1997

  Trade sale

  Cinven

  £74 million

SCOTLAND

  Health Service
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if health care purchasers are required to set health and safety performance standards in their contracts with NHS trusts. [51108]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Health and Safety statutory standards, which are not optional, are the responsibility of NHS Trusts and are not a matter for Health Boards.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if NHS trusts are required to include reports on their health and safety records in their annual reports. [51104]

  Mr. Galbraith
  No, but the information contained in the Annual Report is being reviewed.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many medical and nursing staff have worked in occupational health in the NHS in the last five years for which figures are available in(a) each health board and (b) Scotland; and what were the grades of those employees. [51115]

  Mr. Galbraith
  As the tables containing this information are rather lengthy, I am arranging for copies to be placed in the House Library.

  Prison Accommodation
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the certified normal accommodation for each prison in Scotland(a) in 1998 and (b) for each of the next seven years. [51405]

  Mr. McLeish
  The concept of "certified normal accommodation" is not applied in the Scottish Prison Service. However, the official design capacities for prisons in Scotland together with projections to 1 April 2001 are as set out. Projections beyond that date are not available and will be dependent on a review of capacity in the light of prisoner number forecasts and the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Projected prisoner accommodation

  July 1998 Design capacity

  1999 Design capacity

  2000 Design capacity

  2001 Design capacity

  Establishment

  Aberdeen

  148

  163

  163

  163

  Barlinnie1

  998

  1,019

  1,019

  996

  Castle Huntly

  150

  150

  150

  150

  Cornton Vale

  217

  217

  217

  217

  Dumfries

  150

  150

  150

  150

  644

  Projected prisoner accommodation

  July 1998 Design capacity

  1999 Design capacity

  2000 Design capacity

  2001 Design capacity

  Dungavel

  135

  135

  135

  135

  Edinburgh2

  558

  643

  643

  643

  Friarton

  90

  90

  90

  90

  Glenochil (Adult)

  496

  496

  496

  496

  Glenochil (YOI)

  174

  174

  174

  174

  Greenock

  233

  239

  239

  239

  Inverness

  107

  107

  109

  109

  Kilmarnock3

  0

  500

  500

  500

  Longriggend

  176

  176

  176

  176

  Low Moss

  396

  396

  396

  396

  Noranside

  135

  135

  135

  135

  Penninghame

  98

  98

  98

  98

  Perth

  434

  434

  434

  509

  Peterhead

  295

  295

  295

  295

  Peterhead Unit

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Polmont4

  490

  490

  490

  490

  Shotts

  462

  462

  462

  462

  Shotts NIC

  54

  54

  54

  54

  Shotts Unit

  12

  12

  12

  12

  Scotland Total

  6,018

  6,645

  6,647

  6,699

  1Includes 76 spaces in temporary accommodation

  2Includes 46 spaces in temporary accommodation

  3New prison opens in Spring 1999 and intake phased throughout the Summer

  4Includes 30 spaces in temporary cellular accommodation and 38 in temporary dormitory accommodation

  Ayr Road Route Compensation
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the sums of compensation paid to landowners in respect of the construction of the Ayr road route (M77). [51462]

  Mr. McLeish
  Individual sums of compensation paid to landowners are confidential and cannot be disclosed without their prior consent. In the case of M77 Ayr Road Route compensation payments for the section of the route within Glasgow City Boundary prior to 1 April 1996 were made by Strathclyde Regional Council and subsequently by Glasgow City Council. My right hon. Friend has no knowledge or records of these payments, although he is responsible for meeting the compensation payments on the section of the M77 south of the city boundary to Malletsheugh.

  Trees
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will assess the advantage of amending legislation to allow complaints relating to the height or
  645
  position of trees to be actionable in terms of the Statutory Nuisance provisions of the current Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897. [51461]

  Mr. Macdonald
  At present, there are no plans to introduce amendments to statutory nuisance legislation. Existing provisions within the statutory nuisance elements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 allow local authorities to investigate complaints about possible statutory nuisance occurring on premises, which includes land within its area. If satisfied that such nuisance exists, or is likely to occur or recur, they must serve an abatement notice on the person responsible. Any person can make a complaint to their local authority Environmental Health Department, or alternatively they may make a summary application to the sheriff court about the existence of a statutory nuisance. Although not tested at law so far as I am aware, depending on the particular circumstances of the case, it is possible that a local authority could consider a nuisance was being caused by the height of trees. However, ultimately the decision as to what constitutes a nuisance is for the courts. The statutory nuisance provisions in the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897 were repealed by the Environment Act 1995.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of payment ceilings on the take up of environmental grants in ESAs. [51532]

  Mr. Macdonald
  We have monitored the impact of payment ceilings carefully since the inception of the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme. There is no evidence that the maximum amounts which apply to payments under the Scheme have had a restrictive effect on uptake.

  Agri-environmental Programmes
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what plans he has to increase the resources available to the Countryside Premium Scheme; [51530]

  (2) if he will publish his budget allocation for agri-environmental programmes for 1998–99. [51533]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The provision for the Scottish agri-environment programme for 1998–99 is £13 million (as compared with £9.7 million in 1997–98). Of this, £5 million is allocated to the Countryside Premium Scheme (£2.5 million in 1997–98). Decisions on allocations for individual schemes within the agri-environment programme, including the Countryside Premium Scheme, post 1999 cannot be finalised until Agenda 2000 negotiations are completed. Meantime, following the Comprehensive Spending Review, spending on the agri-environment programme is planned to increase to £22 million by 2001–02.

  Prison Staff
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the staff to prisoner ratio(a) in each prison and (b) in total in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [51746]
  646
  Mr. McLeish
  The information requested is in the table.

  Staff to prisoner ratio

  Establishments

  1997–98

  1996–97

  1995–96

  Aberdeen

  1:1.2

  1:1.2

  1:1.1

  Barlinnie

  1:2

  1:2.2

  1:2.2

  Castle Huntly

  1:1.5

  1:1.5

  1:1

  Cornton Vale

  1:0.7

  1:0.8

  1:0.8

  Dumfries

  1:0.9

  1:0.9

  1:0.8

  Dungavel

  1:1.2

  1:1.2

  1:1.4

  Edinburgh

  1:1.6

  1:1.7

  1:1.5

  Friarton

  1:1.1

  1:1.3

  1:1.2

  Glenochil

  1:1.3

  1:1.3

  1:1.2

  Greenock

  1:1.4

  1:1.5

  1:1.5

  Inverness

  1:1.3

  1:1.2

  1:1.1

  Longriggend

  1:0.9

  1:0.9

  1:1

  Low Moss

  1:2.2

  1:2.2

  1:2.1

  Noranside

  1:1.7

  1:1.8

  1:1.7

  National Induction Centre1

  1:1.1

  1:1.2

  1:0.4

  Penninghame

  1:1.3

  1:1.3

  1:1.5

  Perth

  1:1.1

  1:1.1

  1:1.1

  Peterhead (including unit)

  1:0.8

  1:0.8

  1:0.8

  Polmont

  1:1.4

  1:1.5

  1:1.1

  Shotts (including unit)

  1:1.1

  1:1.1

  1:1.1

  Total

  1:1.3

  1:1.4

  1:1.3

  1The National Induction Centre opened in May 1995 and became fully operational later that year

  Rehabilitation
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prisoners completed(a) sex offender treatment programmes and (b) programmes accredited as helping rehabilitation in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [51744]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Scottish Prison Service has key performance indicators for the numbers of prisoners completing sex offender programmes and cognitive skills programmes. However, targets in this area were established only from 1996–97 onwards, and reliable figures for earlier years are not available centrally.

  The figures for 1996–97 and 1997–98 are shown in the table.

  Programme

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Sex offenders

  67

  91

  Cognitive skills

  381

  635

  Although other programmes aimed at reducing reoffending are also available, detailed information on the numbers of prisoners completing such programmes is not held centrally at present.

  Recidivism
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the recidivism rates of custodial and non-custodial sentences in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [51660]

  Mr. McLeish
  A study of recidivism rates among a sample of offenders released from custodial sentences "Predicting Recidivism in a Scottish Prison Sample" was
  647
  published in 1997. A study of life sentence prisoners has been commissioned and will include an analysis of reconvictions.

  A number of studies which aim to evaluate the impact of non-custodial disposals have been commissioned. Evaluations of two community based intervention programmes for persistent young offenders were commissioned in 1995 and will consider reconviction rates as part of the evaluation. An evaluation of pilot programmes for diversion from prosecution to social work and other services was commissioned earlier this year and will assess the effectiveness of the programmes in changing offender behaviour and reducing re-offending.

  Evaluation of effectiveness will continue to be an important part of the criminal justice research programme.

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 14 July 1998,Official Report, columns 145–46, what assessment he has made of the reasons for the increase between 1994 and 1996 of those prosecuted and charged with driving a motor vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs. [51848]

  Mr. McLeish
  No specific assessment has been made of the reasons for the increase between 1994 and 1996 in the number of prosecutions for the offence of driving a motor vehicle while unfit through drink or drugs. The increase is believed to reflect a better awareness by the police of the types of driving and behaviour displayed by drivers who are unfit through drink or drugs, leading to an increase in the number of drivers who are charged and then prosecuted.

  Chapelcross Nuclear Power Station
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what quantities of tritium were discharged from Chapelcross Nuclear Power Station in each month since January 1990. [51597]

  Mr. Macdonald
  SEPA has maintained monthly records of discharges of tritium since January 1996. That information is given in the following table, in units of radioactivity discharged per month.

  Gaseous TBq

  Aqueous TBq

  January 1996

  131.1

  0.0000

  February 1996

  118.0

  0.0064

  March 1996

  63.9

  0.0000

  April 1996

  75.1

  0.0034

  May 1996

  65.5

  0.0057

  June 1996

  76.2

  0.0090

  July 1996

  131.4

  0.0000

  August 1996

  68.3

  0.0223

  September

  117.9

  0.0052

  October 1996

  48.2

  0.0083

  November 1996

  127.6

  0.1276

  December 1996

  100.2

  0.1798

  January 1997

  46.6

  0.0176

  February 1997

  47.9

  0.0000

  March 1997

  118.1

  0.0076

  April 1997

  82.9

  0.0041

  May 1997

  62.6

  0.0000

  June 1997

  49.0

  0.0092

  July 1997

  108.7

  0.0155

  August 1997

  119.9

  0.0035

  648

  Gaseous TBq

  Aqueous TBq

  September 1997

  134.8

  0.0000

  October 1997

  111.7

  0.0115

  November 1997

  52.9

  0.0037

  December 1997

  95.7

  0.1255

  January 1998

  98.7

  0.1836

  February 1998

  67.6

  0.0000

  March 1998

  50.4

  0.0024

  April 1998

  78.7

  0.0073

  May 1998

  103.9

  0.0059

  Prior to 1996, information on discharges from Chapelcross was published by The Scottish Office in the series of Statistical Bulletins entitled "Radioactive Waste Disposals from Nuclear Sites in Scotland". The discharge information was supplied by year, although the report was not an annual publication. Copies of the reports are available in the House Library.

TREASURY

  Public Investment
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans for public investment for 1999–2000. [50499]

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the proposals relating to capital expenditure in the comprehensive spending review. [50512]

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans for public investment. [50518]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his plans for public investment for the next three years. [50520]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Investing In Britain Fund will—within the Government's tough fiscal rules—double net public investment over the lifetime of this Parliament, providing for the renewal, reform and modernisation of the public infrastructure.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the Comprehensive Spending Review and its impact on levels of public infrastructure investment. [50521]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government consulted widely during the course of the Review. The outcome of the review has underlined the Government's commitment to renew, reform and modernise the country's infrastructure through the Investing in Britain Fund which will—within the fiscal rules—double net public investment by the end of the Parliament.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met employers to discuss the implications of the current exchange rate. [50500]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Treasury Ministers receive many representations from business organisations. The Government listen carefully to all viewpoints and
  649
  experiences, and fully recognise the worries of exporters and manufacturers about the current level of the exchange rate.

  Bingham Report
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he proposes to publish the confidential parts of the Bingham report. [50501]

  Mr. Darling
  The appendices to the Bingham report contain information that was supplied in confidence. At the outset of the inquiry, Lord Bingham's invitation to submit evidence made it clear he would respect confidentiality. I do not believe we can now break that undertaking. To do so would compromise future inquiries. However, Lord Bingham did draw on all the information supplied to him when preparing his report and reaching his conclusions.

  Public Spending
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the priorities for public spending over the planning period contained in the comprehensive spending review. [50503]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government received a very wide range of views during the course of the Review and Members of the House have made their views known on many different issues. The terms of reference were made available early in the process and individual departments approached interested bodies. Extensive consultation was conducted with experts and outsiders as part of the CSR process.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the reordering of priorities for public spending as a result of the comprehensive spending review. [50508]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) today,Official Report, column 1244.

  Savings
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to encourage the growth of the level of savings. [50504]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government's economic policy is set to achieve stability and the right conditions in which individuals can save with confidence. Our plans for the Individual Savings Account (ISA) are specifically designed to develop and extend the savings habit.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy on tax relief for savings. [50509]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This Government's policy is to encourage individuals to save. We believe tax-free saving can play a part in this and we are introducing the new individual savings account for this purpose.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in support of his proposals for CAT marking of ISA financial products; and when he expects to produce his final regulations. [50514]
  650
  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury has received 143 responses to the consultation document "Making Saving Easy". The CAT standards will be finalised once those responses have been analysed.

  Dividend Tax Credits
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from charities regarding the abolition of dividend tax credits. [50506]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We know that many charities regret the effects of this reform for them. We made generous transitional arrangements for charities last year. About 250 charities have written about tax credits.

  Personal Taxation
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the simplification of personal taxation. [50507]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Income tax rates and allowances, along with other aspects of the tax system, are kept under review. Ways to simplify the system are considered as part of the review process.

  Scotch Whisky (Taxation)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has held with the Scotch whisky industry relating to the level of tax on Scotch whisky. [50510]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury met representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association on 24 February to discuss the level of duty in the run up to the Budget. Officials at Customs and Excise meet the association regularly to discuss all aspects of spirits duty.

  Public Debt
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis he has determined that a prudent level for public debt is less than 40 per cent. of gross domestic product. [50511]

  Mr. Darling
  As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has explained to the House, the Government's policy on public debt combines prudence and stability in the public finances with investment and reform in public services.

  Capital Projects (Private Finance)
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to replace public funding of capital projects in health and education with private finance. [50513]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  As we said in "Modern Public Services for Britain: Investing in Reform", the deciding factor is whether public or private investment offers the best means of securing improved public services. This is the test that my hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Education will apply when planning future capital investment for which their Departments are responsible.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take to promote capital expenditure projects. [50515]

  Mr. Darling
  The Investing in Britain Fund will—within the Government's tough fiscal rules—double net public investment over the Parliament to renew, reform and modernise the national infrastructure. This will be enhanced by the role of PFI/PPPs in providing public investment and services.

  Charities Taxation
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to complete his review of charities taxation. [50516]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Review of Charities' Taxation will be completed following a public consultation exercise, phase II of which will start later this year.

  Cross-border Savings (EU Tax)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on the European Commission's proposal for a Europe-wide withholding tax on cross-border savings. [50517]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government are in favour of international co-operation in effective action against tax evasion. However, we are determined to protect European Community financial markets against damage by provisions which might be ineffective if confined to the Community. We are holding urgent discussions with the financial sector on the likely impact of the current proposals.

  Strong Pound
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the impact of the strength of the pound on manufacturing industry. [50519]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Treasury Ministers receive many representations from business organisations. The Government listen carefully to all viewpoints and experience, and fully recognise the worries of exporters and manufacturers about the current level of the exchange rate.

  Resources (Regional Distribution)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations his Department has received on the impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review on the regional distribution of resources, with particular reference to Lincolnshire. [50522]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government consulted extensively in the course of the review. The regional distribution of resources is a matter for spending departments. But the plans announced in the outcome of the Comprehensive Review will provide investment, modernisation and reform for the whole country.

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the mis-selling of free-standing additional voluntary contributions to pension schemes. [50523]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have received one representation.

  Design, Technology and Innovation Investment
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what incentives he is assessing to stimulate investment in design, technology and innovation. [50524]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The Government issued a consultative document "Innovating for the Future" on Budget Day, which sought views from business and others on ways of improving the UK record on R&D and innovation.

  The Government are currently considering responses to the consultation document as part of their wider review of R&D.

  Inland Revenue Offices
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the provision of Inland Revenue offices in remote rural locations. [50525]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Inland Revenue is looking at the way it organises its work following the outcome of its Strategic Review, which Ministers recently approved as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. The Department generally expects to maintain a presence in those locations where it is currently represented.

  Taxation (Investment Income)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to allow non-tax payers, of all ages, to continue to be able to reclaim a 10 per cent. tax credit on investment income from April 1999. [51575]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: As I said at the Report stage of the Finance Bill I was sympathetic to the case of non-taxpayers who will be affected by the withdrawal of payable tax credits from 6 April 1999, and I have the matter under review. That remains the position.

  ICL Pathway Project
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 9 July 1998,Official Report, column 570, if the Government are assessing alternative options to the ICL Pathway Project. [51497]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: The ICL Pathway project is designed to introduce a modern method of benefit payment over post office counters, reducing fraud and improving efficiency. The Government are fully committed to achieving these objectives.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future of the ICL Pathway Project. [51491]
  653
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 9 July 1998, Official Report, column 570.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 9 July 1998,Official Report, column 570, what representations he has received on the progress of the ICL Pathway Project. [51490]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: The Treasury has received no representations on the progress of this project other than through discussions with the parties involved.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 9 July 1998,Official Report, column 570, which outside consultants the Government have employed to assist in the monitoring of the ICL Pathway Project. [51498]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: The Government have employed consultants with expertise in IT project management to assist in the monitoring of the ICL Pathway project.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register, how many vehicles are currently (i) owned and (ii) leased; if he will indicate their (A) fuel types and (B) engine cubic capacities; and how many vehicles are expected to fall due for replacement in each of the years (1) 1998–99, (2) 1999–2000 and (3) 2000–01. [49235]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The information is as follows:

  (a) Vehicles owned or leased by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments

  Cubic capacity

  Fuel type

  Number

  (i) Owned

  less than 1000cc

  Petrol

  3

  1000cc to 2000cc

  Petrol

  2,331

  2001cc to 3000cc

  Petrol

  64

  3001cc to 4000cc

  Petrol

  10

  Over 4001cc

  Petrol

  2

  less than 1000cc

  Diesel

  3

  1000cc to 2000cc

  Diesel

  997

  2001cc to 3000cc

  Diesel

  179

  3001cc to 4000cc

  Diesel

  2

  Over 4001cc

  Diesel

  1

  Total

  3,592

  (ii) Leased

  Currently the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments do not lease any vehicles

  (b) Bodies listed in the National Asset Register The Bank of England; National Savings

  Cubic capacity

  Fuel type

  Number

  (i) Owned

  1000cc to 2000cc

  Petrol

  2

  2001cc to 3000cc

  Petrol

  5

  3001cc to 4000cc

  Petrol

  2

  654

  (b) Bodies listed in the National Asset Register The Bank of England; National Savings

  Cubic capacity

  Fuel type

  Number

  1000cc to 2000cc

  Diesel

  1

  2001cc to 3000cc

  Diesel

  5

  250bhp

  Diesel

  5

  Total

  20

  (ii) Leased

  1000cc to 2000cc

  Petrol

  3

  2001cc to 3000cc

  Petrol

  1

  Total

  4

  The total number of vehicles currently utilised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments is 3,616

  Vehicles falling due for replacement

  Year

  Number

  1998–99

  941

  1999–2000

  944

  2000–01

  955

  Bank of England, Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 July 1998,Official Report, column 61, on the Bank of England, what is the length of the lease and the amount of passing rent expressed in £ per square foot per annum for the Bank of England Office for Wales. [51231]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]: The Bank of England has a 15 year lease on the offices at Scott Harbour, Cardiff Bay. The passing rent is £16.50 per sq ft per annum.

  Disabled Persons Tax Credit
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the planned entitlement criteria for the disabled persons tax credit; [51983]

  (2) how his Department plans to structure review and appeals procedures under the disabled persons tax credit; [51978]

  (3) how changes of circumstance affecting the claimants eligibility will be accounted for in the administration of the disabled persons tax credit; [51985]

  (4) how much money his Department plans to invest in information campaigns for the disabled persons tax credit; and how information campaigns will be targeted; [51991]

  (5) if the capital owned by (a) the disabled claimant and (b) their partner will be taken into account for the purposes of calculating the disabled persons tax credit; [51986]

  (6) what measures his Department is taking to ensure the disabled persons tax credit functions as an incentive to move from out of work benefits into work; [51984]

  (7) what anti-fraud strategies are being assessed in the design of the disabled persons tax credit; [51987]

  (8) if the disabled persons tax credit will be directly accessible for people moving from (a) the New Deal for Sick and Disabled people and (b) incapacity benefit; [51982]
  655
  (9) how the Department plans to ensure the confidentiality of applicants for the disabled persons tax credit with respect to their employers; [51980]

  (10) what consultation has taken place between his Department and disability organisations regarding the disabled persons tax credit; [51981]

  (11) if the passporting features of disability working allowance on to other benefits, are planned to be retained under the disabled persons tax credit; [51979]

  (12) if the income of claimants' partners will be considered for the purposes of calculating the disabled persons tax credit. [51988]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply he received from the Financial Secretary on 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 650.

  Indirect Taxation
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 14 July 1998,Official Report, columns 135–36, on indirect taxation, if he will provide forecasts for (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99. [51728]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Forecasts of tax receipts, including indirect taxes, in 1997–98 and 1998–99 were published in Table B9 of the March 1998 "Financial Statement and Budget Report". However, forecasts of indirect taxes paid per person derived from these figures will not be fully consistent with those given to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire, (Mr. Barnes) by the Director of the Office for National Statistics on 14 July 1998,Official Report, columns 135–36, which were based on data from the Family Expenditure Survey.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated number of(a) men and (b) women working in the Greater London area who will benefit from the proposed national minimum wage. [51649]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 23 July 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the proposed national minimum wage.
  The proposed national minimum wage (NMW) which is due to come into effect in April 1999 has been set at £3.60 per hour for workers aged over 21. A development rate of £3.00 per hour has been proposed for those aged 18 to 21. Workers aged 16 to 17 and all those on apprenticeships will be exempt.
  Estimates of the number of employees below the NMW thresholds have been based upon the results of the Spring 1997 Labour Force Survey (LFS) and the April 1997 New Earnings Survey which are currently the latest available sources, and have used the methodology described in David Wilkinson's article in the May 1998 issue of Labour Market Trends. Copies of Labour Market Trends are available in the House of Commons Library.
  The estimated numbers of men and women in the Greater London area who earn less than the proposed NMW are set out in the following table. To reflect the uncertainty, the estimates are expressed in the form of a range, based on the sampling errors associated with the surveys from which the estimates have ben derived. In order to ensure comparability with the proposed NMW
  656
  rates which would come into force in April 1999 the analysis in the table is based upon hourly rates of £2.80 and £3.40 which use the Low Pay Commission's methodology to take into account inflation between April 1997 and April 1999.

  Estimates of number of employees aged 18 to 21 earning below £2.80 and employees aged over 21 earning below £3.40 in Greater London in April 1997

  Lower estimate

  Upper estimate

  Males

  51,000

  85,000

  Females

  57,000

  74,000

  The above estimates do not take into account workers aged over 21 who whilst receiving accredited training during the first six months of a new job with a new employer would under NMW proposals be entitled to a rate of £3.20 per hour in April 1999.

  Death Certificates
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue guidance on the consistent completion of death certificates, when the death occurred in hospital, in respect of the contributory and principal causes of death. [49899]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 23 July 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on guidance on the consistent completion of death certificates, when the death occurred in hospital, in respect of the contributory and principal causes of death.
  The ONS places great importance on the quality of the information collected through the deaths registration system and constantly seeks to ensure that this remains fit for purpose, reliable and authoritative.
  Guidance notes on completion are contained in every book of death certificates. This meets the legal obligations for the inclusion of such instruction and the recommendations of the World Health Organisation. These notes were last updated in 1997.
  In July 1997, the Deputy Chief Medical Statistician wrote to all consultants and principals in general practice reminding them of the need to certify deaths promptly and accurately, to refer deaths to the coroner for further investigation where appropriate, and also to remind them of the existence of the guidance notes in each booklet of death certificates.
  The ONS recently produced a video and reading material entitled "Deaths counts", aimed at medical students and doctors, to teach them how to complete the death certificates, including the legal obligations on doctors and registrars. These have been sent to all medical schools and post-graduate deans in England and Wales.

  National Savings
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the interaction between possible private sector involvement in National Savings' operational services and changes to its financial products. [51809]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of National Savings. I have asked him to reply.
  657
  Letter from Peter Bareau to Mr. Gordon Marsden, dated 23 July 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question 51809 about the assessment that has been made of the interaction between possible private sector involvement in National Savings' Operational Services and changes to its financial products.
  The Invitation to Negotiate issued to the bidders specified the requirement that they should provide the flexibility to introduce new products quickly and economically. Their response to this request will be a key element of the evaluation of proposals.
  While EDS and Siemens have been invited to bid for their administration, any change to the design of savings products would remain the responsibility of National Savings, which will continue to be a Government Agency.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  TECs
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made on the review of training and enterprise councils in England. [52421]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government issued a consultation document on 9 July 1998 on the future role of TECs/CCTEs in meeting our strategic objectives. Copies of the document have been circulated widely to the many organisations and individuals with whom TECs work at local, regional, national and sectoral level. We have asked for comments by 30 September so that we can take them into account before issuing new Strategic Guidance for TECs in the Autumn. Copies of the consultation document have also been placed in the Library and sent to all Members.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Employment Service Annual Report and Accounts for 1997–98 will be laid before Parliament. [52420]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have today laid before the House the Employment Service's Annual Report and Accounts for 1997–98 which give full details of the Agency's performance and expenditure for that year.

  The Annual Report notes the very significant achievements of the Employment Service in 1997–98. In particular, the Employment Service prepared for and launched the Government's New Deal for young unemployed people in twelve pathfinder areas within some 160 working days of the Government taking office. Subsequently it has successfully launched nationally the New Deal programmes for both young and long-term unemployed people. This has involved the Employment Service working in partnership with a wide range of public, voluntary and private sector organisations to make the best possible help available to our young people.

  The Agency has also played a key role in implementing the Government's wider Welfare to Work agenda involving Employment Zones, the New Deal for lone parents, and the New Deal for disabled people, all of which have started, or are due to start, this year.
  658
  At the same time, the Report notes that the Employment Service maintained its existing services and helped many people to find work. In 1997–98 the Employment Service handled 2.7 million job vacancies and placed nearly 1.4 million unemployed people into work, including some 300,000 people who had been unemployed for more than six months, and 83,000 people with disabilities.

  Although the Employment Service did not succeed in meeting all of its targets for the number of unemployed people placed into jobs, its performance should be seen in the context of rapidly falling unemployment over the year and the action the Employment Service has taken to ensure that job placings are recorded strictly in accordance with its procedures. I have underlined to the Employment Service the importance, in the current year, of improved performance against targets, successful implementation of the New Deal programmes and continued rigour on the accurate recording of job placings, building on the action taken which has reduced the scale of this problem very substantially over the past year.

  Overall, 1997–98 was a highly successful year for the Employment Service. I am also particularly pleased that, by the end of 1997–98, overall customer service results were at record levels. As the Chief Executive points out in his Report, none of this would have been possible without the quite remarkable effort and commitment from people throughout the Employment Service. I too am very grateful to them.

  Scottish Fee Support Review Committee
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to announce the Chairman of the Scottish Fee Support Review Committee to be established under the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. [52543]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I and my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Northern Ireland and for Wales are pleased to confirm that Sir George Quigley has agreed to chair the independent committee to be set up under Section 25(4) of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 to review financial support for fees for students in the final honours year of first degree courses at Scottish institutions. Other members will be announced at a later date.

  New Deal
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many New Deal clients have taken up voluntary sector placements or work on the environmental task force in Cornwall; [51816]

  (2) how many New Deal clients have gone into full-time training or education in Cornwall; [51817]

  (3) how many (a) subsidised and (b) unsubsidised jobs have been offered by employers to the Employment Service for the New Deal in Cornwall. [51818]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government Statistical Service figures for clients leaving Gateway to go into jobs show that, to the end of May 1998, 233 young people have gone into unsubsidised employment and 192 into subsidised jobs.
  659
  To the end of May 1998, 65 New Deal clients have started the Full-Time Education and Training (FTET) Option, 28 have started the Environment Task Force (ETF) Option, and 41 have started the Voluntary Sector (VS) Option.

  Smoking (School Education)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been his Department's expenditure on school education on the dangers of smoking during the last 12 months. [51867]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The dangers of smoking form a vital part of education about drugs. We have made increased support of £7 million available to LEAs this financial year, through the Standards Fund programme, to assist primary and secondary schools and the youth service to deliver effective education about drugs. This builds on the £6 million of support which has been made available each year since 1995–96 through the Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST) programme to fund LEA's drug education initiatives, including teacher training and innovative projects.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the selection of candidates for training as millennium bug busters; who is responsible for their training; what is the standard and qualification they will obtain; and how they will be matched to job opportunities. [51858]

  Dr. Howells
  Employers participating in the Millennium Bug Training initiative will select which of their employees to put forward for training. The training is delivered through providers, and to specific standards, that have been approved by the Information Technology National Training Organisation (IT NTO). Certificates that contribute to national and industry recognised qualifications will be issued upon successful completion of the course.

  Internet (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects all children in Gloucestershire schools to have ready access to the Internet; and if he will make a statement. [50068]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government's consultation paper 'Connecting the Learning Society' set out a target date of 2002 for the connection of all schools, colleges, universities and libraries and as many community centres as possible to be connected to the National Grid for Learning via the Internet.

  The Department is supporting £750,000 of ICT-related expenditure in Gloucestershire in 1998–99 through Standards Fund Grant for the National Grid for Learning. The grant is to support networking and infrastructure, and is funded equally by the Department and the relevant local education authority.

  Key Stage 1
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools did not submit results of Key Stage 1 tests for moderation in 1997. [40942]
  660
  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 7 July 1998]: 92 maintained mainstream schools did not submit 1997 Key Stage 1 National Curriculum Assessment results. The number of schools not submitting results is falling year on year, and the 1997 figure is less than half that for 1996. The corresponding figures for 1995 and 1996, are 401 and 189 respectively. It is not possible to determine the number of special schools who did not submit results, as it is impossible to differentiate between those schools whose pupils were all disapplied from the National Curriculum Assessments, and therefore had no results to return, and those schools who chose not to return results. Participation by independent schools in the National Curriculum Assessment tests is voluntary and, therefore, they have not been included in this analysis.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  School Sports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many schools in England play(a) cricket and (b) rugby league. [51293]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]Neither this Department nor the Department for Education and Employment collects this kind of information.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what amount of EU funding has been used for tourism information technology initiatives in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [51544]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The figure is not available in the form requested. However, £31 million of European Regional Development Funding (ERDF) is available in the current year for DCMS policy areas, of which tourism is the main beneficiary.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what advice his Department gives to(a) tourist boards and (b) tourist information centres who wish to set up compatible computerised booking systems. [51555]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  DCMS sponsors the English Tourist Board (ETB) which has established a Tourism Technology Forum. The Forum comprises representatives of public and private destination marketing organisations as well as commercial systems developers and is looking at issues concerning compatibility and information exchange.

  The ETB has appointed a Tourism Technology Co-ordinator to provide impartial advice to Tourist Information Centre Managers about the availability of systems and has produced a report, analysing the functions and costs of existing systems.

  The Tourism Technology Forum has established a working group and is investigating the commercial viability of reservation systems. A planned Tourist Boards
  661
  Intranet is currently under development and should be completed shortly, through which information and experience of booking systems will be shared.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the number of local tourist information centres which provide web pages for their area on the Internet. [51554]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  None. However, the English Tourist Board, in collaboration with the Local Government Association and the Tourism Management Institute, has recently surveyed all Tourist Information Centres (TICs) and Local Authority Tourism Departments to establish the extent to which new technology is being used in the promotion and management of tourism destinations. 55 per cent. of TIC respondents and 50 per cent. of local authority respondents indicated they had a website.

  BBC Archives
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to encourage the BBC to allow increased access by academics and other scholars to the BBC's archive material. [51648]

  Mr. Fisher
  The obligations placed on the BBC in respect of its archives are set out in the Royal Charter and Agreement. These include broad requirements to establish and maintain archives containing material relevant to the objects of the Corporation, and to make reasonable arrangements for public access to the archives, with or without charge. How the BBC chooses to meet these obligations is a matter for the Corporation itself.

  Grants and Awards (Wakefield)
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the grants and awards that require bids from applicants which his Department is responsible for administering and awarding(a) nationally and (b) that people and groups within Wakefield Metropolitan District are eligible to bid for; if he will publish the deadlines for these applications; and if he will produce this list on a regular basis. [51269]

  Mr. Fisher
  The only grants of this type which we administer are the Museums Challenge Fund, set up to assist the national museums and galleries in England which currently offer free access to continue to do so; the DCMS/Wolfson Foundation Public Libraries Challenge Fund, available to all local authorities in England and with a deadline for 1998–99 of 12 June 1998; and the Heritage Grant Fund in England.

  Grants from the Heritage Grant Fund are normally restricted to national voluntary organisations or to voluntary bodies undertaking projects of national significance.

  Exceptionally, local organisations may be awarded a grant for projects which are particularly innovative and may be used as an exemplar. This year's scheme is likely to have a deadline of the end of September. Individual grant schemes receive wide publicity, and we have no plans to produce a list of this sort on a regular basis.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Correspondence
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters per day her 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. [50689]

  Mr. Field
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 20 July 1998,Official report, column 363.

  The correspondence section attached to Minsters' offices, which has 14 staff, receives all correspondence and seeks advice from officials, including those in the Policy Correspondence Unit which had 38 staff at 1 June 1998. Other units and officials elsewhere in the Department also deal with correspondence as part of their normal duties.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to review the assessment procedure determining eligibility for incapacity benefit. [51411]

  Mr. Denham
  We have made clear our intention to reform Incapacity Benefit for future claimants, to develop a more effective test which assesses what sick and disabled people are able to do, and not just what they cannot do. The information which a new test would provide on people's capacity could then be used to give them the help they need to improve their employability and return to work.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to introduce a disabled persons tax credit disregard in the assessment of means-tested social security benefits. [51989]

  Mr. Denham
  The Disabled Persons Tax Credit will replace Disability Working Allowance from October 1999.

  There is no disregard of payments of Disability Working Allowance when assessing eligibility for other income-related benefits. To do so would duplicate payments from public funds for the same purpose. There are no plans to change this policy.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if confirmation has been given to all successful organisations that bid to execute pilot projects under the New Deal for sick and disabled people. [51990]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Social Security, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced the ten successful bidders for the first tranche of Innovative Schemes funded under the New Deal for Disabled People on 16 July. The schemes are as follows: Leonard Cheshire Workability; Centrica North West Project; Status Employment Ltd; Back to Work proposed by Libra Health Ltd; Manchester Mental Health in Employment Project proposed by Manchester TEC;
  663
  West of England Centre for Integrated Living; Disability Business Partnerships proposed by RNIB; Urban World proposed by Grimsby College; Integration for Opportunity—Jobs4All proposed by Thurso College; and Gateway Partnerships proposed by Disability Matters Ltd.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Aylesbury will receive a substantive reply from the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency to the letter of 7 May to the Dudley CSA office about case reference 1008385662; and if she will make a statement. [50873]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. David Lidington, dated 22 July 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about your letter of 7th May (case reference 1008385662) to the Child Support Agency Business Unit Manager in Dudley.
  The Agency aim to respond to letters from Members of Parliament within 20 working days. I am afraid this did not happen in this case and I apologise for this.
  In this particular case, information needed to be sought from the non-resident parent's employer, and a written agreement regarding the arrears of child support maintenance needed to be obtained from the parent with care before a full response could be made. While investigations were being made the Midland Business Unit Manager sent two interim replies explaining that investigations were still being made. A full response to your letter was made on 14 July.

  Benefits Agency
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what guidance she plans to issue to the Benefits Agency on its forthcoming obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to produce generic benefits information and information on individual benefits in a range of formats which blind and partially sighted people can access; [50923]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the difficulties which blind and partially sighted people have in obtaining access to information on benefits. [51023]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for its Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Rev. Martin Smyth, dated 22 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what guidance she plans to issue to the Benefits Agency (BA) on its forthcoming obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to produce generic benefits information and information on individual benefits in a range of formats which blind and partially sighted people can access; and what assessment she has made of the difficulties which blind and partially-sighted people have in obtaining access to information on benefits.
  The BA is currently overhauling its leaflet programme to improve the standard of information that we provide for all our customers by simplifying the range of materials and focusing it entirely to the customers' needs. To continue equal access to the social security system, the Agency plans to produce the new material for various customer groups in large print, audio cassette and Braille.
  664
  The BA regularly conducts formal customer research and consults with customer representative organisations about their information needs. We have also looked at the benefit information needs of blind and partially sighted people as part of the customer research for Project Access, which aims to simplify the range of materials we provide for customers.
  The research explored how information should be provided, to whom it should be targeted and how it should be distributed.
  Consultation with customer representative organisations for various groups, including blind and partially sighted people, has also been part of the research process. Products are being developed in response to their feedback.
  The policy of Project Access will ensure that existing products will not be withdrawn until we are confident that the new information in alternative formats replaces them in an acceptable way for the various groups.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the additional annual cost of administering a one-off winter fuel payment. [51822]

  Mr. Denham
  Winter Fuel Payments are one of a number of initiatives the Government have taken to help vulnerable people, especially the elderly, keep warm in the winter. A total of £400 million was committed for two years (1997–98 and 1998–99), to help pensioners with fuel bills to pay.

  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the House on 17 July 1998, Official Report, column 704, a further £0.5 billion has been allocated to extend the scheme beyond next winter. This will provide each eligible pensioner household with a £20 winter fuel payment.

  The administration of winter fuel payments is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Rendel, dated 22 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what is the additional annual cost of administering a one-off Winter Fuel Payment.
  Last winter, Winter Fuel Payments were made to almost ten million eligible pensioners. The total administration cost of the exercise was in the region of £20 million. The annual average cost of making each payment was approximately £2.
  I hope that this is helpful.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Environmental Performance (Small Businesses)
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to improve the environmental performance of small business. [52005]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are to revamp their support to small businesses to help them improve their energy efficiency and environmental performance. The Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme has an established reputation for helping businesses to improve their energy efficiency. The Programme is currently stimulating savings of around £500m each year across the
  665
  economy. We now want to make the benefits of this programme more readily available to small and medium sized businesses by building up a network of locally based consultants who will be accessed through a freephone hotline.

  These new arrangements, which replace the smaller SCEEMAS programme which has had a very disappointing take-up, will be developed jointly with the Government Offices in the Regions and with local businesses and business support agencies at a cost of some £2m p.a.

  Businesses value authoritative advice that takes account of local needs and the EEBPP will also look at ways of working with Government Offices and local providers of advice to establish a more coherent programme of local support, providing small businesses with access to a greater range of local specialist advice services. The existing EEBPP energy helpline is to be improved to help small businesses access the information on energy efficiency they need. This will include the introduction of a new freephone helpline.

  The new arrangements will help bring energy efficiency advice on to the same footing as that delivered through the successful helpline and consultancy advice service run via the joint DTI/DETR Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme. When a small business wants to go green, it is important that the Government are there to help. This is part of our continuing efforts to rationalise the Government's support to businesses on energy and environmental performance via the Government Offices of the Regions and other organisations such as the Energy Saving Trust, Business Links, Training Enterprise Councils and local authorities, in providing a more effective support.

  For this reason we are going to phase out SCEEMAS grants as from 31 August 1998, which will be the deadline for all first time applications, and to terminate the scheme at the end of January 1999, the deadline for all claims. The resources from SCEEMAS will be diverted to contribute to the development of a coordinated network of energy efficiency advice underpinned by the EEBPP and designed to be complementary with other local providers.

  Table to show annual targets for 1998–99 and performance figures for 1997–98 for the disposal of Government empty homes

  Home Office

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Ministry of Defence

  Total stock at 1 April 1998

  3,189

  2,473

  64,238

  Total empty stock at 1 April 1997

  268

  690

  13,142

  Total empty stock at 1 April 1998

  217

  692

  13,225

  Target for % empty at 1 April 1998

  Less than 5

  Less than 18%

  To dispose of 1,000 empty homes

  Achievement against target

  6.8%

  28%

  1,562

  Target for % empty at 1 April 1999

  Less than 5

  Less than 18%

  To dispose of 1,200 empty homes

  Target for % habitable homes empty more than 6 months at 1 April 1998

  Less than 1

  Less than 9

  —

  Achievement against target

  1.2% (37)

  10.5% (262)

  —

  666
  Further details of the developments to the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme, including the pilot phase of the new service to SMEs, are to be announced separately.

  Empty Government Homes
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how his Department, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence performed against last year's targets for reducing empty Government homes; and what new targets have been set for 1998–99. [52611]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Details of achievement against targets for 1997–98, and new targets for 1998–99 are listed.

  I am disappointed to have to report that, despite considerable effort on the part of my Department, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office, the overall number of empty homes held by the Government has shown a small rise between 1 April 1997 and 1 April 1998. This does, however, mask a 19 per cent. fall in the number of empty homes held by the Home Office and the success of the Ministry of Defence in exceeding its target over the period. Both my Department and the Ministry of Defence have faced difficulties in responding to need with uncertainties over the Strategic Defence Review and the ongoing review of road schemes. In the case of the Highways Agency up to 50 per cent. of its vacant properties were in the process of being sold when the figures were collected.

  We are concerned by the number of properties that remain vacant—we simply cannot afford to have substantial numbers of Government-owned homes lying empty and we will be working closely with colleagues to ensure that the targets set for the next year are met. These targets for 1 April 1999 all represent a significant improvement over last year's achievements and reflect realistic opportunities for reducing the numbers of vacant properties.

  Departments continue to liaise with the Empty Homes Agency and other interested parties to investigate ways of bringing properties back into productive housing use and I hope next year's figures will reflect our continued efforts to improve the Government's own record.
  667

  Table to show annual targets for 1998–99 and performance figures for 1997–98 for the disposal of Government empty homes

  Home Office

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Ministry of Defence

  Target for % habitable homes empty for more than 6, months at a April 1999

  Less than 1

  Less than 7%

  —

  Action being taken to dispose of homes empty more than 6 months

  26 Prison Quarters properties retained on security grounds and for chaplains; 5 on the market; 2 have serious repair problems; 1 now available following police operation; 1 adjoins an operational police office; 1 is to be offered to a housing association for short-term let; and 1 is in need of renovation.

  203 properties either in process of being marketed for sales or sales agreed and proceeding towards completion; 3 due for auction, 7 sales deferred to assess development potential; and 49 being let through managing agents.

  —

  Note:

  Properties that are "habitable" include all properties except:

  a) derelict properties that await demolition (eg to make way for road schemes)

  b) those that are expected to be demolished in the near future where the expenditure required to make them habitable would be disproportionate to their expected life (eg where substantial investment would be required to connect essential services such as water, sewage or electricity)

  c) those that cannot be made accessible (eg due to adjacent construction works)

  Fishing Vessel Accidents
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the consultation paper on fishing vessel accidents and the recovery of those lost at sea; and if he will make a statement. [52419]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am publishing the Consultation Paper today. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House and it will be distributed widely to representatives in the fishing industry, and to others who have written to Ministers on this subject. The consultation period will extend to 31 October and the Government will announce the results by the end of the year.

  Ordnance Survey
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review was for the Ordnance Survey. [52367]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The resources that have been made available to Ordnance Survey for the three year Comprehensive Spending Review period are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1999–2000

  23

  2000–2001

  19

  2001–2002

  18

  These resources reflect this Government's recognition that a significant part of Ordnance Survey's work is vital to the national interest, rather than simply commercial in nature. To this end, a National Interest in Mapping Service Level Agreement (NIMSA) is being negotiated between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, as customer, and Ordnance Survey, as supplier. It is intended that the agreement will commence on 1 April 1999. NIMSA will comprise a set of explicit targets and Ordnance Survey's performance against these will be monitored annually.
  668
  In addition to resources for NIMSA, resources are also available for other investment required by Ordnance Survey.

  Special Waste Regulations
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) of 2 April 1998,Official Report, columns 601–02, how many responses have been received to the consultation exercise for amending the Special Waste Regulations 1996 and Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. [52282]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department received 53 direct responses. The Scottish Office received a further 30 responses and the Welsh Office two. I am depositing a list of those who responded in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies of the letters will be placed in the relevant Departmental Library. I will issue a response once a full analysis has been undertaken.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Mike Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the Government's proposals for the payment of board members of the new regional development agencies. [52281]

  Mr. Caborn
  As we stated in our White Paper "Building Partnerships for Prosperity" we propose that all Regional Development Agency board members be paid. The Regional Development Agencies Bill currently before Parliament provides for remuneration of board members to be determined by the Secretary of State. Subject to Parliamentary approval of this provision, we propose to pay the chair of each Agency a notional full time rate of £100,000 per year—this would amount to £44,000 for two days per week. We propose to pay the deputy chair a notional full time rate of £70,000—this would amount to £14,000 for one day per week. Other board members will be paid at the rate of £7,000 per year for two days per month. These payments are in line with those made to members of similar Non Departmental Public Bodies.

  Speed Trap Detectors
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he has to prevent the advertising for sale of equipment designed (i) to warn of speed traps and (ii) to adjust odometers. [51183]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. The Advertising Standards Authority and the Independent Television Commission are responsible for preserving advertising standards. My noble Friend the Minister for Roads has referred objectionable advertisements to the ASA and has been successful in having them withdrawn.

  Grants and Awards (Wakefield)
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the grants and awards that require bids from applicants which his Department is responsible for administering and awarding(a) nationally and (b) that people and groups within Wakefield Metropolitan District are eligible to bid for; if he will publish the deadlines for these applications; and if he will produce this list on a regular basis. [51274]

  Angela Eagle
  The principal programme currently administered by my Department which requires bids from applicants in the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB). The announcement on the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) explained that there would be new rounds of the SRB. Partnerships in England will be eligible to bid, including those in the Wakefield Metropolitan District. An announcement on future bidding arrangements, and hence the deadline for applications, will be made shortly.

  In addition, the announcement on the outcome of the CSR, 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 187–94, referred to the New Deal for Communities which will

  Moving annual average performance

  TOC

  Charter service group

  P13 1992–93%

  P13 1997–98%

  Variance positive/(negative)%

  Anglia Railway (UK) Ltd.

  East Suffolk

  —

  95.2

  n/a

  Anglia Railway (UK) Ltd.

  Felixstowe

  —

  87.7

  n/a

  Anglia Railway (UK) Ltd.

  Great Yarmouth

  —

  97.8

  n/a

  Anglia Railway (UK) Ltd.

  Intercity Anglia

  85.0

  95.6

  10.8

  Anglia Railway (UK) Ltd.

  Lowestoft

  —

  97.8

  n/a

  Anglia Railway (UK) Ltd.

  Peterborough/Cambridge

  —

  95.4

  n/a

  Anglia Railway (UK) Ltd.

  Sheringham

  —

  97.3

  n/a

  Great Eastern Railways Ltd.

  Great Eastern

  92.6

  95.0

  2.4

  LTS Rail Ltd.

  London Tilbury & Southend

  90.4

  93.1

  2.7

  West Anglia and Great Northern Railways Ltd.

  Great Northern

  92.1

  92.1

  (0.0)

  West Anglia and Great Northern Railways Ltd.

  West Anglia

  —

  96.4

  n/a

  Cardiff Railway Co. Ltd.

  Cardiff Valleys

  90.9

  90.3

  (0.8)

  Great Western Trains Ltd.

  Great Western

  86.7

  78.8

  (7.9)

  Wales & West

  Cornwall

  96.9

  85.2

  (1.7)

  Wales & West

  Devon

  87.8

  94.7

  6.9

  Wales & West

  South Cotswolds

  90.6

  93.0

  2.4

  Wales & West

  West & Central Wales

  94.4

  94.4

  (0.0)

  Wales & West

  Western Express

  89.9

  92.0

  2.1

  Wales & West

  Avon

  86.8

  84.1

  (2.7)

  Thames Trains Ltd.

  Thames

  —

  86.1

  n/a

  GNE Railways Ltd.

  East Coast

  88.0

  92.0

  4.0

  Northern Spirit

  Northern Long

  93.9

  97.2

  3.3

  Northern Spirit

  South Yorks & Humberside Long

  89.4

  95.8

  6.4

  Northern Spirit

  South Yorks & Humberside Short

  87.8

  94.6

  6.8

  Northern Spirit

  Transpennine

  91.1

  93.0

  1.9

  Northern Spirit

  West Yorkshire Long

  93.7

  92.1

  (1.6)

  670
  offer intensive help to the most deprived neighbourhoods, focusing on enhancing economic and employment opportunities, improving the quality of life and offering better neighbourhood management. The detailed arrangements for the New Deal for Communities have yet to be announced.

  Details of any bidding rounds for grants would be published at the appropriate time.

  Railway Targets
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the rail routes on which the achievement of target journey times deteriorated substantially between 1993 and 1998. [51372]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The table shows the percentage of scheduled trains arriving on time comparing the annual average performance for 1992–93 with the annual average performance in 1997–98, where information is available. For 12 route groups average performance in 1997–98 was worse than in 1992–93; for 35 route groups it was better. 18 route groups have changed or been created since the end of 1992–93 and therefore no comparison can be made.

  A train is deemed on time if it arrives within a specified period of the scheduled arrival time. In respect of the former InterCity and long distance Regional services this is 9 minutes 59 seconds; in respect of the former Network SouthEast and short distance Regional services this is 4 minute 59 seconds; and in respect of Scottish sleeper services this is 30 minutes. Prior to April 1995 on time was defined as within 10 minutes 59 seconds of the scheduled arrival time for the former InterCity and long distance Regional Services, and within 5 minutes and 59 seconds of scheduled arrival time for the former Network SouthEast and short distance Regional services. Certain services may be excluded from the calculations.
  671

  Moving annual average performance

  TOC

  Charter service group

  P13 1992–93%

  P13 1997–98%

  Variance positive/(negative)%

  Northern Spirit

  West Yorkshire Short

  92.8

  95.6

  2.8

  Central Trains Ltd.

  East Midlands & Lincs

  90.0

  97.0

  7.0

  Central Trains Ltd.

  Inter Urban

  79.8

  93.0

  13.2

  Central Trains Ltd.

  Mid Wales & Marches

  88.8

  94.9

  6.1

  Cross Country Trains Ltd.

  Cross Country

  81.3

  86.8

  5.5

  InterCity West Coast Ltd.

  West Coast

  82.5

  83.4

  0.9

  Midland Main Line Ltd.

  Midland Mainline

  88.6

  92.1

  3.5

  Silverlink Train Services Ltd.

  North London Orbital

  90.0

  94.3

  4.3

  Silverlink Train Services Ltd.

  Northampton Lines

  90.7

  93.7

  3.0

  Silverlink Train Services Ltd.

  Watford Locals

  95.6

  93.9

  (1.7)

  The Chiltern Railway Co. Ltd.

  Chiltern

  93.5

  86.8

  6.9

  Merseyrail Electrics Ltd.

  Northern Lines

  —

  93.7

  n/a

  Merseyrail Electrics Ltd.

  Wirral Lines

  —

  96.5

  n/a

  North Western Trains Ltd.

  Long Distance

  —

  95.8

  n/a

  North Western Trains Ltd.

  Manchester North

  —

  91.6

  n/a

  North Western Trains Ltd.

  Lancs & Cumbria

  —

  95.1

  n/a

  North Western Trains Ltd.

  Manchester South

  —

  94.1

  n/a

  North Western Trains Ltd.

  Inter-Urban North West Express

  —

  91.1

  n/a

  North Western Trains Ltd.

  Merseyrail City Lines

  —

  97.2

  n/a

  North Western Trains Ltd.

  Inter-Urban North Wales

  91.7

  95.1

  3.4

  North Western Trains Ltd.

  North Wales Rural

  92.8

  91.7

  (1.1)

  Scotrail Railways Ltd.

  ScotRail Central

  93.5

  97.2

  3.7

  Scotrail Railways Ltd.

  ScotRail East

  92.3

  96.6

  4.3

  Scotrail Railways Ltd.

  Scotrail Express

  92.9

  98.3

  5.4

  Scotrail Railways Ltd.

  Scotrail Highland

  89.8

  97.6

  7.8

  Scotrail Railways Ltd.

  Scotrail South-West

  95.9

  96.6

  0.7

  Scotrail Railways Ltd.

  Sleepers

  —

  91.5

  n/a

  Scotrail Railways Ltd.

  Strathclyde PTE

  94.1

  97.0

  2.9

  Connex South Central Ltd.

  South London Lines

  88.6

  93.9

  5.4

  Connex South Central Ltd.

  Sussex Coast

  86.3

  90.2

  3.9

  Connex South East Ltd.

  Kent Coast

  78.0

  90.9

  12.9

  Connex South East Ltd.

  Kent Link

  86.2

  87.0

  1.8

  Gatwick Express Ltd.

  Gatwick Express

  90.7

  95.1

  4.4

  South West Trains Ltd.

  SWT Main Line

  87.4

  89.0

  1.6

  South West Trains Ltd.

  SWT Suburban

  91.3

  92.2

  0.9

  Thameslink Rail Ltd.

  Thameslink

  87.1

  91.2

  4.1

  Isle of Wight

  —

  97.2

  n/a

  Total n/a

  18

  Total Better

  35

  Total Worse

  12

  Total

  65

  Note:

  The table shows moving annual average performance. The moving annual average is the average of performance for the specified 28-day period and the 21 preceding periods. The moving annual average at period 13 in any year effectively represents average performance for the year (ending 31 March)

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the reports on MEL's traffic modelling for the Birmingham Northern Relief Road prepared by(a) his Department and (b) advisers to his Department following the report by Transport Planning Associates on the three Birmingham Northern Relief Road bids and preceding the signing of the concession agreement for the Birmingham Northern Relief Road; and if he will indicate who undertook them. [51512]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No. I do not have access to papers prepared for the previous Administration. Substantial evidence on traffic was, however, put before the Public Inquiry and the Inspector's Report on the evidence put before him was fully considered before the decision was reached to approve the proposed scheme.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional 672
  market research was carried out by MEL into the potential use of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road following the report by Transport Planning Associates on the three Birmingham Northern Relief Road bids and preceding the signing of the concession agreement for the Birmingham Northern Relief Road. [51513]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Any such market research is a matter for MEL, which bears the full revenue risk on this project.

  Airports
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to(a) review the environmental impact of airports and (b) assess the need for further legislation to control the impact of aircraft noise on residential areas; and if he will make a statement. [51390]
  673
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The environmental impact of airports is kept under review. We have considered the need for further legislation on the control of aircraft noise and we announced in the White Paper on integrated transport policy our intention to consult on this issue.

  A40
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many road traffic related(a) accidents, (b) fatalities and (c) injuries have been reported on the A40 trunk road between Gloucester and Shipton Solers in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [51387]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Accidents and casualties on the A40 trunk road between Gloucester and Shipton Solers: 1988–97

  Year

  Accidents

  Fatalities

  Injuries

  1988

  110

  3

  132

  1989

  114

  1

  140

  1990

  75

  0

  98

  1991

  66

  2

  81

  1992

  76

  1

  94

  1993

  79

  2

  91

  1994

  77

  4

  106

  1995

  75

  0

  108

  1996

  57

  1

  79

  1997

  84

  3

  102

  Bridleways
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to reinstate bridleways severed by motorway construction and road improvement works; and if he will make a statement. [51382]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has powers, conferred on him by the Highways Act 1980, to stop up or divert bridleways affected by highway works. The power to stop up bridleways is not used unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that another reasonably convenient route is available or is to be provided. Reinstatement of any particular bridleway will depend on the circumstances.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning applications have been called in during each of the last 10 years and how many to date in 1998. [51409]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The number of planning applications in England called in during each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1988–89

  117

  1989–90

  103

  1990–91

  132

  1991–92

  140

  1992–93

  101

  1993–94

  99

  674

  year

  Number

  1994–95

  167

  1995–96

  144

  1996–97

  139

  1997–98

  47

  Each of the years listed is a financial year 1 April to 31 March. A further 41 applications have been called in between 1 April and 30 June 1998.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by total site area the amount of development within the Thames planning area which has been granted permission since February 1997, indicating those developments which(a) did not and (b) did follow the Strategic Planning Guidance. [51730]

  Mr. Caborn
  Comprehensive information on planning permissions granted by local planning authorities is not held centrally. Whether an individual development accords with the principles and policies set out in Strategic Planning Guidance for the River Thames is in some respects likely in any case to be a matter of interpretation and degree.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list his powers and the circumstances in which they are involved with regard to local planning authorities which fail to follow the Strategic Planning Guidance for the River Thames when reaching decisions on planning applications within the Thames planning area. [51729]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Secretary of State has the power to "call in" planning applications for his own decision. The circumstances in which he would do so are as set out in the answer which I gave my hon. Friend on 7 July 1998,Official Report, columns 469–68. The Secretary of State also has the power to direct the alteration or replacement of all or part of a local planning authority's Unitary Development Plan or the modification of proposals, including where these are inconsistent with Government policy or guidance. The planning authority must determine any application in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by council in England the percentage of each budget allocated to voluntary organisations in each financial year since 1992–93. [51287]

  Ms Armstrong
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Driving Tests
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the average cost of a driving test per applicant at(a) Crosby, (b) Norris Green, (c) Southport, (d) Garston and (e) St. Helens test centres. [51545]
  675
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Based on the throughput of tests in the first three months of 1998, the estimated local staff and property cost per test centre is as follows:

  £

  Test centre

  Average cost

  Crosby

  29.84

  Norris Green

  19.00

  Southport

  14.26

  Garston

  28.65

  St. Helens

  20.75

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the maximum number of tests which could be carried out per month with existing staff at(a) Crosby, (b) Norris Green, (c) Southport, (d) Garston and (e) St. Helens driving test centres. [51549]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information is as follows:

  Test centre

  Maximum number of tests

  Crosby

  1,680

  Norris Green

  1,680

  Southport

  1,120

  Garston

  1,680

  St. Helens

  1,120

  The figure for Crosby is assessed on the number of staff at the test centre before it was closed in April 1998.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many driving tests were conducted at the(a) Crosby, (b) Norris Green, (c) Southport, (d) Garston and (e) St. Helens driving centres during (i) January, (ii) February, (iii) March, (iv) April, (v) May and (vi) June. [51547]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information is as follows:

  January to March

  April to May

  Crosby

  915

  0

  Norris Green

  1,594

  822

  Southport

  805

  694

  Garston

  970

  1,040

  St. Helens

  836

  606

  The statistics requested have not been collated by monthly total. Figures including July 1998 are not yet available.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the individual revenue costs including salaries, building costs, leasing costs and any other expenditures in excess of £1,000 per annum of running(a) Crosby, (b) Norris Green, (c) Southport, (d) Garston and (e) St. Helens driving standards test centres in the last year for which figures are available. [51548]
  676
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The local staff and property costs of providing driving tests in 1997–98 at each of the centres listed were as follows:

  £

  Test Centre

  Revenue Cost

  Crosby

  109,249

  Norris Green

  121,069

  Southport

  45,872

  Garston

  111,053

  St. Helens

  69,491

  Housing
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for monitoring the provision of affordable housing to be provided under the terms set out in Circular 6/98. [51731]

  Mr. Caborn
  In revising Planning Policy Guidance note 3: Housing we are considering the need for monitoring the provision of affordable housing provided through Circular 6/98. We will shortly be consulting on the draft guidance later this year.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who will be responsible for finding a replacement to complete the second phase of the CTRL in the event that Railtrack decides not to exercise its option to complete it. [51526]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the terms of the revised agreement, London and Continental Railways (LCR) will retain the obligation to complete the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) if Railtrack does not exercise its option to commit to the second phase of construction. However, Railtrack has publicly stated that it fully intends exercising its option and there is a strong financial incentive for it to do so.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what aspects of the CTRL restructuring remain to be negotiated; and if he will make a statement. [51738]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since the statement of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 3 June 1998,Official Report, columns 367–70, much work has been done by the principal parties involved in the restructuring of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) deal to document the details of the new arrangements. Although there is much to do, the work is on course to enable London and Continental Railways (LCR) to begin construction of the link later this year.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if construction of the Thames Link 2000 St. Pancras Box is dependent on finalisation of plans for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [51739]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The two projects are physically integrated, which is why the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) promoter is contractually committed to construct the Thameslink Box. The Department is discussing the full implications of the CTRL agreement outlined by my right hon. Friend on 3 June 1998,Official Report,

  677
  columns 367–70, with London and Continental Railways, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising (OPRAF) and Railtrack.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the scope of the powers of the regulator for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [51527]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  S16 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 excludes the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) as a "licensed activity" under the Railways Act 1993 and it is therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the Rail Regulator. The rights and obligations of the parties are regulated principally through the Development Agreement between HM Government and London and Continental Railways (LCR), together with a suite of further agreements between HMG, LCR and Railtrack.

  East-west Rail Link
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the conclusions of the current assessment of the East-West Rail Link. [51736]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that this refers to Railtrack's study of the Crossrail project. I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on 7 May 1998,Official Report, columns 439–40.

  Parking Fines (London)
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what data his Department collates in respect of levels of unpaid parking fines in London boroughs. [51529]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. The Transport Committee for London, which co-ordinates the local authority parking regime, collects statistics on enforcement, including tickets issued, those cancelled and those paid, at a London wide level.

  Two-wheeled Vehicles
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that the Journey Times Survey 1998, inner and outer London, includes sample journeys by powered two wheelers. [51813]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In 1993 the Department initiated the Journey Times Survey as a means of assessing long-term changes in accessibility in London, and how complete door-to-door journey times vary between modes. Motorcycling is not included in the survey as it is considered that the journey times recorded would not be a sufficiently reliable indicator of changing traffic conditions.

  NHS Trusts (Wales)
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the NHS trusts in Wales which(a) have been prosecuted under health and safety legislation and (b) have received prohibition or improvement notes since 1991; [51594]
  678
  (2) if he will list the NHS trusts in Wales which have been found since 1991 to be in breach of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974; and if he will give details of the breaches. [51595]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 22 July 1998]: Between 1 April 1991 and 31 March 1998, Mid Glamorgan Area Health Authority was prosecuted by HSE on 28 November 1991 for a breach of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 5 and 8. South Glamorgan Area Health Authority was prosecuted on 28 February 1996 for a breach of section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. No other prosecutions have been taken in Wales.

  Improvement Notices have been issued against the following NHS trusts by HSE's Field Operations Division in Wales between 1 April 1996 and 31 March 1998:

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  Glan Hafren NHS Trust

  Morriston Hospital NHS Trust

  South East Wales NHS Ambulance Trust

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust

  Cardiff Community Health Care NHS Trust

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust

  East Glamorgan NHS Trust

  Clwydian Community Health NHS Trust

  Gwent Community Health NHS Trust

  Powys Health Care NHS Trust.

  A Prohibition notice has been issued against Glan Hafren NHS Trust. Prior to 1996–97, notices against the NHS cannot be identified from HSE's computer databases. HSE holds no information on the number of "breaches" which do not result in a prosecution of the issuing of an Improvement or Prohibition Notice.

  Transport White Paper
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of funds raised by local authorities from proposals in the White Paper on transport will be available for reinvestment in local transport plans. [51976]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Details will be published in due course.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to paragraph 3.210 of the White Paper, A New Deal for Transport, if the duty given to the Strategic Rail Authority to consider rail access to major ports will encompass Newhaven. [51947]

  Angela Eagle
  In principle, yes.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the rail investment proposals within the White Paper, A New Deal for Transport, will provide for the reopening of disused rail lines. [51967]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Franchising Director will control additional funds vis two new schemes. The Infrastructure Investment Fund will relieve infrastructure "pinch points" on the network which could not be tackled without additional public sector financial support. The Passenger Rail Partnership is designed to encourage and
  679
  support innovative proposals at the regional and local level that develop rail use and promote modal shift. Such proposals could include new or enhanced local rail services, better facilities for passengers and re-opening of disused lines.

  Details of the operation of the proposed schemes will be announced in the Autumn. Meanwhile, local authorities are encouraged to submit to the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising proposals consistent with out integrated transport policies.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what will be the dates of the consultation process relating to the implementation of proposals set out in the White Paper on transport. [51977]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A number of further documents have been promised and we will be publishing the first of these shortly. Others will follow over the summer and through to the end of the year.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to paragraph 2.36 of the Comprehensive Spending Review and to the Transport White Paper, if he will estimate what revenues will be raised from (i) charges on parking spaces and (ii) charges for road access or congestion charges, in each of the years 1998–99 to 2005–06. [51950]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Table under paragraph 2.36 of the Comprehensive Spending Review estimated, for indicative purposes, that some £1 billion in transport investment might be funded by new revenue streams by 2005–06. This assumes that local authorities and others respond positively to the new powers, subject to the necessary legislation being in place. The actual revenue raised, the yearly income profile, and the proportions that will come from road user charging and from workplace parking charges, will depend upon the level and speed of take-up. We shall be consulting in due course on the detail of how schemes will be implemented.

  Hare Hunting
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will seek to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to introduce a statutory closed season on hare hunting. [51972]

  Angela Eagle
  An objective under the brown hare biodiversity species action plan is to review the use of legislation pertaining to shooting and selling of hares in the light of research findings on the seasonality of reproduction. Any decision on restrictions on hare hunting will not be made until the outcome of that review is known.

  Transport Policies and Programmes
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department has provided or will provide for local authority Transport Policies and Programme bids in each of the years from 1997–98 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [51952]
  680
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information for past allocation is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1997–98

  746

  1998–99

  583

  My Department has provisional plans to allocate the following amounts under the TPP system, or its successor, in the next three financial years:

  Year

  £ million

  1999–2000

  598

  2000–01

  695

  2001–02

  987

  The figure for 1997–98 includes £50 million for Croydon Tramlink. Provision for that project in subsequent years is accounted for outside the TPP system.

  The figures for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 are guidelines. Final allocations for each of these years will be decided following the assessment of local authorities' bids. Unlike the figures for earlier years those for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 do not include supplementary credit approvals (SCA) set aside to match ERDF grant, or the receipts that we allow local authorities to use as part of their TPP allocations.

  Figures for those elements in past years were:

  Year

  ERDF SCA

  Receipts

  1997–98

  35

  39

  1998–99

  26

  33

  The amount to be allowed for each of these elements in future years has yet to be decided.

  Expenditure plans have not yet been formulated beyond 2001–02.

  Motorcycling
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) motorcycle drivers and (b) pillion passengers have been killed in road accidents in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [51245]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  TWMV1 Fatalities: England and Wales: 1995–1997

  Riders

  Passengers

  England

  1995

  363

  23

  1996

  371

  21

  1997

  410

  27

  Wales

  1995

  24

  2

  1996

  17

  2

  1997

  33

  2

  1Two Wheeled Motor Vehicle

  681
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the issues raised at the special consultative meeting of motorcyclists at his Department on 25 November 1997. [52018]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The consultative meeting with representatives of motorcycle, environment and safety groups discussed all the transport aspects of motorcycling.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of commuter motorcycling as an aid to reducing pollution and congestion in urban areas. [52020]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The environmental and congestion implications of motorcycles are not clear cut. Much depends on the size of the motorcycle; whether the journeys are in addition to or a substitute for journeys previously made; and whether they substitute for journeys previously made by car, on foot, by bicycle or on public transport.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to establish a Motorcycle Strategy Group to consider the role of motorcycling within an integrated transport policy. [52038]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The White Paper 'A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone' (Cm 3950) announced that we would be setting up an advisory group to bring together motorcycle interests and other interested parties, to allow discussion of issues of concern to those who ride motorcycles and of the ways we can work together on policies, including encouraging further improvements in the safety and environmental impact of motorcycling.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the recent trends in accident deaths among motorcyclists aged over 25 years in rural areas. [52019]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  318 riders and passengers of two wheeled motor vehicles died on non built-up roads in 1998–20 per cent. more than in 1996. Deaths increased in all age groups 25 years and over except those aged 45–49 and 55–59. This increase is most disturbing and Departmental officials will be considering, with representatives of the motorcycle rider groups and industry, how these deaths and injuries can best be avoided.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of motorcycle accidents in urban areas are caused by other road users; and if he will assess ways of modifying the car driving test to take into account motorcycle awareness. [52025]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Information on the causation of injury road accidents is not yet collected on a national basis. We have introduced more questions in the driving theory test to increase awareness of vulnerable road users, including motorcyclists. We are also considering what improvements, if any, need to be made to the practical car driving test.
  682
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make representations to the Corporation of London to introduce loading bays specifically for the use of motorcycle couriers in the City of London. [52022]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No. This is a matter for the City Corporation. We have issued Traffic Management and Parking Guidance for London which makes it clear that we expect the London authorities to consider the need for motorcyclists in developing their traffic management strategies.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the consultation document on amending the requirement for learner motorcyclists to face a one year ban if they fail to pass their motorcycle riding test within two years of receiving their provisional licence. [52021]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We shall be publishing a Consultation Paper shortly.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the North Yorkshire Police Bikesafe 2000 scheme. [51973]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department has not made a formal assessment of the North Yorkshire Bikesafe 2000 scheme.

  Rivers Drone and Rother
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the water quality in the rivers Drone and Rother; and if he will make a statement. [51847]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Agency is responsible for monitoring water quality. The General Quality Assessment (GQA) scheme classifies stretches of rivers into six classes of chemical water quality, from A (very good) to F (bad), based on biochemical oxygen demand and concentrations of dissolved oxygen and ammonia.

  The Agency advises that the River Rother is classified as class C (fairly good) from its source, near Clay Cross, until Danesmoor, where it falls to class E (poor). The river improves to class D (fair) downstream of Wingerworth and further improves to class C just downstream of the River Hipper. It then fluctuates between classes C and D until Woodhouse Mill sewage works in Sheffield, where it becomes class E until it meets the River Don on Rotherham.

  The River Drone is too small to be classified under the GQA scheme until it flows through Dronfield. It is then classified as class E for 4.2 km until its confluence with the Rother.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of the increases in education spending will be financed by(a) revenue support grant, (b) business rates, (c) council taxes and (d) reductions in other services for each of the next three years; and what estimate he has made of

  683
  the average cumulative increase in council tax over each of the next three years to pay for education spending increases. [51599]

  Ms Armstrong
  Local authority spending is financed partly through Aggregate External Finance (AEF), which includes both redistributed non-domestic rates and revenue support grant, and partly through locally raised revenue, including council taxes. It is not possible to separate the financing of education from that of other services. We have provided for an average increase of 4.9 per cent. per year in Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) overall. If local authorities increase their overall expenditure in line with the increases in SSA totals, council taxes would go up by 4.5 per cent. each year.

  Departmental Environmental Policies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to discourage car use by his Department's employees. [51824]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Measures to reduce the environmental impact of transport activities will be included in the Green Transport Plans being prepared for each of the Department's key buildings. The Plans will be completed by end March 1999 and will be tailored to each location and its operational needs.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what activities his Green Minister has undertaken relating to his environmental responsibilities since being appointed. [51828]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As Green Minister for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions I have attended all three meetings of Green Ministers; held a discussion with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment (in his role as Chair of Green Ministers) to review activity on greening Government with DETR; spoken at one of the regional seminars to launch Opportunities for Change, the Government's consultation on a new sustainable development strategy; issued guidance on Green Transport Plans to Green Ministers in all Departments; issued the Government's Policy Guidance on Environmental Appraisal to DETR staff; and held discussions with key DETR staff to consider systems for environmental appraisal and consider the Department's strategy for greening its operations.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of his Department's waste is recycled at present; and what targets he has set for the future. [51826]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department is conducting a survey of its property managers to find out the percentage of waste recycled in 1997–98 and to agree a target to increase that percentage in future years.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the current energy consumption is of his Department; what targets have been set to reduce this level; and what plans there are for including energy efficiency performance figures in his Department's annual report. [51825]
  684
  Angela Eagle
  The latest available energy consumption figures available are for 1996–97. The energy consumption of the then constituent parts of DETR totalled 144,758,340 kWh. My department is working towards achieving government targets described in the Model Policy Statement for Greening Government Operations, and publishing its achievements in its annual report.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what efforts he has made to raise awareness of environmental and sustainable issues within his Department; and if specific training will be made available to staff where appropriate. [51827]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government consultation paper,Opportunities for Change, was put on the Department's internal "intranet"; copies of the accompanying leaflet were circulated to all staff and publicised in the Department's in-house magazine Grassroutes. The Government Offices for the Regions (GORs) organised a programme of regional events, and are now working on the revised strategy. Policy Guidance on environmental appraisal was distributed widely within the Department, its Agencies, NDPBs and GORs in April and placed on the DETR intranet. We are planning further initiatives to foster staff awareness, building on the on-the-job training for staff who work on environmental policy issues, Work of the Department induction courses for staff and internal seminars for staff on the outcome of Kyoto and sustainable development strategy consultation.

  Road Maintenance
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department will provide or has provided to local authorities for road maintenance in each of the years from 1997–98 to 2005–06; and if he will make a statement. [51949]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The majority of the funding for the routine maintenance of local authority roads is provided through one element of the Revenue Support Grant (RSG): the Highways Maintenance Standard Spending Assessment (HMSSA). Additional funding for the structural maintenance of principal roads (local authority "A" Roads) is provided by the TPP system. Figures given in the table are for all English local authorities.

  Funding of local road maintenance

  £ Million

  Year

  HMSSA

  TPP

  Total

  1997–98

  1,759

  92

  1,851

  1998–99

  1,767

  80

  1,847

  1999–2000

  1,813

  100

  1,913

  2000–01

  1,859

  130

  1,989

  2001–02

  1,905

  180

  2,085

  The TPP figures—and therefore the totals—for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 are guidelines. Final allocations for each of these years will be decided following the assessment of local authorities' bids. Expenditure plans have not yet been formulated beyond 2001–02.
  685
  Figures for spending by local authorities on local road maintenance in 1994–95 to 1996–97 were given in an answer on 16 July 1998, Official Report, column 243, to Named Day Question 50885 asked by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

  Red Routes
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will widen the exemption on red route loading bays to allow the delivery and collection of goods by motorcycle couriers and other light delivery vehicles. [52023]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Loading bays on the red route network are available to any vehicle carrying out legitimate loading or unloading. This is subject only to the signed limits on time and duration.

  Virgin Rail Services
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received about the performance of Virgin rail services on(a) the West Coast Mainline and (b) cross country routes; and if he will make a statement. [51907]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department and the Franchising Director's Office have received 72 representations on all aspects of Virgin West Coast performance and 43 representations on Virgin Cross Country performance since the beginning of this year. Virgin Train's performance has been affected recently due to problems with rolling stock and infrastructure on West Coast, and problems with rolling stock on Cross Country. Virgin Trains have taken action to bring about improvements. We look to the Franchising Director to work with Virgin to ensure that improvements are sustained. In his statement on transport policy on 20 July 1998,Official Report, columns 784–88, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced our plans to set up a Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) with stronger powers to enforce the delivery of contractual obligations by train operators. We also expect the SRA to specify more demanding performance standards for new or renegotiated franchises.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on road safety in(a) Staffordshire and (b) the West Midlands Region. [51905]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Road safety is a high priority in the West Midlands Region as it is at national level. The Transport White Paper published on 20 July makes it clear that as part of the New Deal for transport we will set a new road safety target for Great Britain for 2010, together with a strategy and programme of measures for achieving it. It is, however, for Staffordshire County Council and the other local authorities in the region to promote and implement, with partners, schemes to improve road safety on roads in their area.

  As part of the local safety schemes allocation in the 1998–99 Local Transport Settlement we allocated £0.378 million to Staffordshire County Council and £5.123 million to the West Midlands Region.

  Workplace Parking Charges
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to paragraph 4.107 of the White Paper, A New Deal for Transport, if Westminster City Council will be empowered to levy charges for workplace parking within the Parliamentary Estate. [51953]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government stated in the White Paper that they proposed to legislate to enable the parking charge to apply to all types of workplace parking, wherever situated. We shall issue a consultation document in due course that will discuss, among other things, the institutional arrangements for London.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish draft legislation relating to the creation of a strategic rail authority. [51945]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We shall bring the necessary legislation before Parliament at an early opportunity.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the President of the Council how much is to be spent in 1998–99 on prevention and treatment services for drug abuse; and how much is planned to be spent on these services in each of the next three years. [51117]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  Figures for 1998–99 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The figures available, as collected for the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review, relate to 1997–98. In that year, expenditure on drugs prevention and education is estimated to have totalled £50 million. This included central Departments' funding and a proportion of teacher time spent on drugs education in the classroom. Funding for treatment interventions, relating primarily to health and social services projects, and anti-drugs initiatives in the Prison Service, is estimated to have amounted to £103 million. In the same year, expenditure on international supply reduction, including HM Customs and Excise, is estimated to have amounted to £153 million; and on proactive drugs enforcement, £77 million.

  On 14 July, we announced that extra resources, amounting to £188 million in total up to 2001–02, will be made available to fund proactive work to tackle drug misuse under the anti-drugs strategy. Details of the breakdown of this expenditure will be announced in due course.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register, how many vehicles are currently (i) owned and (ii) leased; if he will indicate their (A)fuel types and

  687
  (B) engine cubic capacities; and how many vehicles are expected to fall due for replacement in each of the years (1) 1998–99, (2) 1999–2000 and (3) 2000–01. [49237]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has 1,256 official vehicles, including dedicated flag cars used by Heads of Post, as well as pool cars, mini buses, trucks and motor cycles. These are divided between 45 based in the United Kingdom, and 1,211 in use at British Diplomatic Posts overseas. The total figure includes 26 leased vehicles, all of which are operating overseas, but it is intended to increase the number of leased vehicles where this represents better value for public funds.

  Details of the fuel types and engine cubic capacities for the 45 vehicles based in the United Kingdom are as follows:

  34 Diesel Engine size

  Quantity

  Engine size

  11 Petrol Quantity

  1.5

  1

  1.8

  5

  1.7

  7

  2.0

  3

  1.8

  2

  2.3

  1

  2.0

  1

  2.5

  2

  2.3

  1

  —

  —

  2.5

  16

  —

  —

  2.9

  1

  —

  —

  3.0

  1

  —

  —

  4.5

  1

  —

  —

  10.0

  1

  —

  —

  12.0

  2

  —

  —

  Detailed information about the fuel types and engine cubic capacities of all the official vehicles held overseas is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  August 1998

  There are no Councils scheduled for this month

  September 1998

  3

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  5–6

  Salzburg

  Foreign Ministers (informal)

  7–8

  Brussels

  Special Committee on Agriculture

  10–12

  Linz

  Culture (informal)

  14–18

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  15–16

  Bregenz

  Transport (informal)

  21

  New York

  Political Committee

  19–22

  St. Wolfgang, Austria

  Agriculture (informal)

  24

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs

  24

  Brussels

  Internal Market

  25–27

  Brussels

  ECOFIN (informal)

  28–29

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  October 1998

  1–2

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  2–3

  Luxembourg

  Industry/Research and Technology (informal)

  5

  Luxembourg

  Labour and Social Affairs Council

  5

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  5–6

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  5–9

  Strasbourg

  European Parliamentary Plenary

  6

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  12

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN Council

  13

  Luxembourg

  Research Council

  13

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  19–20

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  19–23

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  22

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  688
  The following are the number of vehicles expected to fall due for replacement:

  1998–1999: 194

  1999–2000: 263

  2000–2001: 168.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [50682]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, on 20 July 1998,Official Report, column 363.

  Few staff are solely employed to handle correspondence and for most staff this is part of their normal duties.

  EU Council
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for August and the major European Union events for the next six months. [52364]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The information is as follows:European Calendar: August 1998–January 1999
  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date ofissue.
  689

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  23–24

  Baden-bei-Wien

  Education(informal)

  24–25

  Innsbruck (t.b.c.)

  Meeting of Heads of State/Government(informal)

  26

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  26–27

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  28–29

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  29–30

  Vienna

  Justice and Home Affairs (informal)

  November

  4–5

  Brussels

  European Parliamentary Plenary

  9

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  9

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  9–10

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  12

  Brussels

  Health Council

  16

  Brussels

  Industry Council

  16–20

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  17

  Brussels

  Culture Council

  20

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  20

  Brussels

  Labour and Social Affairs Council

  23

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  23–24

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  25

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  26

  Brussels

  Youth Council

  26

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  30

  Brussels

  Development Council

  30–1 December

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  December

  1

  Brussels

  ECOFIN Council

  1–2

  Brussels

  Labour and Social Affairs Council

  2–3

  Brussels

  European Parliament Plenary

  3–4

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs

  4

  Brussels

  Education Council

  7

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  7–8

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  7–8

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  10

  Brussels

  Research Council

  11

  Vienna

  Political Committee

  11–12

  Vienna

  European Council

  14–16

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  14–18

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  15

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  January 1999

  1

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  14

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council (Possible)

  18

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  18

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  Special Operations Executive
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to release more records of the wartime Special Operations Executive. [52365]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The records of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) have been released progressively since 1993. The next batch of records, covering Western Europe, have been transferred to the Public Record Office, and will be opened today. Further SOE records will be released in due course.

  Angola
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures Her Majesty's690
  Government have taken to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1173 (1998) which imposed further sanctions on UNITA as from 1 July. [52366]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Resolution 1173 imposed a freeze on the funds and financial resources of UNITA, its officials and their immediate families; a ban on most official contacts in Angola with UNITA; a prohibition on the import of diamonds outside the governmental certificate of origin regime; and prohibitions on the sale or supply of equipment which may be used in mining or transportation, and on transportation services.

  We have instructed all our diplomatic missions overseas to avoid any contact with UNITA, whether locally or in Angola.

  The prohibition on the importation of diamonds will be given effect in the United Kingdom by amendment to the Open General Import Licence.
  691
  The remainder of the prohibitions are to be implemented in the UK by the Angola (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1998 and in the Overseas Territories by the Angola (United Nations Sanctions) (Dependent Territories) Order 1998 made on 21 July and laid yesterday.

  Similar Orders have been made to give effect to the Resolution in the Crown Dependencies. These orders restrict the sale or supply of certain goods which may be used in mining or transportation and the supply of transportation services; impose a freeze on the funds and financial resources in relation to UNITA and persons connected with UNITA, and, for the Overseas Territories and Channel Islands, restrict the importation of diamonds exported from Angola on or after 1 July 1998. There is provision for medical and humanitarian exceptions.

  East Timor
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a copy of the report by the European Union Troika mission on East Timor in the Library. [52541]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Conclusions of the EU Heads of Mission Troika visit to East Timor (27–30 June) have now been published. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Human Rights Fund
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria he is using in making allocations of funding from the Human Rights Fund. [49740]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 13 July 1998]: Priority is given to projects which contribute to the following themes:

  children's rights, including commercial sexual exploitation;

  media, including training;

  rule of law co-operation, including training and prison reform;

  support for the development of civil society;

  country specific projects outside the scope of the above but which contribute to the human rights strategy of missions and FCO Geographical Commands.

  Additional priority is given to projects in any of these areas which promote the advancement of women and equality of opportunity for men and women.

  Algeria
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the examination of the Algerian Government's report on civil and political rights which will be considered by the United Nations Human Rights Committee on 20 and 21 July in Geneva. [51845]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Algerian Government's second periodic report under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) has now been examined by the Human Rights Committee in Geneva. We welcome this example of Algeria's co-operation with UN human rights mechanisms. We note the concerns expressed by the Committee and hope that Algeria will act upon the 692
  Committee's recommendations concerning the full protection and promotion of all human rights in Algeria, including the right to life.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the mandate of the United Nations Secretary General's six person special mission to Algeria. [51843]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The mandate of the special mission is the responsibility of the United Nations. We welcomed the UN Secretary-General's 7 July announcement of the forthcoming visit to Algeria, under UN auspices, by a panel of eminent persons. We look forward to hearing the mission's findings.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the findings of the United Nations Secretary General's special mission to Algeria will be published by the United Nations. [51844]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The forthcoming visit of a special mission to Algeria is taking place under UN auspices. We are not aware of the United Nations' intentions about publication of the mission's report.

  Iran
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to upgrade diplomatic relations between Britain and Iran; and what plans there are for ministerial visits to Iran. [51992]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have no immediate plans to upgrade the level of our diplomatic relations with Iran or for a ministerial visit to Tehran.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards(a) integration and (b) free association of Gibraltar with the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [51966]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In the context of the recent review of the Overseas Territories, we have re-examined these options. We have concluded that neither integration nor free association with the UK offer appropriate options for modern Overseas Territories. That includes Gibraltar.

  Vienna Summit
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he is planning to put forward for the Vienna Summit; and if these will include the idea of a second Chamber for the European Parliament. [51993]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No decision has yet been taken about what proposals the Government may make to either the Vienna European Council or the meeting of Heads of State or Government on 24/25 October.

  Counter-drug Agreement
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the counter-drug agreement between the US and the UK signed in Washington on 13 July. [51881]
  693
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  A copy of the Agreement by the UK and US concerning maritime and aerial operations to suppress illicit trafficking by sea in waters of the Caribbean and Bermuda, signed in Washington on 13 July, will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  It will be published as a Command Paper in the Miscellaneous Series, accompanied by an Explanatory Memorandum, and will be subject to the Ponsonby Rule.

  Alois Brunner
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 July 1998,Official Report, column 397, if he will now make representations to the Syrian Government in support of the French Government's application to extradite Alois Brunner on war crime charges. [51946]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have no evidence of the whereabouts of Alois Brunner, or if he is still alive. We have no plans to make representations to the Syrian Government about this matter.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who authorised, and for what purpose, Britain's High Commissioner to Sierra Leone to accompany the Kabbah Government into exile following the military coup. [51877]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Following the military coup, like the rest of the international community, the United Kingdom continued to regard President Kabbah as the head of the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone. We were in the lead in efforts to achieve the peaceful restoration of that Government.

  Although the junta was in power in Freetown, large parts of Sierra Leone were under the control of forces loyal to President Kabbah, and it was widely expected that the junta would not remain in power. It was important to remain in close contact with the President and to maintain the High Commissioner's strong relationship with him. Ministers therefore agreed that the High Commissioner should, on a temporary basis, stay in Conakry, where he had been evacuated after the coup in Freetown.

  Legg Inquiry
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to publish the report of the Legg Inquiry. [52007]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have not yet received the report of the investigation by Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Robin Ibbs. I will publish it as soon as possible after receiving it.

  UN Covenant on the Rights of the Child
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Somalia regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Covenant on the Rights of the Child; and on what dates; [52032]
  694
  (2) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of the United States of America regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; and on what dates. [52026]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Kingdom has regularly played a leading part in securing the adoption of United Nations resolutions calling upon States to accede to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as a matter of priority. At the 1998 session of the Commission on Human Rights the UK, on behalf of the European Union, reiterated this call. We have made no direct representations to the United States, which signed the Convention in 1995. Nor have we made representations to Somalia where, as a result of Civil war, there has been no government or recognised national authority since 1991.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Salmonella (Eggs)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his letter 114760 of 26 June 1998, when he expects the ACMSF to report on factors which determine the presence of salmonella contamination in or on eggs. [50645]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is hoped that the ACMSF Working Group will be able to begin its work shortly. No timetable is being imposed on the Group for completing its work. The ACMSF will report as quickly as possible, commensurate with the need to tackle the question thoroughly and subject to the constraints imposed by the Committee's wider work programme.

  Coastal Fishing Limits
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 22 June 1998,Official Report, column 424, on coastal fishing, which of the definitions referred to is applied to UK coastal fisheries limits. [51551]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no single definition of UK coastal fisheries limits. All of the definitions contained in my answer of 22 June 1998 are relevant.

  Fisheries Limits
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the definition of the word "region" in the context of fisheries limits. [51552]

  Mr. Morley
  The word "region" is open to varying definitions. The appropriate one in any given case will depend on the precise circumstances in which the word is used.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what acreage of new woodlands has been planted in England and Wales in each of the last five years. [51557]
  695
  Mr. Morley
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is given in the table. All areas are in hectares.

  Year ended 31 March

  Area planted in England

  Area planted in Wales

  1994

  6,357

  636

  1995

  5,375

  566

  1996

  4,708

  442

  1997

  4,654

  411

  1998

  4,369

  498

  Meat Imports
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a requirement for(a) pork and (b) bacon sold in the United Kingdom to be provided on a basis that meets British welfare regulations to ensure that United Kingdom animal welfare measures are not circumvented by import of meat from stall and tether units in Europe. [50699]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 July 1998]: Single market rules do not allow the banning of imports of pork, bacon or other animal products on the ground that they have been produced to lower welfare standards than apply in the United Kingdom.

  We have made clear our intention to work to raise EU minimum welfare requirements for pigs. That is why we have urged the Commission to follow up the report published last year by its own Scientific Veterinary Committee and bring forward early proposals to improve the standards laid down in EU law.

  I also consider it important for retailers, wherever practical, to reassure their customers by applying high welfare standards to their purchases regardless of origin, as I understand some already do.

  Research
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the effect that the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review will have on the future funding of public-good research into the horticulturally related areas of(a) GMOs, (b) reduction in pesticides usage and (c) food quality; [51457]

  (2) pursuant to the Comprehensive Spending Review of the amount of money spent on agriculture and horticulture research by his Ministry with outside bodies, if it will remain unchanged in real terms. [51486]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  Precise budget allocations to individual MAFF programmes have not yet been finalised. The Ministry's expenditure plans for the years 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 will be announced as soon as possible.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received in support of an EU-wide ban on the export of live horses for slaughter. [51379]
  696
  Mr. Morley
  The Government have received representations from welfare organisations, and from a number of individuals, advocating a ban on the export of live horses from the EU for slaughter in third countries.

  Fishing Industry (EU Assistance)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current EU assistance projects to the fishing industry, indicating the amount spent on each by country in the last year for which figures are available. [51465]

  Mr. Morley
  Aid is available to Member States from the EU Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) under Objectives 1 and 5a for investment in the following areas (not all applied in the UK):

  the permanent cessation of fishing activities, including decommissioning;

  the re-orientation of fishing activities (joint ventures/enterprises with third countries);

  vessel construction and modernisation;

  aquaculture;

  enclosed marine areas (e.g. artificial reefs);

  fishing port facilities;

  processing and marketing;

  promotion;

  early retirement; and

  compensation for cessation of fishing.

  Aid is also available under PESCA to assist the restructuring and diversification of the fisheries sector in fisheries dependent areas and to help it deal with problems such as overcapacity and market weakness.

  Member States' plans for total expenditure in their FIFG Sectoral Plans and PESCA Programmes in the five-year period 1994–1999 are:

  Country

  FIFG objectives 1 and 5a (Mecu)

  PESCA (Mecu at 1996 prices)

  Austria

  2.00

  —

  Belgium

  24.87

  2.94

  Denmark

  139.90

  23.03

  Finland

  27.00

  3.91

  France

  228.10

  39.05

  Germany

  158.00

  23.47

  Greece

  130.00

  34.33

  Ireland

  47.00

  8.86

  Italy

  367.40

  40.13

  Luxembourg

  1.10

  —

  Netherlands

  55.10

  14.96

  Portugal

  213.20

  32.44

  Spain

  1,114.60

  49.53

  Sweden

  44.10

  4.55

  United Kingdom

  123.62

  49.49

  No figures are currently available on actual annual expenditure in other Member States, but EU expenditure in the UK in the latest available years was:

  FIFG Objectives 1 and 5a (1997–98): £17.4m

  PESCA (1997): £0.92m.

  In addition, fisheries expenditure on grants to UK ports under the European Regional Development Fund in 1997–98 was £0.09m.

  Cumberland Rum Butter
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he is making regarding the impact of EU Commission Regulations 623/98 on the manufacture of Cumberland rum butter. [51455]

  Mr. Rooker
  Rum butters with a minimum milk fat content of 34 per cent. are unaffected by the Commission Regulations. The Ministry's officials are currently working 698
  with manufacturers of "ambient" brandy and rum butters in order to minimise any disruption to their business arising from this unnecessary Regulation. In particular, assistance and advice are being given in the preparation of an application, on behalf of a number of companies, for a derogation permitting traditional ambient alcoholic butters, including "Cumberland rum butter", to continue to be so described. The Government will be submitting this application to the European Commission under the provisions of article 4(1) of Commission Regulation 577/97.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Exeter): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Gretton Lord Gretton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Lord Craigmyle Lord Craigmyle—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Radio Authority: Licence Terms
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the performance of the Radio Authority in consenting to departures from the terms of independent radio licences.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Radio Authority is responsible under the provisions of the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 for the award and regulation of independent radio licences in the UK, including any variations in licence terms. Those are not matters on which it is appropriate for the Government to comment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware of anxiety that a considerable number of small, local, independent radio stations have been merged into larger groups? As a consequence, many locally produced programmes have been transferred into network programmes mainly produced in London. Does he agree that that undermines the whole purpose of local commercial radio stations? Does he agree also that the Radio Authority is showing yet again that regulatory agencies are too close to the producers and not close enough to the interests of the users?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is certainly the case that the 1996 Act made it possible for major players in the commercial radio field to expand their area of operations. Some of us observed the matter with disfavour at the time. However, at the moment we do not have an opportunity to introduce primary legislation. On the other hand, there are some improvements in transparency. From the autumn the authority will have to give reasons for its award of a licence. It will have to widen its Promise of Performance so that it covers the statutory duties to secure the character of services. I do not expect that to be sufficient consolation for my noble friend because it is certainly the case that the amount of purely local programming in some parts of the country has declined.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, perhaps I should declare a past interest as a former chairman of the Radio Authority. Is the Minister aware that I, for one, welcome
1032
his assurance that the authority will be allowed to get on with its job under the Broadcasting Act without too much interference from government? But does he believe it is wise that the authority should give reasons for the award or non-award of licences? Also, can he say in more specific terms in what form of consultation the authority will engage before it changes the important Promise of Performance regime?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my description of the position as it stands at present is an accurate reflection of the facts. The whole question of regulation of radio for the longer-term future is discussed in the Green Paper on convergence which we published recently. There is no reason to assume that in the longer term it will necessarily be right to have the same regime of regulation—for example, for local and community radio—as for national radio. In that sense, though we have no immediate plans for legislation, we are opening out the field. The noble Lord queried whether it is right for the authority to give reasons for its decisions. I should have thought that that was an essential part of transparency in regulation.
Lord Ewing of Kirkwood: My Lords, in his original reply my noble friend said that these are not matters upon which the Government should comment. Being the simpleton that I am, then why is my noble friend commenting?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is the most subtle simpleton that I know. I have not commented and refrain from commenting on any specific decision of the Radio Authority. And I shall resist any temptation to make me do so.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the experience of successful commercial operations owned and operated by local authorities or consortia of local authorities—for example, Manchester International Airport—can my noble friend tell the House whether it is possible for local authorities or groups of local authorities to own commercial radio stations? If it is not possible, have the Government any plans to allow it to become possible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, one of the matters which we are discussing and which is covered in the Green Paper is increased opportunities for all forms of community radio, whether they are local authorities, hospitals or student radio; for example, in educational establishments. We hope that there will be an expansion of this kind of community radio which can be carried on frequencies that have limited geographical scope.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, before asking my question I should declare an interest in a company which is interested in acquiring radio licences. Is the Minister satisfied with the progress that is being made towards the coming on to air of digital terrestrial radio, and can he say when he expects the multiplexers to be broadcasting?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord and other noble Lords will be aware that the Select Committee in another place was keen that we should go for a "big bang" approach to digital radio and television. In our Green Paper we have taken a much more evolutionary approach. We believe it is likely that progress towards digital radio and television will be market-led and take a considerable time. We are not in a position to make forecasts of when that will happen.

England/Scotland Road Link: Status
3.9 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have yet approved upgrading to motorway status, as part of the M.6, of the stretch of trunk road now confined to two lanes each way from the Scottish Border to Junction 44 near Carlisle.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the Government are currently undertaking a review of the roads programme in line with our manifesto commitment so to do. A decision on the future of this scheme will be made as part of that review. We plan to publish the results before the parliamentary Recess.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Does she recognise that this is the missing link in the motorway system on the west side of Britain; that is, the gap between the M.6 in the south and the M.74 which starts at the Scottish Border? Since upgrading is supported by all concerned, and particularly by businesses in Scotland, will approval be granted soon, whether or not as a result of the review, by the Minister responsible for roads in England?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am the Minister responsible for roads in England. We are making decisions about the schemes, including this one, against the criteria which we set out: integration, economy, accessibility, the environment and safety. I am well aware of the particular importance placed on this scheme and on completing the motorway link to Scotland. I have discussed these issues with colleagues at the Scottish Office. However, I have to say that, in terms of the roads review, we have to make sure that all schemes are properly assessed against those criteria.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us whether any further road construction would be needed in order to achieve this purpose? Is it not a fact that all that would be needed really is the alteration of road signs?
Baroness Hayman: Would it were that simple, my Lords. The scheme under review is to provide a dual-three rather than a dual-two stretch of road. Once one has a motorway it is not simply a matter of changing the signs from green to blue because certain traffic is not allowed
1034
to go on motorways. Therefore, the access roads that currently go into a dual carriageway road have to be changed; and in order to give access to settlements on the current road, slip road arrangements have to be made. That ends up being a quite large construction scheme.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the establishment of the assembly in Cardiff, will my noble friend take immediate action to improve the road from north Wales to south Wales?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in reviewing roads within England I have been well aware of the cross-Border issues with both the Principality and Scotland. As well as having discussions about the integration of roads on either side of the Border with colleagues in the Scottish Office, equally I have discussed these matters with Mr. Peter Hain who, as my noble friend will be aware, is looking at roads solely within Wales.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, bearing in mind the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and also the surge of nationalism and separatism which events in Scotland have recently precipitated, does the noble Baroness agree that the reason for improving up to the higher standard links between the north west of England and the south of England and the Continent involves an overriding political imperative above and beyond the normal transport considerations?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, political imperatives were not on the list of the five criteria that I put forward for assessing road schemes. There have been instances in the past when political imperatives of less—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am thinking of particular schemes perhaps in the more recent past. There have been instances in the past where political imperatives of less national significance have been assessed for those reasons. We have to look at the issues of integration and it would be foolish not to look at transport links on both sides of the Border. Certainly, we have to look at issues such as regional services, the CTRL and Eurostar services. We have to look also at cross-Europe issues, as this route is a trans-European network. So wide issues of integration are involved.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware of the vast amounts of money that have been wasted on building dual carriageways which have then been made into six-lane carriageways. I have in mind the A.19, the M.25, the A.1, the M.6 and so on. Would it not be a great deal cheaper if in the first place six-lane roads were made whenever possible?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not think that the general spirit of an integrated transport policy and the emphasis the Government want to put on cutting pollution and congestion are such that we should go to the philosophy of predicting and providing in terms of

1035
road space. If one looks at the predictions for traffic growth if no change is made, it becomes perfectly obvious that we cannot build our way out of transport problems. That is why we need an integrated approach and why we need to look closely both at integrating transport issues with land-use planning issues so that we do not generate unnecessarily the need for travel and journeys and also at providing clean, affordable, acceptable public transport alternatives to individual car journeys where appropriate.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in view of the interest expressed by the Minister in cross-Border links, does she not feel that equal priority should be given to the long awaited dualling of the A.1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the dualling of the A.1 between Newcastle and Edinburgh is being considered in the context of the Scottish roads review, the results of which will be published later this year. There are also schemes proposed for the A.1 south of the Border, which comes within my responsibilities and about which I hope to be able to give information to the House next week.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is encouraging to hear the noble Baroness's response to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Campbell about this stretch of road. She has shown that she understands precisely what the problem is and why there is a difficult bottle-neck on that stretch. I gather that the decision as to whether the work goes ahead is to be taken within the next few days. When she returns to her office today, will she underline those particular details in red because they are very important?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I was trying to be studiedly neutral in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about this scheme and in explaining the issues we have to take into account. I said that I understood very well that locally and north of the Border great emphasis was put on the issue of having motorway standard links all the way down. But I also pointed out, in the context of less emphasis on road building and more emphasis on road maintenance and making the best use of what we have, that we have to assess rigorously claims, for example, that a specific part of a road is a particularly bad bottle-neck and needs to be addressed because of that.

Prisons: Suicide Rate
3.18 p.m.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people since April 1992 have committed suicide in prisons managed by the commercial sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, since April 1992 there have been 19 apparent
1036
self-inflicted deaths of prisoners in custody in contractually-managed prisons. I understand that inquest verdicts have been returned on 12 of those deaths: 10 were suicides and two were accidental deaths.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he explain why the staffing ratio in private sector prisons is less than in publicly-managed prisons? Does he accept that the very high prison population results in prison officers being unable to provide adequate care to those who may have a suicidal tendency? What is the Government's plan in relation to housing prisoners near to their homes and in relation to mentally ill offenders who may have a depressive illness and may be a suicide risk?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, staff ratios vary according to the regime in a particular prison and the type of prisoner in it. I take the noble Lord's point about imprisoning prisoners close to their homes. Unfortunately, one finds that the suicide rate in prisons is larger in local prisons, partly because it is found that suicide among prisoners, which everyone regrets, tends to occur in the very early stages of incarceration, whether on remand or following sentence. Prison officers are trained to be aware of suicide risks. There are a number of schemes which have been developed, and which are still being developed, with various organisations such as the Howard League for Penal Reform, to make sure that suicide risks are identified as soon as possible when a prisoner is taken into custody.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, as regards the latter part of the Minister's reply, can he confirm that the Prison Service policy of having trained suicide-awareness teams applies to the prisons in the private sector as well as to HM Prison Service establishments? Can he also confirm that a majority of the suicides which the noble Lord mentioned—that is, 17—were not convicted offenders at all, but were on remand awaiting trial or sentence?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly many were on remand. It is a very serious problem indeed. As regards the specific question about private prisons, Doncaster prison, for instance, was the subject of a report published by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in October 1996. He particularly commended the systems of management of healthcare and suicide prevention, so there is no distinction in the quality that one aims to provide in this context between private prisons and publicly-run prisons.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in a civilised society one death of this kind in prison is one too many? Does he further agree that, while there is a real issue of prison needing to be a deterrent and a punishment, the biggest challenge of all is the process of rehabilitation to full and positive citizenship and that has to start on day one of internment? In that context, does my noble friend also agree that there is a cultural issue to be tackled here in the entire Prison Service in

1037
which, of course, there are very many prison officers who serve with distinction and commitment which would challenge us all?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, even one death is one too many. The apparent rise in the rate of suicide in custody has generally mirrored a similar rise in similar age groups throughout the community. I dare say that the reasons for that are manifold and subtle and I cannot pretend to pinpoint all of them. My noble friend Lord Judd is right. We have to have constructive regimes in prison. When I repeated the Statement that Mr. Straw made in another place quite recently in your Lordships' House, I pointed out that extra funding was going to be made available to increase the target of productive activity from 22.5 hours a week to 24 hours a week, which is an important start.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us accept what he said a few moments ago that the most difficult area lies in local prisons? Is he aware also that many of us have seen over-staffing in some prisons? Does he agree that under-staffing raises particularly difficult issues in prisons because, by definition, the governor, or whoever is in charge of the establishment, does not have the staff to keep watch on the most vulnerable prisoners? Will he guarantee that this particular matter is looked at with some care?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly under-staffing is a distinct problem, not only as regards the numbers of staff, but their quality. Dealing with potentially suicidal prisoners is a very difficult skill to acquire. That is undoubtedly a problem. I can tell your Lordships that that is under review. Any remedy for reducing the suicide rate is something that we all take most seriously.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that both as regards suicide and many other prison problems, it is overcrowding which lies at the root of them? In those circumstances, can he give the House any kind of hope that there will be a substantial reduction in the prison population through the introduction of other methods for the treatment of offenders than incarceration which so often leads to further offences?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is a number of distinct points there. Sometimes over-crowding is a contributory factor; sometimes prisoners prefer to share a cell because they like human company during the day. I do not put that forward frivolously: it is a fact. Of course, we want to reduce the prison population. That should occur reasonably soon when we have the managed return from custody to the community, about which I spoke to your Lordships some months ago. That should reduce the demand for places to some extent next year. Ultimately we have to look at this problem across the whole spectrum and that is the whole rationale behind the Crime and Disorder
1038
Bill; namely, that we stop people going to prison by helping them not to offend in the first place and use non-custodial remedies before they get within the custodial system.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the welcome that his last utterance will have among those who wish to see a reduction in the suicide rate in prison and in the number of prisoners? Is it not too late to intervene by preventing re-offending or by trying to deter by punishment so many thousands of young people who could be saved from getting into crime at all by early intervention? Is the noble Lord aware how warmly that intervention on his part will be received?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for what the noble Lord has said. I believe that the general welcome that has been given to the Crime and Disorder Bill comes entirely from the factors which he has identified; namely, that one intervenes early, productively and helpfully to stop children getting into the continuous cycle of further offending, without effective intervention by the state, so that they end up in a dustbin, which is what prison is for many.

Tax Fraud
3.26 p.m.
Baroness Ludford Baroness Ludford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to consult on proposals for tackling tax fraud, given that the Green Paper Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business covers only social security fraud.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the tax authorities already have effective programmes in place to counter tax fraud and evasion. The Inland Revenue's work in countering tax evasion yields about £1.5 billion a year in extra tax, interest on that tax and civil penalties. The revenue also takes criminal proceedings in the most serious cases of all types of tax fraud. The Green Paper explains how the Department of Social Security itself is moving towards a similar approach; that is, civil sanctions backed up by prosecutions.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. In the light of that statement of commitment, can he explain why the title of the consultation paper Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business raised an expectation that it would be of general application, but only on opening it was it found to apply solely to social security fraud? Is it not the case that many of the aims and techniques in that paper, particularly as regards developing an anti-fraud culture in society, need to be applied to tax evasion? I note the figures that the noble Lord gave, but in the Inland Revenue's annual report for 1996 it is stated that compliance work brought in almost £5 billion. I understand that as a result of fraud work Customs and Excise recovered £1.5 billion in the same year. Therefore, is it not reasonable to assume that the sums involved in tax fraud may be even greater than in social security fraud? Can the Minister tell us how the

1039
Government will show that they appreciate the need for even-handedness? Do the Government have any specific plans for having a national tax fraud hotline to match the national benefits fraud hotline?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot answer all seven of the questions that the noble Baroness put to me. She referred to the Green Paper and said that she had to open it in order to see that it referred to social security fraud. She clearly did not observe that it was published by the Department of Social Security. That is made clear on the cover. I do not accept that there is any way in which tax fraud is being approached with less diligence than all other kinds of social security fraud. Nor do I accept that social security fraud is necessarily perpetrated particularly by poor people. On the contrary, a lot of social security fraud is carried out by systematic, organised criminals working on a very large scale. The analogies which the noble Baroness draws between social security fraud and tax fraud do not always hold up to examination in the way that she suggests.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although fraud is always wrong, there is no more reason to suppose that there is fraud in the social security system than elsewhere, and that in taking measures against fraud, we must also take account of their cost-effectiveness? Is the noble Lord satisfied that the priority which tends to be given to social security fraud is cost-effective?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, one difference which ought to be pointed out between tax fraud and social security fraud is that it is possible to estimate the level of social security fraud by a systematic examination of a sample of paid claims. One cannot make the same assumption from an examination of tax returns. One cannot tell whether the person concerned has income which has not been declared for tax purposes. Although it is possible to estimate the level of social security fraud, that is not possible with tax fraud. I can only repeat that a very great deal of intensive effort both in this country and internationally is given to countering tax fraud.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, although they may not be very popular, does the noble Lord agree that the officers of the Inland Revenue and of the Customs and Excise service deserve approbation and praise for their dedicated work on behalf of the nation as a whole in trying to reduce fraud within the tax system as effectively as possible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments. A great deal of the investigative work into tax fraud is carried out routinely by local offices of the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue special compliance office deals with more complex and serious cases. That office alone brought in almost £0.5 billion last year. My understanding from the social security Green Paper is that the Department of Social Security recognises the need to develop a similarly highly skilled core of professionals to investigate benefit fraud. We can all learn from each other.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that several months ago the Government
1040
promised to look into the issue of overseas tax havens. Can the noble Lord give us any idea of when the report of that study is likely to come before Parliament?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, and I am grateful for that question. With other member states of the Community, we have been taking steps to curb large international tax frauds. In May, the Chancellor announced UK-inspired G7 initiatives for the better exchange of information in action against tax crimes. We have appointed a member of the Inland Revenue staff to the National Criminal Intelligence Service to feed back laundering reports to the Revenue for use in tackling tax evasion.

Tamar Bridge Bill
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
I shall be as brief as possible. An Instruction was attached to the Bill asking whether the Bill was necessary and whether its purpose could be achieved at a lower cost by strengthening the existing bridge without widening it. The Select Committee met for three days, deliberated and decided that the Bill should proceed. In those circumstances, I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.-(Baroness Fookes.)
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Scotland Bill
3.34 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Schedule 5 [Reserved matters]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 66, line 9, leave out ("and non-domestic rates)") and insert ("but not locally raised business or non-domestic rates or any local sales or local tourist industry tax).").
The noble Lord said: Before speaking to this amendment, perhaps I should congratulate the Government on managing to start the Scotland Bill on this fifth Committee day at about the right time—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Indeed, it is only fair that I should congratulate the Government on that, given that I criticised them on our previous three Committee days when we did not start this business until six or seven o'clock in the evening. The Government have excelled themselves today. There is not even to be an interruption for a Statement. I hope that we shall therefore be able to catch up with where we ought to have been on Tuesday evening and that we shall manage to complete our consideration of all the amendments on the groupings list before the end of today. However, if we do so, I repeat that we shall only have caught up with where we should have been by the end of Tuesday evening.
This amendment relates to the taxation powers of the Scottish parliament. When the Government produce their White Paper to which my fellow Scots gave such a resounding vote, they made it clear that the tax would relate to only income tax. This amendment seeks to ensure that that promise to the Scottish people is written on the face of the Bill.
I have two worries on this subject, both of which the amendment seeks to address. I refer first to the uniform business rate. For many years, businesses in Scotland had a serious problem with the rates. Businesses in Scotland faced had much higher rateable values than equivalent businesses on equivalent sites in England. On top of that, they had higher rate poundages. The net result was that many businesses in Scotland, competing with businesses south of the Border, were paying significantly more—many times more—in rates to the local authority than were their competitors south of the Border.
When we were in government, we introduced the concept of the uniform business rate in order, over time, to equalise rates not only throughout Scotland—there was a distortion throughout Scotland—but throughout the United Kingdom as a whole. For businesses, that control of business rates was one of the most important tax-cutting measures introduced by the previous Conservative Government.
Since April 1995, the UBR poundage has applied to Scotland at the same level as in England. When in government, we pledged that that linkage should be permanent. Indeed, on Budget day in November 1996, we announced that the 1997–98 Scottish national non-domestic rate at 45.8p in the pound would be the same level as in England. As a result of that policy, businesses in Scotland have paid £1.4 billion less in rates over the five-year period since 1990 than would have been the case if we had not introduced the UBR. If the rate poundage had risen in line with inflation since 1990, businessmen would be facing a poundage rate of £1.10 in the pound and not the 45.8p that I mentioned earlier.
Given that the introduction of the UBR also involved a rates revaluation, we introduced a transitional relief scheme to avoid some businesses facing unduly large rises. In 1995–96, that support amounted to £72 million, with a further £65 million in 1996–97. The fact of the matter is that Scottish businesses value the UBR above
1042
almost anything else that any government have done or can do. That is because of its importance in terms of creating what we all like to call "a level playing field".
That level playing field between Scotland and the rest of the kingdom could potentially be upset if responsibility for the UBR is to be devolved to the Scottish parliament, which is what we understand. The Scottish parliament—the Scottish executive—would then have the right to change the UBR, to increase it above the level for England and thus to make business and commerce in Scotland less competitive than their counterparts south of the Border. In addition to that danger the Scottish parliament has the option to abandon UBR for ever and return the business rate to each and every local authority in Scotland; in other words, to put the clock back to the damaging situation that business faced before the Conservative government embarked on the introduction of UBR.
Lord Monkswell: I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening. The noble Lord has been going on about the terrific advantages that accrued to Scottish business from the uniform business rate as a result of the actions of the previous Conservative government. However, he has not told the Committee the reason why business and domestic rates went up. I hope that this intervention saves my noble friend on the Front Bench from having to correct the historical record. It was the cut in the revenue support grant to pay for cuts in the income tax of the Conservatives' rich friends that forced local authorities to push up the domestic and business rates in order to continue to provide the services that local people required.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for that intervention. I shall draw it to the attention of Scottish business. But I suggest—perhaps quite wrongly—that he speaks for his party when he makes that suggestion. Anyone who knows about Scotland—clearly, the noble Lord does not—is aware that for example in the City of Glasgow, the Labour council took delight in setting high rates. It pretty well frightened business out of the city and into the surrounding areas. That stopped because it no longer had control of the business rate, but it continued to do it for individuals. Council taxpayers in Glasgow pay the highest council tax anywhere in Scotland. That takes some going; competition is pretty fierce among Labour local authorities. That is the reality of the matter.
Outside Glasgow there are other councils. One of them, which has just passed out of Conservative control—the Labour Party has not had sufficient time to damage the residents yet—charges significantly lower rates. It has attracted the establishment of many businesses outside the city. More importantly, a good many Glasgow businessmen have gone to live outside the city boundaries. I have not done that but frankly there is a considerable financial temptation to which many businessmen whose companies make their living in the centre of Glasgow have succumbed. That is a fact, and I am delighted that the intervention of the noble Lord gives me this opportunity to explain it.

1043
I return to the UBR and the problems that may be faced under the Scottish parliament. As we shall see when we come to discuss those parts of the Bill that relate to extra taxation, the maximum that is likely to be raised by the three pence in the pound is about £450 million. That is a lot of money but in comparison with the Scottish block of £14 billion, it is not hugely significant. If in future anything happened to the Barnett formula or anything of that nature, the Scottish parliament might find that the extra £450 million was insufficient. Therefore, it would look for other ways to raise money. As the parliament would have control over all government finance including the business rate it is possible that control of the uniform business rate could be used to increase the amount available to the Scottish parliament and Scottish executive to spend at their own hand. It is conceivable that in an attempt to raise additional expenditure, control over local business rates will be handed back to councils, those councils being allowed to set the local business rate with all the problems that that may cause. In so doing the advantage to the Scottish parliament is that it can reduce the amount of grants that it gives to local authorities which they will have to make up by increasing both the business and the domestic rate. The parliament may increase its income or have more income to hand from the block grant by this means.
The parliament may also keep the UBR but increase it in Scotland above and beyond that which local authorities need. While it may be a nice sleight of hand by presenting to the local authorities what it takes in by way of UBR, equally by sleight of hand it may reduce the amount of the other grant that it gives so that it retains a little more of the money which it can then spend on whatever is its favourite projects. Either way the business community in Scotland will be back to the position in which it found itself before we started out on the uniform business rate. It would face an increasing burden. My amendment seeks to make clear on the face of the Bill beyond any ministerial assurances that that cannot happen.
The second part of the amendment refers to local sales or tourist tax. This arises because of a suggestion by a very senior Labour councillor who I believe has been allowed onto the list for the Scottish parliament. I am not very sure because I do not closely follow the internal machinations of the Labour Party. Councillor Keith Geddes, who is Leader of Edinburgh City Council and who was the Labour Party's candidate for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale at the previous general election, suggested that the parliament could raise money by a tourist tax. He made that suggestion in January and has repeated it recently. He went further and said that he would levy £2 per night per tourist. It would mean that if, say, a family of four had a fortnight's holiday in Scotland—this should interest the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, as chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board—it would have to find an extra £112. That may discourage people from coming to Scotland. I suspect that this year they have been discouraged because of the value of sterling which makes it less attractive to people from abroad to holiday in Scotland. It makes it more attractive for people in
1044
England to holiday abroad rather than in Scotland. In addition, the weather this summer has not been all that good. I blame the Government for that but that is another matter. I have not tabled an amendment to deal with that.
A tourist tax in Scotland would be a distinct disadvantage to the Scottish tourist industry. I do not want to labour the point. I believe that Councillor Geddes was flying a kite of his own. In case he is not, I have tabled this part of the amendment. Without wanting to labour the importance of tourism to Scotland, I should like to record that for many areas it is a vitally important industry. It brings in lots of money to the Scottish economy, especially to the parts of Scotland where there are not many ways in which local people can generate wealth.
The tourist industry was not very fussed by the idea. Mr. Peter Taylor of the British Hospitality Association said that obviously the tax would have to be passed on to the customer and would thus make Scotland less competitive and create a spiral effect. This is an important industry which generates about £2 billion a year for the Scottish economy. Therefore, I have thought it right to try to provide some protection for that industry in case the idea promoted by Councillor Geddes becomes contagious and spreads to other members of his party who have a leading role in the Scottish parliament. That is why the local business rate and any other local sales or tourist tax is addressed in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: In the noble Lord's introductory remarks he spoke about a novel constitutional principle; namely, that those from the Back Benches spoke for their party and should be chastised for that, whereas the noble Lord in speaking from the Opposition Front Bench was wholly innocent of any party politics in this matter. I take his comment with a pinch of salt.
As to the uniform business rate, the view of business and commerce in Scotland is not 100 per cent. in favour of the UBR. I recall the discussions that I had with representatives of Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce when an elected Member of the other place. They presented a shopping list of projects that they wanted Aberdeen City Council to undertake: better roads and services and many other things. I asked how it would be paid for. They took refuge in the usual response that the Government would have to make the money available. Since it was a Conservative government, at the time we all agreed that there was not much prospect of it.
One of the problems was that in supplying services and reacting to local demands, needs and desires local councillors were hemmed in by restrictions on what they could spend, limits on capital spending, limits on how much money they could raise through the uniform business rate and so forth. I was solemnly told by the representatives of the chamber of commerce—and I have no reason to believe that it put up a bunch of mavericks to see us; they were speaking generally for the Aberdeen Chamber of Commerce—that if local

1045
services were to be improved it would be quite happy to trade off local decision-making against the uniform business rate.
The uniform business rate has not been of untrammelled benefit throughout Scotland. Its effectiveness and efficiency have been as variable as the local determination of business rates. It was very variable. The cost of the business rates to individual businesses was a very small proportion of any company's turnover and expenses.
I am against the amendment. The Scottish parliament should have the right to decide whether there should be a uniform business rate. I do not think that there should be, but I am not going to be there—and I have no desire to be there—to influence it one way or the other. It should have the right to decide.
Above all, if we are to see real change as a result of devolution, we need to give local government more power and responsibility. The only way that we can do that is to allow them to raise as much of their own revenue as they possibly can. They will have to answer to the electorate. If the electorate does not like what they do they will soon chuck them out. I am in favour of the maximum devolution, the maximum decentralisation of power. To retain in Westminster the uniform business rate goes totally against the grain. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this to a Division.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I was struck by the noble Lord's praising the Conservative Government for abolishing the business rate. There were certainly some extraordinary examples of the differences in rates just over the Border. It took the Conservatives from 1979 to 1995 to do it. It took them some little time to realise what harm it was doing.
As to the noble Lord's main point, he is at his old business: that you cannot trust a Scottish parliament; that the people who are elected will be extremely foolish. If they are foolish, that is democracy. All that I have seen of the people who wish to stand is that there is a far greater desire in Scotland to do something about the ills of Scotland through the Scottish parliament than exists at the present time. There is a certain delusion about politics which the Scottish parliament will almost certainly cure.
The noble Lord is simply taking away the power of the Scottish parliament not only to raise taxes but to lower them. Often the lowering of taxes can benefit the community and the country enormously. It might attract people, more money might be invested and the revenue might rise at the end of the day.
The noble Lord can no longer go on saying that the Scottish parliament will be foolish and must be prevented from being foolish by what is on the face of the Bill. It will not work.
1046
As to the local taxes, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, is absolutely right. If there is a decent system of local democracy then the people who overburden their electorate will be put out. It is a bad amendment and I trust and hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Rowallan: I disagree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has just said. I must declare an interest as a business rate payer in Scotland. I have always objected most strongly to having to pay a larger sum than someone who has exactly the same business as mine in England. I think rates should be uniform throughout the country.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I think we have agreed that the business rate is very bad in Scotland. I was saying that the Conservative Government took a long time to abolish it.
Lord Rowallan: The noble Lord also went on to say that local government could always be put out by the local voters. Very few people actually pay business rates. The vast majority of voters within a local authority area do not care what the business rate is. They are slightly concerned with the domestic rate but not the business rate. Therefore rates can go up enormously, with absolutely no thought being given to businesses.
It is clear that whenever local authorities offer free rates in a particular area—as various new towns have done over the years, such as East Kilbride, Cumbernauld and Greenock—businesses have flooded in. As soon as the 10-year period of grace is over and a business rate comes back on, those businesses have moved on somewhere else where they can get a cheaper rate. There is no doubt about that. The facts prove it.
I strongly support this amendment. We should have a uniform business rate throughout the country. It will save any aggravation and, because very few people pay the business rate within a local authority, it is more democratic.
The Earl of Balfour: Once again I would ask that the Government bear in mind that there should be only one body holding the purse strings in the country, and that is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If there is to be any variation it should be a very small one. The tax concessions given to this Scottish parliament under the provisions of the Bill are at least limited to 3 per cent.
At the very least the Government should take on board that any variation, particularly of the business rate, should be limited to no more than the 3 per cent. difference. If it is more than that I am concerned that when businesses look at their expenses—particularly those that want to set up a business—they not include within their inquiries coming to Scotland, and the Scots will miss out.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has kindly declared my interest for me, so perhaps I can avoid doing so again. The noble Lord's allusion to a Scottish tourist bed tax is wide of the mark. My understanding is that Councillor Geddes' proposal is for a hypothecated tax on tourism,

1047
which would be used by the tourist boards locally to market tourism more effectively. There is no question of the tax going to the central exchequer.
I tend to side with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. We really should not circumscribe the powers of the Scottish parliament. I agree, partially at least, with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside. Scottish local authorities are well seized of the importance of attracting new businesses to Scotland. They are also well seized of the disincentive that higher taxation represents. We should leave it to their own good sense.
It may give no comfort to the Government, but it is wrong that businesses have no say in local government. Businesses contribute more in business rates than the electorate contributes locally in community charges—and yet businesses have no say. The principle of taxation without representation is something which went out with the Boston Tea Party.
Later, when the Scottish parliament looks at ways of involving people outside the parliament in pre-legislative scrutiny, the key factor will be to have business involved in making some of the decisions. In that way, as with the analogy described by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, business may be prepared and may want to pay more for a better service. In my area we agreed voluntarily to install a closed-circuit security system because in the long run we think it will save us money. If the local authority had said, "We will do this if you will pay a higher rate", we would gladly have agreed. It would amount to the same figure. The key point is to involve business, and that is something that the Scottish parliament will do more effectively than Westminster has done.
4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not believe that the amendment is just about the business rate. It is an important amendment. It raises the whole question of whether the Scots parliament will find itself capable of maintaining and improving Scotland's prosperity as a whole, and maintaining its economy, which has been going well over the past few years. That is what we hope the Scottish parliament will be able to do.
The anxiety being expressed publicly by some big businesses, and by many others quietly to one another, and, I am sure, to Members of the Committee, relates to uncertainty as to what will happen to taxation in general. I do not believe that that is rooted in the conviction that more will be spent; they just want to know what is likely to happen.
Business, of course, always has doubts about what the Chancellor of Exchequer will do and what will be the level of income taxes. In Scotland there is now a double anxiety. There is anxiety as to whether income tax is likely to rise by 3p in the pound or drop. It is inevitable that the uncertainty business faces will increase. It will be built into the system. We have to accept that. The additional uncertainty relates to what other taxes it may be possible for the parliament to raise. My noble friend has explained that, as it stands, the Bill opens up a number of possibilities. The amendment would limit them, and I am sure that that is wise.
1048
Members of the Committee are saying that the Scots parliament will be sensible and that it will not want to raise taxes if that is disadvantageous to Scotland. I am not certain about that. A number of people who seem likely to be prominent members of the Scots parliament—of course we still do not know who they will be—have expressed views which make one feel that they would like to see higher taxes. Mr. Henry McLeish, at present Minister of State at the Scottish Office, is on record as saying a while ago that he thought that it would be necessary to raise the extra 3p. I do not know whether he still thinks that. I understand that he is standing for the Scots parliament. We do not know whether he will be elected, but it is likely that he will be a prominent member. The SNP has expressed the view that it would like to see a 50p rate on higher incomes. That does not concern us at the moment, but it gives us an idea of its view on taxation, at any rate of those who are better off, and I should have thought of business.
It seems to me that the parliament will have some problems. I understand that the Scottish Office civil servants are getting themselves well kitted up for their new role. The Minister may be able to confirm this, but it seems that the number of Scottish Office civil servants has risen from 4,550 in 1995 to 5,465 in 1997. That is a biggish rise. It excludes of course some 6,000 people who work for non-departmental public bodies, most of whom are paid for by the taxpayer.
The new parliament building and its upkeep, the new Scottish Office building at Leith, in addition to the existing St. Andrew's House in the middle of Edinburgh and Dover House in Whitehall, all have to be funded, as does the increased number of people. The temptation for the Scots parliament to find extra money by way of taxes will be great. It may even find that it needs it unless, of course, the Barnett formula is rejigged to increase money for Scotland. It may be. We do not know. We shall all be watching that with great interest.
Scotland needs an increasingly beneficial economic edge over other countries in the EU and elsewhere, even, dare one say it, in relation to the rest of the UK. That is what we hope the Scottish parliament will be able to create. It will not be possible to raise all that money through local government in order to have more to spend at the centre. I do not believe that it should be allowed to do it. I like the amendment.
Viscount Thurso: I was pleased to hear the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, in relation to the tourist tax, and grateful to him for explaining that Mr. Geddes' proposals were for a hypothecated tax. In my role as my party's tourism spokesman, I have spent considerable time looking into various types of hypothecated tourism taxes around the world. Without wishing to come down on one side or the other of the argument, it is clear that in many areas there is great merit in it. The headlong attack on the principle by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was wide of the mark. I commend him to look, among others, at the State of Florida as an example of a hypothecated tourist tax which works well. What is dangerous is any form of taxation on a tourism activity

1049
which is not hypothecated and which is reserved to the central treasury. We do not have to look far to find a devastating example of that. It is called the airport tax.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: I support the points made on the UBR by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. For a short time I was responsible for local government finance in Scotland. We had many representations, especially from smaller businesses, which stressed the unfairness of having different rates charged for comparable businesses in different parts of the country. Over a period of years, we resolutely transferred hundreds of millions of pounds from the Scottish block to make the UBR a successful reality. As my noble friend said, we were able to save businesses in Scotland approximately £1.1 billion a year. If that level playing field were thrown away overnight, it would make businesses a great deal less competitive and cause job losses in certain parts of the country. Whether or not my noble friend presses the amendment, the principle that he has asserted is one that should be remembered.
Lord Desai: First, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for not being in my place when he started, but I can well guess what he said. I am astonished that the Conservative Party is such a centraliser. It hates any diversity or experimentation and it does not trust legislators of any kind. It somehow feels that there should be a single tax. It tried that. It was called the poll tax. We know what happened to that.
It is a good thing to let people devise their own little fiscal constitutions and take the consequences. If Glasgow charges too high a business rate and loses business, that is Glasgow's lookout. If businessmen move outside the limits of Glasgow, local authorities outside Glasgow will gain. I say, "good". Let there be lots of uneven playing fields because centralising uniformity is bad. We have succeeded in killing local initiatives by the policies on local authority finances. A substantial part of local authority revenue comes from the centre. That has a huge effect on any local authority innovation. That means that we do not have local authorities with any semblance of independence. With devolution we have a chance to let not a thousand flowers bloom but perhaps 15. Let them bloom. If it turns out badly, the Scottish people will punish those they do not like.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it is somewhat historic that when President Ford was obliged to take over from President Nixon, he called for a report on the American economy. A fortnight later his staff produced 1,000 A4 pages, closely typed and with a few graphs and pie charts. He took one look and said, "I cannot study all that. I shall never absorb it all. Summarise it". His staff took it away, and two weeks later back came one line: there is no such thing as a free meal.
Whatever else we like to say, that will be the situation. I have spent a lifetime dealing with local authority finance. For once I find myself in some agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Desai. It has been
1050
unfortunate that controls over local authority expenditure have been over centralised. However, worse than that and more insidious—it is less of a party point in a way—has been the way in which over the years central government have constantly stepped in to bail out local government when local government has found itself in trouble. I have always argued, and I say now, that local authorities should not have full Treasury backing; they should be allowed to go bankrupt and face the consequences of their own irresponsibility. So I would impose a much harsher discipline on local government than has existed in this country for a very long time.
When considering what should or should not be on the face of the Bill, there is a case for arguing that there should be no possibility of raising the uniform business rate to a rate different from the domestic council tax. The noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, has a margin of right on his side when he says that business contributes a great deal to local government—of course it does—and that it does not have sufficient say in the decisions that force up that expenditure. I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord when he says that business is not represented. If business is not represented in local government, there is a simple reason: that by and large business will not become involved in local government even though it has every opportunity to do so. We should remember that. There should be a linkage between the uniform business rate and the council tax so that they cannot be lifted at separate rates; otherwise the democratic impact will be diminished if business can be taxed at a higher rate.
As regards a Scots authority making itself uncompetitive, I would say, "Let it". If people move out of one city in Scotland into another area, that is fine. If they move over the Border into England—as I gather from what is happening to property prices in the north of England, is beginning to occur—well and good. I do not have too many worries about that.
At the end of the day these matters will be controlled through the Scottish block which comes under the Chancellor of the Exchequer who may not always be as generous as the present one. Because of that, there will not be enormous opportunity for fiscal transfers from a Scottish parliament to local government greater than they are at present because the absolute volume of money is constrained.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell: Before the Minister replies in his usual excellent style, perhaps he will clarify this in my mind. As regards the wicked calumny against Councillor Geddes of Edinburgh, I heard the wise words of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who has experience of tourism. I enjoyed his comments on hypothecated tax. I am a simple Angus man, not an expert, let alone from Caithness. It does not matter what one calls it. "Hypothecated" is a rather long word. I use a word with two syllables: is it extra cash? I think that it probably is. The tax may be called hypothecated; it may be diverted to making Caithness or Angus more beautiful. But every person who spends the night there will spend £2.

1051
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said that business rates or local government taxation might be reduced. If that is the policy of the Liberal Democrat Party, I am sure that bells will be rung all round Scotland. Local authorities will leap, as noble Lords tend to leap in winter time.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, regaled us with stories of Aberdeen City Council. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, introduces a sensible note into the debate.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Following the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lords, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I should be very sorry to see any kind of rate or tax which added to the costs of accommodation for visitors. Already in this country the cost of hotel rooms and overnight accommodation is very high indeed compared with a great many other countries. For example, when I ask Canadian friends if they are coming over this year, the answer I receive is, "We should love to come but your hotel rooms are so expensive compared with ours that we cannot afford to come for at least another two years".
Lord Sewel: It is nice to know that we have put the early start to such good use. That absolute gem of a distinguished chartered accountant among us, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, claims no knowledge of what a hypothecated tax is. Pull the other one, my Lords!
Lord Lyell: Perhaps I may stress to the Minister that we have debits and credits, not hypothecated items. The meaning of a hypothecated tax is not necessarily what I was taught between 1962 and 1967. Perhaps the Minister can answer whether hypothecated tax is extra cash. That is what I want to know.
Lord Sewel: I do not wish to engage in a debate between the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. They may be able to take the matter further somewhere else. I shall certainly not be a participant in that little dispute.
Let us return to the main issue. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is a recent and, I sometimes suspect, a reluctant convert to devolution. Most of the time he does quite well. The new script comes out persuasively. But every now and then his nerve fails him. He sees all sorts of horrors and disasters looming ahead, backs off and tries to put controls and constraints in the way of the Scottish parliament.
His approach seems to be based on the perverse idea that almost as soon as a Scottish parliament is elected it will deliberately implement policies which would have as their primary objective the inflicting of damage on the Scottish economy. That is the argument we are being asked to buy. That argument may spring from the deep lack of confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in the ability of the parliament, or even his own party's representatives in that parliament, to take wise and prudent decisions. I am prepared to trust
1052
them and if they get it wrong they will simply suffer the judgment of the electorate. It is as simple and straightforward as that.
Amendment No. 181 would remove a fundamentally important power from the Scottish parliament; an important building block of devolution. The Bill provides for the full devolution of an extremely important area relating not only to local government but to local government finance, too. The idea is that control of local government finance will rest wholly in Scotland. Non-domestic rates are part of the local government finance system and the devolution of them represents a key part of ensuring that accountability for local finance lies with the Scottish parliament rather than Westminster. We are deliberately transferring that responsibility to the Scottish parliament and ensuring that the proper lines of accountability run from the Scottish parliament to the Scottish people. We are not reserving the power to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Concerns were expressed that expenditure in Scotland will increase almost out of control as a result of this power. There is no basis on which that judgment can be made. But let us return to what was stated in the White Paper, because it tried to deal with the arguments that we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It states that if its expenditure growth relative to England became excessive and was such as to threaten targets set for public expenditure as part of the management of the UK economy, and the Scottish Parliament chose not to intervene or to take any action, it would be open to the UK Government to take that excess into account in considering its level of support for expenditure in Scotland. That is right, because in that respect control is not being exercised in order to constrain or limit the activities of local government. Control is being exercised in order to protect the reserved matter of macro-economic policy. That is absolutely and understandably the way forward.
In dealing with the nature and perhaps future reform of local taxation, the White Paper—and the White Paper was endorsed in the referendum—dealt at some length with the possibility of changes in the local government taxation system. With the leave of the House, I shall quote from paragraph 7.26 on page 25 of the White Paper. It states:
"The Scottish Parliament will be responsible for determining the form of local taxation, both domestic and non-domestic, which local authorities will be permitted to levy. It will therefore be able to alter the form of the council tax, or replace it if it so decides. Non-domestic rates are also an important part of the local finance system and, they too will be a devolved matter. It will be for the Scottish Parliament to decide whether to retain the power to set the non-domestic rate poundage within its own control or to devolve that responsibility to local councils. It will clearly need to consult business interests before making any changes".
I believe that that is the right way forward. It shows a proper, mature and sensible approach to the relationship between the Scottish parliament and local government. Of course, the amendment as it stands is totally

1053
incompatible with that proposition. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am surprised that the Minister did not turn his attention in any detail to the second part of the amendment; namely, the tourist tax. But perhaps we can assume that we shall receive an answer from some of his noble friends who made, it has to be said, the first outing of Back Bench Labour Members in the Committee stage—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Certainly, it is so long since I heard them last and I did not hear any of them on the previous day. I was going to say that for that I am grateful for the catalystic effect of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell—he was a catalyst to bring everyone out of their lairs.
As regards the tourist tax, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, gave a neat spin to the proposals of Councillor Geddes, saying that it was hypothecated and would go to the tourist industry. My noble friend Lord Lyell made a good point when he asked whether it was extra tax.
The simple fact of the matter is knowing how government of all parties works and how treasuries work. The treasury of the Scottish parliament will be no different. It will say to itself, "Well, they are getting a bit more money from that hypothecated tax, so perhaps next year I can shave a bit off the budget I would normally give them out of other taxes, save it and put it somewhere else". That is what will happen and it will simply be a tax—
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. For the avoidance of doubt, I am opposed to a bed tax, but I believe that it is worth examining. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, pointed out that it works well in other areas. If there were to be a bed tax it would probably be levied by the Scottish Tourist Board as part of the membership scheme of the board rather than the local authority or the government. I repeat that I am opposed to such a tax, but it is worth examining. Some people in the tourist industry have advocated it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am aware that some people in the tourist industry have advocated such a tax as a way of bringing more money into tourism. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, that it would probably cause more damage than good in the longer term.
I jotted down the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, because I thought that they summed up the Liberal Democrat party almost entirely. I am certain that it is an exact quotation, but it may be a word out. He said, "Without wishing to come down on one side of the argument or the other". I think that we can leave it at that; the Liberal Democrats' motto.
Viscount Thurso: We are not debating tourism tax and we are not debating hypothecation. Therefore I have
1054
no need to give my views on the subject. I was asking the noble Lord to accept the principle that such a tourist tax, in many countries of the world where it is hypothecated, has greatly benefited tourism. That is an indisputable fact. I linked it to the fact that unhypothecated taxes, such as the airport tax which he and his noble friends introduced and then doubled, have caused great harm.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry to tell the noble Viscount that the amendment refers specifically to "local tourist industry tax", so we are talking about it. However, I notice that he is still sitting firmly on the fence as regards introducing it in this country.
That is not the main object of the amendment; the main object relates to the uniform business rate. All my noble friends who spoke underlined my point about the importance to business in Scotland of the uniform business rate and the fact that prior to its introduction businesses in many parts of Scotland were hugely disadvantaged as compared with business in England. I notice that no one from the government side addressed that problem.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that the rate took some years to introduce because it had to be introduced gradually and cost quite a lot of money. One must introduce such changes in taxation gradually if one is to do it sensibly. The fact is that we are at that point now and I am sure that businesses in Scotland will notice that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, speaking on behalf of his party, would be content for us to return to the situation in which the UBR did not exist.
I am asked by everyone from the Government Benches to the Liberal Democrat Benches why I lack confidence in this parliament. There is a short answer which probably I shall have to explain. I live in Glasgow and I pay Glasgow's council tax. I am in a small minority because few people pay Glasgow's council tax. Most of them then promptly vote for an authority which raises council taxes to a rate much higher than in any other part of Scotland. Therefore, if I appear to lack confidence when I see barrow-loads of councillors lining up to join this parliament it is from bitter experience. As regards good financial control, I return to the barrow-loads of councillors. In North Lanarkshire Council and East Ayrshire Council was there good financial control and concern about local businesses when they used their DLO to undercut all the local businesses which then had to pay the business rate and taxes in the area? No, I am sorry, that argument does not fill me with confidence; indeed, I am not hugely filled with confidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, thinks that I occasionally appear to be falling in love with devolution but that my nerve then fails me and I back off. Well, my nerve does not fail me and, I suppose, regrettably for the Minister, neither do words fail me. However, they very nearly do when I think about the idea of councillors being translated from their brilliant running of local government in Scotland to running the Scottish parliament and what they might do to the uniform business rate if they keep it. I believe that they will do so. I really believe that they will

1055
not give it back to local authorities: they will keep it and they will use it in the way that I suggested in my introductory remarks.
I shall not continue with the argument. I believe this to be a vitally important point. It seems to me that the business community in Scotland ought to see how people fall and that they should realise that people occasionally have to fall off the fence. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee on my amendment. Indeed, I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, will at least come down off the fence on one side or the other.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 181) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Ailsa, M.

Lauderdale, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lucas, L.

Annaly, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Attlee, E. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Balfour, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Berners, B.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Milverton, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Montrose, D.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Cadman, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norfolk, D.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Northesk, E.

Courtown, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cross, V.

Pender, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Prior, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Quinton, L.

Denham, L.

Rees, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Renton, L.

Derwent, L.

Renwick, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rowallan, L.

Elles, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elton, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Sempill, L.

Forbes, L.

Strange, B.

Gisborough, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harrowby, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hemphill, L.

Swinfen, L.

Holderness, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Torphichen, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Vivian, L.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Westbury, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wilcox, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Wise, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Alli, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Amos, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Annan, L.

Berkeley, L.

1056

Blackstone, B.

McNally, L.

Borrie, L.

Maddock, B.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carlisle, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Minto, E.

David, B.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Desai, L.

Monson, L.

Dholakia, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Diamond, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dixon, L.

Palmer, L.

Donoughue, L.

Peston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Falkland, V.

Puttnam, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

Grantchester, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grey, E.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hacking, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

Hanworth, V.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hardie, L.

Serota, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sewel, L.

Haskel, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hayman, B.

Shepherd, L.

Healey, L.

Simon, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Stair, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stallard, L.

Hoyle, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hughes, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Ilchester, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Thurso, V.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Tope, L.

Jeger, B.

Tordoff, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Judd, L.

Uddin, B.

Kennet, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Kintore, E.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Weatherill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ludford, B.

Whitty, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Crosby, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

McNair, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.39 p.m.
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 66, line 17, at end insert—
("Exception from reservation
Scottish bank notes issued by the Scottish banks.").
The noble Lord said: This matter comes under Head 1, financial and economic matters, in Schedule 5. That reserves to the United Kingdom Parliament and Government fiscal and economic policy. That is perfectly understandable and correct. Local taxes are exempted from reservation, as we have discussed. I seek to add to that exemption from reservation,
"Scottish bank notes issued by the Scottish banks".
This amendment seeks to give the Scottish parliament control over the issuing of Scottish banknotes, but not over general currency questions. I do not want to hear anyone suggest that we seek to hand responsibility for monetary policy to the Scottish parliament. We seek simply to hand to the Scottish parliament responsibility for Scottish banknotes issued by Scottish banks under the Bank Notes (Scotland) Act of 1845 which gives Scottish banks the right to issue their own banknotes. That is one of the more colourful aspects of Scottish life which is much appreciated by visitors from around the world and indeed from south of the Border.
These matters are important to Scots. There was a huge outcry a few years ago when we moved to pound coins and it was proposed to abolish the one pound banknote. However, the Government had to accept that in Scotland one pound banknotes should continue to be issued. That is still the case. I can envisage that with inflation we shall soon face the dilemma of whether we should introduce £5 coins instead of £5 notes. The outcry will arise again. I think it would be far better for the Scottish parliament to have responsibility for the matter of Scottish banknotes. That seems perfectly sensible. I cannot see why the Government could possibly object to that.
Of course the amendment would not give the Scottish parliament any powers over the number of notes in circulation. That would remain firmly the responsibility of the Bank of England, not the Monetary Policy Committee. This amendment takes account of a Scottish tradition which is held dear by those of us who live north of the Border. In my view that Scottish tradition would be better safeguarded by the Scottish parliament in whom, on this occasion, I have trust. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I support the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, on this occasion. He is often right as regards small, cosmetic measures. I love Scottish banknotes. I have spent my life trying to accumulate enough of them to accommodate my expensive tastes. I have not always been successful. Scottish banknotes are a useful and nice factor of Scottish life and I believe we should retain them. I have heard various explanations of what will happen if we adopt the euro, but in the meantime I trust and hope that we shall be able to continue to offer Scottish banknotes in England and find them accepted with delight by taxi drivers and others who also collect notes.
Lord Renton: I was brought up to believe that one should never love any banknotes. I am anxious that my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, with whom I nearly always agree and whose arguments I greatly
1058
admire, should enlighten us before we go much further with regard to the following point. I can understand the desire—especially when one considers the Scottish banknotes Act—that the new Scottish parliament should have some say with regard to Scottish banknotes. However, Scottish banknotes are available in denominations of one pound sterling or a number of pounds. They are part of the common currency of the United Kingdom. I hope that when we have devolution to Scotland we shall continue to have a common currency within the United Kingdom.
My noble friend used the word "safeguarded" just now. There is a further safeguard that we should think about if we are to accept his amendment; namely, to write into the Bill that although the Scottish parliament is to have control over Scottish banknotes, those banknotes should be part of the common currency of the United Kingdom and should not be regarded internationally as a separate currency.
The Earl of Balfour: I think Scotland must be the last country in the world where each different bank produces its own banknote. I think that is a quite unique custom and one that I find rather fun. To the best of my knowledge Scottish banknotes have been controlled by the Bank of England, as far as I understand the position.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: I understand that local designs are permissible under the protocol to the Maastricht Treaty. An amendment to this effect, which allows the Scottish parliament to legislate about the issue of Scottish banknotes, has considerable merit. I hope that the Minister will be able to accede to this request.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: If this should be possible, it would of course be a popular measure to have in the Bill. Am I right in thinking that banknotes are not actually tender but are promises to pay?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I hope I can help the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, by telling him that four banks in Northern Ireland issue their own notes.
4.45 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): The background to the issue of Scottish banknotes by the banks in Scotland is, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, properly pointed out, governed by the Bank Notes (Scotland) Act 1845. With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, it is not possible to separate the issue of notes from the concept of currency and monetary policy. I shall have to address the question of currency and monetary policy in the context of this amendment. In that regard I am reinforced by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
The Scottish banks are entitled to issue notes but there are various conditions attached to that. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that any banknote is, of course, a promissory note, but Scottish banknotes are not in fact legal tender. They do not require to be accepted as payment in Scotland or in any part of the United Kingdom although, as has been observed by

1059
the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, people in all parts of the United Kingdom are happy to accept them. That situation has developed over the years. I believe that many years ago taxi drivers in London were less happy to accept Scottish pound notes than they are Scottish "fivers" or Scottish £10 notes nowadays.
As I said, the Act imposes various conditions with regard to the issuing of notes, including the regulation of the number of bank notes which each bank is entitled to issue, the determination of the denominations—notes must be in whole pounds—and the number of notes which banks may have in circulation. Weekly accounts of notes in circulation have to be made; returns have to be made and published; and each bank is allowed to issue notes only when authorised. All of these provisions are intended to regulate the currency in circulation and concern currency standards in general. These matters are integral to the United Kingdom economy and must remain reserved, as set out in the White Paper. The amendment would allow the Scottish parliament to legislate on the issuing of banknotes by Scottish banks. One can imagine that the parliament may wish to impose different conditions from the United Kingdom Government with regard to the issuing of notes.
The Government cannot support the amendment. We want macro-economic policy to be reserved. That covers everything needed to ensure the ordinary conduct of monetary and fiscal policy at a United Kingdom level, including the power to issue money. The banknotes issued by Scottish banks are an integral part of our monetary policy. We need to keep controls over them in place; for example, central control over the number and value of notes in circulation. There will be nothing to stop Scottish banks continuing to issue banknotes under the 1845 Act. I trust and hope that they will continue to do so. Like other noble Lords, I am very fond of them. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Clearly we are all fond of banknotes; are even quite fond of coins, but banknotes come in larger denominations. This has been an interesting debate. I appear to have lost my noble friend Lord Renton and gained the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. I suppose that one cannot get everybody on the same side at any one time. I was not surprised to hear the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. His party proposed a similar amendment in the other place. So in a way I was merely checking for consistency. The noble Lord gets full marks on this occasion.
The answer given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was a tinge on the heavy side. I made it perfectly clear that nothing I was suggesting interfered with the control of monetary policy by the Bank of England or the other controls on these matters exercised by government—those that are not yet handed over to the Bank of England. I thought the answer slightly weak. Scottish banknotes are an important part of Scottish life. It would have been a good thing if we could have said that their issue was a matter for the Scottish parliament to decide. If my amendment is defective, perhaps the Government might examine it
1060
during the Recess to see whether they can ring-fence merely the simple point that all noble Lords have addressed and make sure that questions of monetary policy, how many banknotes can be issued and so on, remain entirely reserved. I believe that no one in this Chamber would want otherwise. I suspect that there are a few in the other Chamber who would be happy to have the whole issue of monetary policy in Scotland independent of the Bank of England and the United Kingdom Government. But no one is on that side of the argument in this place.
We have had an interesting debate. I hope that the Government will reflect on the symbolic importance of giving the Scottish parliament at least some say over the issuing of banknotes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 184 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 184A.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 66, leave out line 37.
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendment No. 185. I am happy for Amendment No. 184A in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, to be discussed at the same time.
These are probing amendments. They seek to explore the reasons why the Government wish to have legislative control over dangerous drugs as a reserved matter and to enable the Committee to debate this important matter. The purpose of my two amendments, were they to be acceptable at a later stage, would be to allow the Scottish parliament to have legislative control over the subject matter of the 1971 Act and, by necessary implication, give the Scottish executive competence over the same matters.
Perhaps I may pre-empt an argument which I anticipate may come from the Minister who will reply; namely, that this matter is dealt with in the White Paper. Factually speaking, that is correct. However, all that the White Paper says, in a subheading in paragraph 3.3, is that among the matters to be reserved, listed in general terms, there is,
"The protection of borders and certain matters subject to border controls including",
and then various examples are given. One of those is,
"the criminal law in relation to drugs and firearms, and the regulation of drugs misuse".
I fully accept that the matter was included in the White Paper that was before the Scottish people when they voted in the referendum. However, I very much doubt whether individuals who voted in the referendum took account of the intention to reserve the misuse of drugs as a factor which bore upon their decision as to whether or not to vote yes to either of the two questions.
The Misuse of Drugs Act covers a great variety of issues dealing with the possession of dangerous drugs: restriction on their production and supply; restriction on the cultivation of certain drugs—for example, the cannabis plant; and various other topics, including procedures for law enforcement and the punishment of offences relating to such drugs. Within that Act it is possible for any peculiarities of the Scottish position with regard to the enforcement of statutory offences to be taken account of.
I can well understand the Government's thinking in seeking to reserve this matter; namely, that there should be a common approach throughout the United Kingdom to the prohibitions against dangerous drugs and the enforcement of those prohibitions by law enforcement agencies and ultimately, when appropriate, by prosecution in the criminal court.
Having said that, and having accepted that at present there is a common statutory framework, there are nevertheless differences as between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom in relation to how these matters are handled, particularly in the criminal courts. The public prosecutor in Scotland has formulated certain policies as to which types of offences will be prosecuted in particular courts. He has evolved policies which he believes are relevant to Scotland. There is little doubt that different policies may apply in other parts of the United Kingdom.
More importantly, it is clear that in the sentencing of those convicted of drugs offences very different sentences are imposed in Scottish courts from those frequently imposed in English courts. It has certainly been my practical experience, when appearing for accused men in Scotland who happen to be English, that when one advises them of the sentence they are likely to receive they are amazed to discover that in some instances it may be two or three times the length that would be appropriate having regard to sentencing guidelines issued by the Court of Appeal in England. I make no criticism one way or another of the differing approaches adopted by the courts. I believe it is entirely for the courts and the judges who constitute them to decide on their policies, provided they lie within the framework of the legislation. But it illustrates that, notwithstanding the common statutory framework, it is possible at present to have different approaches to tackling the evils of the misuse of dangerous drugs.
While there may be an argument that the Scottish parliament should be free to legislate in these matters, it arises from the fact that, with law and order rightly being devolved, the issue of drugs permeates so much of our criminal law. Many crimes are committed by those who are addicted to drugs, some while they are under the influence of drugs. Many are committed to raise money to buy drugs, particularly when one talks of relatively minor, albeit upsetting and annoying, crimes such as house-breaking, bag-snatching, shop-lifting and the like. But many serious assaults and indeed murders are also committed by those involved on one side or another in the drugs trade. Those prosecutions take place with no mention of the Misuse
1062
of Drugs Act on the indictment but everyone involved in the case knows that drugs in part, if not wholly, lie behind the commission of the offence.
In seeking to address the problems of crime in more general policies, such as crime prevention, the care of offenders, the attempt to restrict or eliminate the suicides which unfortunately bedevil the Scottish prisons at the moment, the rehabilitation of offenders and the education of young people about the dangers of crime, one sees that, time and again, drugs are involved in the situation. Hardly a week goes by—again I make no criticism—without a Scottish Office Minister making a statement or taking part in some visit to draw attention to the problems of drugs, an issue on which the parties in Scotland have joined forces in recent years.
In these circumstances, there seems to me to be an argument for saying that the Scottish parliament should have some legislative competence over these matters. One issue on which that might prove useful is whether or not the possession of what are referred to as soft drugs might be legalised. I do not for a minute suggest that I or my party would support such a policy, but it is an issue that is debated from time to time.
Two situations might arise. This parliament might be persuaded that that was a good policy to adopt and seek to amend the 1971 Act to legalise the possession of soft drugs, while the people of Scotland, and in particular the members of their parliament, did not approve of that policy. I believe that in such a situation, the people of Scotland should have the right, by this legislative competence, to opt out of that change. One could reverse the argument. If in some years' time those in authority in the executive and the parliament are persuaded that decriminalising soft drugs might be a good way of tackling the drug problem—and perfectly respectable and highly experienced people in Scotland have from time to time suggested that this is an option worth considering—but this Parliament could not be persuaded by the British Government that that should happen, the argument arises as to why the Scottish parliament should not have the opportunity to take such action.
I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is not in his place. I am tempted to recall what he said earlier about the Tories never being prepared to depart from centralisation and to devolve power on difficult issues. This is clearly a difficult issue and it seems to me worth debating whether it should be devolved.
If it were devolved, there is no reason to believe that the power would be used irresponsibly. Whether or not we have concordats, one would anticipate that this issue would be discussed fully between officials of the Scottish executive and the United Kingdom Government. The Clause 95 order-making power would enable the Secretary of State to make any legislative changes affecting England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which would ensure that any separate law in Scotland was compatible with the law in the other parts of the United Kingdom. Indeed, there may be an argument that Clause 33 might be applicable if any problems were to arise. Ultimately, having regard to the terms of Clause 27(7), the supremacy of this Parliament would

1063
enable it to enact such legislation as it deemed appropriate if, for any reason, the various safeguards did not work.
This seems to me a good example of a matter on which the Government may have got the balance wrong. For that reason, I believe the matter is worthy of debate in support of my two amendments. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 184A, which is grouped with these amendments. The purpose of my amendment is to devolve the list of controlled drugs and the penalties for contravention of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Most of the effort in the war to combat drugs misuse in Scotland is to be devolved: education, health, social work, policing, prosecution and prisons. Drug misuse is a personal matter and is definitely in the social policy field. It is different in each locality and cannot be seen as a problem with Scotland-wide symptoms, let alone UK-wide symptoms. Broadly, it depends on two features: first, the level of depression and hopelessness in the locality; and, secondly, the activities of drug traffickers.
Clearly, a UK-wide policy may be too unfocused and possibly inappropriate. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, said, there are already significantly different sentencing practices. A successful drugs elimination policy might be stymied by unfocused legislation. The solution would be the devolution of that legislative framework.
We already have an example of Scotland-only drug legislation. The Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1996 is the Scottish response to the problems of ecstasy abuse, initially in the town of Ayr and now across Scotland. There is no English equivalent of this legislation.
No doubt the Minister will mention the problem of cross-border variation. The UK already has experience of dealing with that on the land border in Ireland. I also suspect that the Minister will be unhappy at the undoubtedly childish prospect of a Scotland with legalised cannabis. I do not believe that such irresponsibility would come out of the Scottish parliament.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: I rise to support the noble Earl. He is correct that the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act dealt with the misuse of drugs. I played a part in taking the Bill through, with all-party support. It was particularly interesting that the Scottish MPs genuinely believed that they had a right to legislate on subjects relating to the misuse of drugs. I believe that there is a dilemma for the Minister here. If he seeks to take away this responsibility from the Scottish Office and from the Scottish parliament, the Scottish MPs will have less influence than they had in the past on this subject. At a time when crime prevention is being devolved, it seems only sensible that the prevention of drug misuse should also be devolved. I do not imagine that the Minister will give a comprehensive reply this afternoon, but I hope that he will look at this matter over
1064
the Recess. I am certain that prospective members of the Scottish parliament will be very angry if they feel they cannot play any part in the prevention of drug misuse, which, sadly, is a great problem in many parts of Scotland.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: From a layman's point of view, I wish to support what my noble friend has just said. I wonder whether the Minister could describe to us how any new legislation for Scotland on this subject in the UK Parliament would be presented to Parliament and who would handle it. I believe that that would be an important element in whether the public understand and accept the new arrangement. Since the cost of the health service, prisons and the police will be such a large part of the budget of the Scottish parliament, and since those costs will be greatly added to by the extent of drug abuse in Scotland, it will be frustrating for members of the Scottish parliament if they cannot do anything about it. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay suggested that the balance which the Government have struck in this case between the two parliaments may not be quite right. I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says about this matter. I tend to agree with my noble and learned friend.
Lord Hughes: I must confess that I was impressed by the case put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. Unless my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench has some strong, convincing reasons for asking him to withdraw the amendment, my preference would be that the Government should be prepared to take away this matter and consider it, so that it might be brought back or disposed of at the next stage.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may raise a matter which has nothing to do with this amendment. I was careful to say "the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon", as there are two "Mackays" sitting side by side. The reason I emphasise that is that a speech was made in relation to the first amendment by my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside. I do not disagree with one word of what he said. However, several speakers attributed his speech to me and I do not want the record to show that I made that speech. Perhaps Hansard will make certain that if my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside makes a speech, it does not matter what anybody else calls him, he will be referred to as "the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside". The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, made a similar mistake when referring to her "noble friend Lord Mackay".
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hardie: We have had an interesting discussion on this amendment. The question is whether the legislative competence for the subject matter of certain statutes relating to the misuse of drugs should be devolved or, in the case of the noble Earl's amendment, whether certain parts of a specific statute should be devolved to the Scottish parliament rather than to Westminster.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, started by saying that he anticipated that in response I may refer him to the White Paper. Given that

1065
he has already referred the Committee to the appropriate passage in the White Paper, it is unnecessary for me to do so again. The White Paper made quite clear what was our intention in that regard. In respect of what the electorate made of the White Paper and what parts of it they relied upon, I would not venture to be as bold as the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps that is due to his greater experience in political matters.
The real issue is: what is the argument for leaving the question of the misuse and control of dangerous drugs to the UK Parliament rather than to devolve that issue, either in whole or in part, to the Scottish parliament? I start with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. He began by saying that he could understand the Government's thinking on this matter; that is, that there ought to be a common approach in the United Kingdom. That is correct; there ought to be a common approach throughout the United Kingdom on the question of regulation of dangerous drugs. I shall come back to explain why I believe that to be the case.
The noble and learned Lord went on to say that that would not hold water because there is a different prosecution system, a different prosecution policy applied north and south of the Border and different sentences which one could expect to receive in Scotland and England. However, I do not wish to embark upon a discussion on the sentencing approach of the courts in England or, for that matter, in Scotland.
What is clear is that the courts both north and south of the Border have common powers. The statute which creates the offence and imposes the maximum penalty applies north and south of the Border. It is for the courts in the specific jurisdictions to apply what they believe to be the appropriate sentence for a specific offence having regard to the prevalence of the offence and the local characteristics. I do not take anything therefore from the fact that the Scottish courts may or may not impose greater sentences than English courts in connection with the offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is not a good reason for devolving the regulations for the misuse of drugs to Scotland—because the courts appear to impose different sentences in some cases. As the noble and learned Lord is aware, each case must be decided on the specific facts, having regard to the situation which applies in a specific jurisdiction.
Nor do I believe that the application of different prosecution policies would be a justification for devolving the question of the misuse of drugs. I do not know what the Home Office policies are south of the Border and therefore cannot confirm or deny that there are differences. But even if there are, the policies of prosecution must take account of the local circumstances. In certain situations it may be appropriate to prosecute in one part of the United Kingdom and not in another, but that is entirely for the prosecutor to decide.
The question of the legalisation of soft drugs was raised. Again, I have difficulty, as the noble Earl anticipated, not with whether or not they should be legalised, but as to whether different laws should apply in different parts of the United Kingdom as regards
1066
regulating drugs, be they hard or soft drugs. As the noble Earl anticipated, I feel that there will be a problem with cross-border traffic; there will be a problem with the importation of soft drugs. For example, if cannabis was legalised in Scotland and not in England, the importation of cannabis into Scotland would become a regular occurrence and would not be an offence. Then it would be easier for the drug traffickers to transport the drug to England where it would be an offence.
We are speaking of a United Kingdom, not of separate states. That is the difference between the situation in Ireland where there is a different state in the Republic from the north. That is why I have problems with the question of different laws applying to the control of certain drugs in different parts of the United Kingdom.
The noble and learned Lord may say that that does not matter; that it is not a real answer because we have always got Clause 27(7). If it does not work out, the United Kingdom Parliament could enter into the fray and sort it out by re-legislating. But does that make sense? Why burden the United Kingdom Parliament with that obligation when there is no sound reason—at least not one that I have heard in this debate—why the regulation of drugs should be different north and south of the Border?
I have already noted that the different systems of drug control will inevitably give rise to problems of controlling trafficking between the two jurisdictions. At the moment, because there is a United Kingdom system of control, at least we can limit or seek to limit the entry of illegal drugs through international border controls. We should not expect any success at all in trying to maintain different regimes of drug control on either side of the open Border between Scotland and England.
These arguments apply with particular force to the statutes that are the subject of the amendments. The statutes provide powers for the police and customs, which are UK organisations, and the courts in connection with the investigation of drug trafficking and the confiscation of proceeds. What is to happen if it is lawful in Scotland or in England but not in other jurisdictions to possess drugs and to be involved in dealing with drugs, whether they be soft drugs or otherwise? What is to happen about the confiscation of the proceeds of this trade? Would it not mean that the traffickers could set up in the jurisdiction where it was lawful to traffic and then smuggle drugs across the Border?
If that were to happen, would the English courts, if it were still unlawful in England, have the same facility for confiscating the proceeds? Some of the proceeds might well be lawful. If the trafficking had taken place in Scotland, that would be a lawful trade; so the profits from that lawful trade ought not to be seized as attributable to the illegal trade south of the Border. What about money laundering offences in relation to drug trafficking? Those, too, would be difficult to regulate.
The present Government and their predecessor spent a considerable amount of time and effort setting up international treaties and arrangements to try to stop the evil of drug trafficking, to try to gain access to the

1067
proceeds of the illegal sale of drugs, and to try to gain access to the proceeds of money laundering. All of that would be put at risk if there were different systems north and south of the Border. This is not a parochial issue. It is an international issue. As such, it would not be appropriate for this matter to be devolved.
In the face of the continuing threat posed by international drug dealers, I am sure that we would all agree on the importance of maintaining a robust, consistent and coherent regulatory regime throughout the United Kingdom and that nothing should be done to prejudice that. Drug trafficking is a sophisticated, well-organised and highly profitable criminal activity that is carried out on a global basis. As I explained, this Government, as did their predecessor, regard it as essential that a common statutory framework should apply throughout the United Kingdom to enable us to comply with our international obligations in this regard. Otherwise there will inevitably be gaps for differences to develop as between the regimes north and south of the Border which drug traffickers and money launderers would be quick to exploit. We do not accept that the subject matter of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or the other legislation under consideration here should be devolved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, raised similar points. Of course drug abuse is related to social conditions. However, the Misuse of Drugs Act is a United Kingdom Act and is seen as a United Kingdom solution to a problem which is not confined to one part of the kingdom or another. Indeed, it is not confined to the kingdom. It is an international problem. With that explanation, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I listened with great interest to what he said. Through the years legislation relating to drugs has also appeared in criminal justice legislation; for example, with regard to penalties. It has been set out either in a Scottish Bill or in a Scottish clause in a United Kingdom Bill. Can the noble and learned Lord describe how a Scottish measure would be put to the Scottish parliament? Who would do that in the United Kingdom Parliament?
Lord Hardie: I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. I forgot to answer that question. A Home Office Minister, in consultation with other Ministers in the Scottish Office, would determine the policy as to whether there ought to be new legislation to deal with the matter. A United Kingdom Act would be introduced. The Scottish elements would be dealt with by the Scottish Office, as they are at the moment. The question of policing and the policy for the control of drugs would be a Scottish Office issue. The Secretary of State for Scotland would represent Scotland's interests in the United Kingdom Parliament in the event of such legislation coming forward.
The Earl of Balfour: I wish to raise one point. I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord,
1068
Lord Hardie, for his explanation and I am very satisfied with it. However, something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has concerned me for some time and I wonder whether I have managed to think of a possible answer. As I understand the position, when there was a Northern Ireland Parliament, Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom could not discuss matters that concerned Northern Ireland only. I know that there were complications in that regard. From what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said—I hope I did not misunderstand him—I feel that there should be provision within the legislation to the effect that United Kingdom Members of Parliament can discuss and vote on all reserved matters but that perhaps they should be restricted on devolved matters. I have had discussions with various people as to what MPs can and cannot do in respect of Scotland. I wonder whether that might be helpful. Will the noble and learned Lord consider what I have said?
Lord Hardie: I shall certainly consider it. Perhaps I may explain to the noble Earl my understanding of the position. In the context of reserved matters, there is no question that the United Kingdom Parliament could legislate. Furthermore, in terms of Clause 27(7) of the Bill, the United Kingdom Parliament could legislate about any devolved matter if it considered it appropriate to do so. As my noble friend Lord Sewel said on a previous occasion, that is the nature of devolution. The United Kingdom Parliament still has the overriding power in terms of Clause 27(7) to intervene and to legislate. But it is hoped and expected that the United Kingdom Parliament would exercise the same restraint which it did when dealing with the provisions relating to the Northern Ireland Parliament. There would be a self-discipline in place and it would be expected that the United Kingdom Parliament would not as a rule legislate on devolved matters. Those would be left to the Scottish parliament. If I am wrong or if I should have said more, I shall certainly write to the noble Earl.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hughes: When I indicated that I was minded to agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, had said, I attached a condition to it. I believe that my noble and learned friend has amply satisfied that condition. However, I did not like the reference in the latter part of his remarks to something which was perfectly true; namely, that the Westminster Parliament has the overriding power. I can think of nothing more damaging to the success of a devolved parliament, if the Scottish parliament ever embarked on a series of decisions on matters devolved to it, than if it were certain that the Westminster Parliament would override it. I do not expect that that is likely to happen, but if it did and on a number of occasions, I believe it would be a boost to the Scottish National Party.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: When I introduced these amendments I believe I made it clear that I was putting them forward as probing amendments to enable Members of the Committee to debate what I believe is

1069
an important issue. In my remarks at that stage I hope that I did not for a minute suggest that I did not accept there was some merit in the Government's position. I sought to explore whether the balance was quite right or whether there was some scope for giving the Scottish parliament some legislative competence in this area.
I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate replied explicitly to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas, about the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act and whether it was a possibility that the subject matter of that Act, which covers the use of premises where certain activities involving drugs are taking place, might fall within the subject matter of the 1971 Act. As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, there is a provision in that Act which can punish the occupiers of premises for activities taking place in them which the owner operates.
I noted that I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his kind remarks. I adhere to that notwithstanding the fact that his noble and learned friend has now persuaded him that the Government's argument is preferable to mine. I take the point he makes about the importance of referring to the right noble Lord. Certainly on these Benches we find it easier when both Front Bench spokesmen have the same name and we do not have a problem seeking to remember who is with us. Equally, we find it very important to make sure that each gets the right cheques, which for those of us in opposition is a more important matter than it used to be.
I fully accept that there is great force in what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said. No one in this House would wish to put at risk the fight against organised crime when it involves dangerous drugs, whether that is done on a local, national or international basis. In advancing my arguments earlier and pointing out the different sentencing policies, I hope that I did not suggest that that in any way drove a coach and horses through the common approach set out in the 1971 Act.
Clearly, I shall not be pressing these amendments to a vote. But I ask that the Government take on board the example given by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, so as to be absolutely certain that the way in which this reservation is framed will not preclude the Scottish parliament from enacting legislation dealing with the periphery of the drugs problem.
The example given by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, as to what would happen were a Bill to be brought forward to this Parliament amending the 1971 Act and how the Scottish dimension would be taken account of, is a very good one. I suspect that it is one that we might use next week when we discuss the role of the Advocate General in the promotion of legislation and taking it through both Houses of this Parliament. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 184A and 185 not moved.]
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 67, line 11, at end insert—
("Exceptions from reservation
Appointments of persons resident in Scotland to the Data Protection Tribunal.
The procedure of the Data Protection Tribunal so far as it relates to cases arising in Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with other amendments on tribunals. It devolves appointments to, and the procedure of, the Data Protection Tribunal, established under the Data Protection Act 1984. The Law Society of Scotland is of the view that it is appropriate to devolve the appointments, structure and procedures of tribunals operating, or which can operate, in Scottish matters. This would enable a comprehensive and coherent civil justice strategy to be formulated by the Scottish executive and by the Scottish parliament.
Interestingly enough, just yesterday the Law Society brought together a number of bodies in a civil justice forum, including the Scottish Law Commission, Citizens' Advice (Scotland) and the Faculty of Advocates, among other professional bodies and organisations. This forum provided an ideal platform for those involved in the civil justice system to suggest improvements. But the forum, although an ideal way to exchange views, is not a substitute for a civil justice strategy.
I believe that it would make sense to devolve the Data Protection Tribunal's appointments and procedures. After all, it would sit only rarely, but when dealing with Scottish jurisdictional matters it should surely be subject to Scottish procedures. I believe that that would be of great assistance. So the principle is that the appointments of tribunals operating in Scotland should be under the first minister of Scotland and be subject to the scrutiny of the Scottish parliament.
That brings me to Amendment No. 188. It devolves appointments to, and the procedures of, the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, established under the Immigration Act 1971. Here again the Law Society of Scotland is of the view that it would be suitable to devolve both the appointments to this tribunal and its procedures, which are either operating or can operate within Scotland's jurisdiction. Again, it believes that this will help to ensure that the Scottish executive and the Scottish parliament will be able to formulate a comprehensive and consistent civil justice strategy. This tribunal, when it operates in Scotland, is under the control of the Lord Chancellor's court service. Therefore it represents what might be described as an outpost of the Lord Chancellor's domain in Scotland. Is there not a case for issues involving deportation for those who are prospective Scots to be decided in Scotland, and subject to the Scottish parliament? With a new devolved structure it seems unnecessary for the Lord Chancellor to keep such an outpost.
Amendment No. 191 devolves appointments and the procedures of the competition commission appeals tribunal to be established under the Competition Act

1071
when it finally passes into law. Here again, in order to establish a coherent civil justice strategy, the devolution of appointments and procedures should be brought within the domain of the Scottish parliament: that seems to make sense. But as the tribunal has still not been finally established, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that subject.
Amendment No. 208 devolves the appointments and procedures of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. The various tribunals listed in the amendment would be transferred to appeal tribunals constituted under the Social Security Act 1998 when that Act comes into force. They are important tribunals dealing with many issues affecting the lives of people living in Scotland. It is important to devolve because large numbers of people make appeals to these tribunals, particularly to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. The annual report of the Council on Tribunals for 1996 confirms that more than 80,000 cases went before the tribunals or were intimated to them.
In 1996, some 25 tribunals which reported to the Scottish committee of the Council on Tribunals received 81,464 cases. To put that into perspective, the total number of cases brought in 1996 in the sheriff court was 195,000. The fact that over 80,000 cases were handled by the tribunals indicates their immense importance in Scotland.
Finally, Amendment No. 211 devolves the appointments and procedures of the industrial tribunals established under the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996. That Act consolidated enactments relating to industrial tribunals and the employment appeals tribunal. The industrial tribunals are of great significance and there are many applications before such tribunals in Scotland. Therefore, this should reasonably be a matter for the Scottish parliament. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on my proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas. He moved Amendment No. 186 with his usual lucidity. The appointments that he listed and the procedures that he mentioned should all, with one exception, be the responsibility of the Scottish parliament. In my opinion, the exception—I cannot easily agree with this provision—is to be found in Amendment No. 188, which deals with immigration appeals tribunals operating in Scotland. Fair enough. The new Scottish administration should be responsible for appointments and the Scottish parliament should be involved.
However, there is a danger in suggesting that there should be—not inevitably, but possibly—a different procedure operating in Scotland in the immigration appeals tribunal from that which will operate in England. This is a very sensitive matter. There is great pressure at present from refugees and bogus asylum-seekers. If by any chance the procedure in Scotland turned out to be more lax than the procedure in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Scotland would be swamped by bogus asylum-seekers trying to gain entry. We must try to avoid that danger. So, with the
1072
greatest of respect to my noble friend—I am so glad to be able to agree to all his other proposals—we must be very careful about that provision.
Lord Hylton: Perhaps I may venture to disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It is possible that the procedures in immigration appeals tribunals in Scotland might be superior to the English procedures.
Lord Renton: It depends upon what one means by "superior". If "superior" means "easier", I would disagree with the noble Lord.
Lord Hylton: Perhaps they will be more effective and swifter.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I intervene to say a few words in support of the important issue raised in the amendments of my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas. All procedures for appointing to UK tribunals those who are currently resident in Scotland required careful examination once devolution had been decided upon and the Bill introduced. The current system is complicated. Many people have a role to play in the appointments, including the Secretary of State, the Lord Advocate, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chancellor. In certain instances, others are also involved.
It is important that the public should be aware of what procedure will be followed when UK tribunals meet in Scotland. Some Scots who are appointed to the tribunals serve not only in Scotland, but also in other parts of the United Kingdom. That applies whether the members are lay persons or have been appointed because of some professional qualification which is a prerequisite for serving on the tribunal.
I do not know which Minister is to reply to the amendment, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will recall that this issue arose when the Social Security Bill was passing through your Lordships' House. A government amendment sought to take out of that Bill a clause giving the Lord Advocate a role in the appointment of members to social security tribunals. I wrote to the noble and learned Lord at that time on this point and I know that it was fully ventilated during our debates on the Bill. It would be of considerable assistance not only to Members of this Committee, but also to others, if the Minister who is to reply could fully explain to the Committee the procedures that are to be followed not only in relation to the procedures mentioned in my noble friend's amendment, but with regard to UK tribunals in general.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hardie: Perhaps I may deal with the last question first. The noble and learned Lord asked what procedures would apply to appointments to UK tribunals generally, taking the debate much wider than the specific amendments. The answer is that it would depend on whether or not the tribunals were dealing with reserved issues. If they are reserved, what I am about to say on the specific amendments would also apply.

1073
The amendments seek to give the Scottish parliament competence over the appointments to, and the procedures of, a number of tribunals which deal with reserved matters. The tribunals have been set up specifically to deal with appeals on such matters. It is important that the appeals structures are as uniform throughout the United Kingdom as possible because we are dealing with reserved matters and with tribunals dealing with such matters. I draw comfort from the noble and learned Lord's comments and from the fact that he properly pointed out that on occasions Scottish members of the tribunals serve in England and English members serve in Scotland. That underlines the need for common procedures to be applied north and south of the Border.
It would make no sense for the Scottish parliament to be able to set up separate appointments and procedural rules for the tribunals in Scotland. In some cases, it may be appropriate, in dealing with the system of appointments that will flow from devolution, for Scottish Ministers to have a role in the making of appointments to some of the reserved tribunals or for setting their procedural rules. Provision will be made for that in appropriate cases through an order under Clause 59. Copies of a draft order were made available to your Lordships in the Printed Paper Office on Tuesday, 7th July.
In general terms, I believe that that deals with the points raised by the amendments but, out of deference to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, I propose to deal with each amendment in turn as briefly as possible.
Amendment No. 186 relates to the Data Protection Tribunal. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is responsible for making lay appointments to that tribunal. "Residence"—noble Lords will note that "residence" is referred to in the amendment—whether in Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom is not relevant to such appointments. However, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor appoints the legally qualified chairman and the deputy chairmen of the tribunal and currently does so after consultation with myself as Lord Advocate. The Government intend that after devolution the Lord Chancellor should exercise that function after consultation with the Scottish Ministers. Provision is made for that in the draft order under Clause 59.
Turning to Amendment No. 188, I draw comfort from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. I appreciate that the noble Lord does not agree with me in relation to other tribunals. However, as with those other tribunals, it is my contention that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal should not have different procedures north and south of the Border. The noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, referred to immigration into Scotland. We are not talking about immigration into Scotland but into the United Kingdom. It is immigration into the United Kingdom with which the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is concerned. Whether the applicant is in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland matters not; the same rules should apply.
1074
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is responsible for all appointments to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Although he is under no statutory obligation to consult over those appointments, he does consult informally. He consults me as Lord Advocate over any appointments to the tribunal from the Scottish legal profession. It is expected that after devolution the Lord Chancellor will continue to consult Scottish Ministers informally on these appointment functions.
I turn to Amendment No. 191. The Government have already made clear that they intend to reserve matters relating to common markets for UK goods and services at home and abroad, including competition policy. This is essential to maintain a level playing field for business in the UK. That is one of our key objectives in framing the Scotland Bill. It is for this reason that the Scotland Bill reserves among other things all aspects of competition policy. I am sure that the noble Lords opposite wish to protect business interests in Scotland. I hope they recognise that this is best achieved by avoiding the possible operation in Scotland of criteria for appointment to tribunals different from those prevailing in the rest of the UK.
As to Amendment No. 208, it would be impractical and unfair to set up two different social security appeals systems in different parts of the United Kingdom. However, we recognise the need for a Scottish voice on these appeals tribunals, and the Social Security Act, which received Royal Assent on 21st May, will allow for the Lord Advocate to be consulted about the appointment of tribunal chairmen in Scotland up to the point of devolution. But we intend that the Lord Advocate's right to be consulted will devolve to the Scottish executive once the parliament is established and provision will be made for this by way of an order under Clause 59.
I turn finally to Amendment No. 211. The legislation under which complaints to industrial tribunals arise is reserved and appeals from industrial tribunal decisions go to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. That body sits in both England and Scotland. It therefore makes sense for the rules of procedure and appointments to be reserved and consistent. The rules of procedure under which Scottish industrial tribunals currently operate are virtually the same as those in England and Wales and it makes no sense to have different procedures to deal with complaints under the same legislation. For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I listened with great interest to the comments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, in particular in relation to the various appointments after devolution, and the careful way in which he compared the present position in which the Lord Chancellor consults him as Lord Advocate and the way in which in future the Lord Chancellor will consult Scottish Ministers. This is perhaps a foretaste of debates to come. I am aware that Scottish Ministers under the Bill are defined as including the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate.

1075
Can the noble and learned Lord provide us with a sneak preview of whether or not, when he refers to Scottish Ministers, he is referring to himself as Lord Advocate who will therefore have knowledge of the Scottish legal profession, and therefore relevant knowledge for the purpose of making these appointments, or to a person who is not legally qualified and may not have the kind of specialised knowledge which the Lord Advocate can at present bring to bear on these appointments?
Lord Hardie: As usual, the noble and learned Lord asks a very pertinent question. Referring to the position after devolution, it will be for the Scottish executive and in particular the first minister to determine the distribution of functions other than those of the Law Officers and the Lord Advocate. At devolution all of the ministerial functions, including those of the Lord Advocate which do not relate to his independence as a prosecutor and as a Law Officer, will go into the melting pot with all of the other ministerial functions. Immediately after devolution and the appointment of first minister in discussion with his other Ministers, he will determine the distribution of those functions.
To answer the question shortly, although I cannot give the noble and learned Lord an assurance that these functions will revert to the Lord Advocate, I hope that, whoever he or she may be, the Lord Advocate will make an appropriate case to the first minister for the re-transfer of those functions, and perhaps functions other than ministerial functions, to the Lord Advocate. Therefore, if these come back to the Lord Advocate we will be in the same position. If not, I anticipate that whichever Minister has responsibility for advising the Lord Chancellor will involve the Lord Advocate in any consultation process. I take the point that has been made by the noble and learned Lord that a Minister who is not involved in the legal profession in Scotland may have difficulty in identifying appropriate candidates. But it would not be impossible for a Minister to make appropriate inquiries of professional bodies and of the Lord Advocate as to various candidates who might be considered for appointment. I anticipate that perhaps next week this matter will be addressed in greater detail.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his comprehensive reply, and in particular for going a long way to meet the purpose of this amendment by saying that the intention is to use Clause 59 by way of orders to ensure that Scottish Ministers have a say in both appointments and procedures. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that concession and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 186A:
Page 67, line 14, at beginning insert—
("Elections for membership of the House of Commons, the European Parliament and the Parliament, including").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 186A and 186B are technical and are simply intended to make clear that what is reserved by Section 3 (elections) of
1076
Head 2 of Schedule 5 are elections for membership of the House of Commons, the European Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, and that the reservations of Acts currently referred to in that section extend so far as those Acts apply to such elections. This represents no change of policy on our part and is consistent with the line that we have taken throughout on matters concerning elections. However, we believe that this redrafting makes the intention of the reservation clearer and I submit that it is therefore worth making. These amendments also give us the opportunity to make explicit in the Bill the status of elections to the Scottish parliament by confirming that they are reserved. The amendments do not change the position in relation to local government elections which, with the exception of the franchise, remain devolved. The wording, however, requires to be changed with the re-casting of this section. I hope that the Committee accepts that this is a useful and clarifying redrafting of the Bill, and I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: I should like to put two questions on these allegedly technical amendments. Whenever a Minister gets to his feet to say that an amendment is purely technical, inquiry seems necessary. It is obvious that elections for membership of the House of Commons and the European Parliament must be a reserved matter. However, what is meant by the inclusion of "the Parliament"? Recently, we had a discussion as to whether or not the names of the regional candidates would appear on the ballot paper. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, replied helpfully that the Government did not have a completely closed mind on this matter and it was to be referred to the working committee in Edinburgh dealing with electoral matters.
Of course, for the first election to the Scottish parliament there is nowhere else to determine these matters other than at the Parliament at Westminster. Once the Scottish parliament is up and running, surely the details of electoral administration should be a matter for the Scottish parliament. I hope that the Minister can clarify the position.
As to Amendment No. 186B, in the rewording as drafted the words "local government elections" disappear as a matter exempt from reservation. I trust I am not misinterpreting this, but by limiting the exemption to the franchise at local government elections, I hope that does not exclude the possibility that the Scottish parliament, in the fullness of time, may decide that local elections in Scotland in future should be conducted on a proportional representation basis. It would be wrong that a measure of that kind should come back to this House or the other House. Will the Minister clarify these two points?
6 p.m.
Lord Sewel: The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, is suspicious. That may be a result of his spending far too long a time in another place.
As to the local government question, it is fairly straightforward. As far as I can see, nothing in the Bill in the reservations would prevent a Scottish parliament

1077
moving to a different system of election for local government. The only thing that is reserved is the franchise. It cannot mess around with the franchise; that remains reserved.
As to the noble Lord's first point about the nature of the elections to the Scottish parliament, the whole framework—the franchise, the electoral system—is in the Bill and will remain reserved. It will not be open to the Holyrood parliament to change the structure of the electoral system as set down in the Bill.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: I shall press the Minister a little further. If an Order in Council is made in future, once the Scottish parliament is up and running, on details of design of ballot papers and that sort of thing, surely that will not come back to Westminster. It must be within the competence of the Scottish parliament to deal with it.
Lord Sewel: It is difficult to draw the line where you move from something which looks relatively inconsequential and minor to, say, the design of the ballot paper. It is something which starts creeping up and changes the nature of the electoral system.
My understanding is that the rules of conduct of elections will be for Westminster to legislate on. Clearly in minor matters it would do so at the behest of the Scottish parliament.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 186B:
Page 67, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert—
("so far as those enactments apply, or may be applied, in respect of such membership.
The franchise at local government elections.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 67, leave out lines 24 to 31.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 187. This is by way of a probing amendment. We are now at Section 5, which is headed "Entertainment". It does not tell me that is what we are providing this afternoon but that the subject matter, the Video Recordings Act 1984 and Sections 1 to 16 of the Cinemas Act 1985, will be reserved. It goes on to explain about the classification of films etc.
I am puzzled by this. As I understand it, local government can have some say, not in the classification of films but certainly in whether films should be shown in a local government area. If local government can be trusted to make decisions of that nature, then the Scottish parliament should have control over all entertainment matters, including film classifications. Perhaps the Minister can explain why film classification should be reserved and not devolved.
In the other place, on entertainment, the Government removed the subject matter of the Hypnotism Act 1952 from the list of reserved powers. They gave that to the
1078
Scottish parliament. When I read in the press that the Government are keen to promote the Scottish film industry, they are not sending out a good signal if the parliament taking over these responsibilities is not considered worthy of making decisions about the classification of films. I would be grateful for an explanation.
As to videos, I am not sure what the Video Recordings Act does, but I am sure that the Minister will explain to me why that should not be devolved to the Scottish parliament. A parliament which is a bit nearer the ground, so to speak, might look with a good deal more scepticism on some of the nastier parts of the video market than we have done from the grander heights of Westminster. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My main interest in this Bill is to ensure that the English do not lose out. If we are going to all the expense and trouble of having devolution we might as well do the job properly. Matters such as videos and cinemas, food safety, consumer protection, telecommunications, gas, and so on, should be a matter for the Scottish parliament. I am very happy to support this amendment, for what it is worth.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: We are not in favour of accepting the amendment which would devolve legislative competence for entertainment matters reserved under Head 2 of Schedule 5.
It has been said previously in Committee that we are not prepared to listen to arguments for widening the powers of the Scottish parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has pointed out, we have already shown, in this very area, that is not the case. We listened in another place to a case for giving the Scottish parliament legislative responsibility for hypnotism and theatre licensing and agreed that such matters should be devolved, and that has now been done. However, we do not consider it is appropriate for the remaining entertainment matters in Schedule 5.
As my honourable friend the Scottish Office Minister for Home Affairs made clear during consideration of this Bill in another place, the need to reserve the regulation of films and videos is based on the vital, and non-statutory, role of the British Board of Film Classification.
The board has been responsible for classification of films for public exhibition since 1912. It operates on a voluntary basis. It is important that it maintains the confidence of the industry, the public and the local authorities, who exercise a final control on what is shown in cinemas through their licensing powers under the Cinemas Act 1985, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has pointed out. Local authorities have a right to impose their own restrictions on what is shown, but in practice they rarely disagree with the board's recommendations.
Within the UK there is, in effect, a single market and it is entirely sensible that the board operates on a UK basis. Cinema goers on both sides of the Border share standards of what is or is not acceptable for different age groups. If we had separate arrangements there could

1079
be duplication of the decisions taken by different bodies throughout the UK, or film producers would find themselves in the position of having to tailor their films to meet the differing requirements of the various boards and risk decisions that films that might be shown on one side of the Border could not be shown in that form on the other side. This would open up an undesirable and unnecessary area for controversy.
The control of exhibitions of films under the Cinemas Act 1985 is a matter for local authorities, and that will not change. Indeed, we are seeking to preserve this valuable local component of the system of control of film exhibitions—a system which works very well. We are not in the business of change for change's sake. Therefore, since no evidence has been presented to support a contrary view, we do not intend to overturn an efficient and effective system for no good reason.
The classification of videos is dealt with separately, under the Video Recordings Act 1984. The arguments for reservation of classification of videos are similar to those for classification of film. There are additional important differences which reinforce the argument that the classification of videos should be reserved. Videos are easily transported and most are used for home viewing. Classification is designed to regulate the sale of videos rather than to regulate public exhibition. Any difference in the regulation of videos on different sides of the Border would mean that one jurisdiction would risk undermining, or being undermined by, the other. In order to avoid compromising the protection which the legislation gives the public, it is necessary to continue with the common approach which the UK statute provides.
I hope that that reply gives the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, the information that he was seeking. I hope that it satisfies him, and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I understand the point that it would seem to be unnecessary duplication to set up a Scottish hoard of film classification, or a Scottish classification body for videos, because it would be somehow wrong if films were treated differently on one side of the Border from the other. I understand the argument, but it does not accord with the great principle of devolution. In other parts of the Bill, and most of the schedule, the Government are admitting that on much more important issues than this there could well be different laws on different sides of the Border.
It seems a little hard, when we have swallowed many more important things that should be devolved, with the potential that they would be different on both sides of the Border, that we choke over film and video classification. However, all these classifications are rapidly becoming out of date with the advent of satellite television. Any classification that anyone wishes to make of anything on television or in the cinema in the UK is subverted by satellite television. So, on the basis that the modern world will overtake all this censorship, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 188 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 68, leave out lines 1 to 3.
The noble Lord said: The amendment takes out of reservation the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Again, this is a probing amendment to discover why the Scottish parliament is not to be given the responsibility for the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act and scientific procedures on animals. After all, health is devolved to the Scottish parliament and I make no complaint about that. That is logical. Agriculture is devolved. The Committee will be aware that I am not happy about that, not because I do not believe that the Scottish parliament will act responsibly but because of the links with the EU, when it is in my view very much a UK matter. Other parts of agriculture relating to animal welfare and the like are devolved, so why is that Act not devolved?
In Scotland we have a major university community and major research establishments. The universities are funded by the Scottish Office. They will be funded by the Scottish parliament. There is no real reason why the issue of scientific procedures on animals should not also be devolved.
While I am on live animals, we had a Question yesterday about rabies. I appreciate that the Government may not be able to answer this point, but perhaps they could write to me. I wondered about the legislation on rabies and the legislation under which the import of animals into this country is banned unless they have been quarantined for the necessary time to ensure that rabies does not come into this country. It is a policy which, it has to be said, has been extremely successful in keeping this country and our neighbours on the island of Ireland free of that problem. I wonder what legislation that comes under and whether that is being devolved, because if it is, we would have an odd circumstance. I appreciate that it is a little outside the issue before us, but I would be grateful if someone could write to me about that. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am afraid that I cannot agree with my noble friend on this point. It is an important part of the Bill that research in our universities is funded centrally and left as a UK matter. He is right that some research in universities will be funded out of their own resources, but the funding of the main body of research is a UK matter. The Scottish universities feel that that is important. They made representations to the Government who accepted them. When he reflects upon this matter my noble friend will probably think that the cost of the procedures and the use of animals in research can vary greatly according to what the procedures may be. I believe that it should stay as a reserved matter.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Sewel: It is a joy and a delight to find myself in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. We both recognise that there are real dangers in

1081
fragmenting arrangements relating to vivisection between Scotland and the rest of the UK, to a large extent because the law impacts so significantly on the scientific community where there is a strong case for having a common policy.
Professionals in this field have to operate within a common ethical framework, given the inter-related nature of scientific research. There is a high degree of mobility of experimental activity and personnel in the research field. Major problems would arise if the regulatory regime were different on both sides of the Border in terms of the type of work that could be done and the type of controls. That would impact inevitably on the cost, capability, and ability of different research institutes being able to conduct scientific research as a result of a different regulatory regime on one side of the Border as opposed to the other.
There are strong practical reasons for this. We should always be guided by good commonsense considerations, and not, in all cases, by an appeal to some lofty principle. In this case there is a strong, commonsense, down-to-earth reason. I hope on that basis that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for giving us an insight into the Government's thinking on this issue. He clearly has my noble friend Lady Carnegy on his side. That shows that on this side of the Committee we do not carry with us the pagers issued by control freaks to keep us on message and on the same line. I take the point that my noble friend and the Minister made. In the competitive business of obtaining projects for university research, and the funding for those projects, it is important that there is no difference between Scotland and England when it comes to the experimentation which, let us say, pharmaceutical companies could do on live animals to find new and better drugs to deal with various problems in the human condition. I am satisfied with that answer. I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 68, line 21, at end insert—
("Exception from reservation
The distribution in Scotland of funds raised by the National Lottery.").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we come to the question of the national lottery. My amendment suggests that at the end of the section on the national lottery, we should exempt from reservation,
"the distribution in Scotland of funds raised by the National Lottery".
I am perfectly content that we have a national lottery over the UK, but I am looking at the distribution of funds.
Lottery cash distribution has become extremely important for many bodies and organisations. Indeed lottery cash distribution, and the work that flows from
1082
it, is pretty big business. The original forecast made in 1994 for the whole of the United Kingdom was that there would be £9 billion over the seven-year licence. That has now been revised to £10 billion. That is a lot of money. It shows, dare I say, that the lottery has been run extremely successfully. The objective of gaining lots of money for good causes has been achieved to a far greater degree than was perhaps originally envisaged. That must be to the credit of the people who run and promote it.
As regards the £10 billion, on a pro rata basis—a Barnett formula for the lottery—it would suggest about £1 billion for Scotland. The current proposals in the Bill are that the Scottish executive should have power only to influence two parts of the distribution because the bodies involved are based in Scotland: the Scottish Arts Council and the Scottish Sports Council. The executives will have no power over the other four heads for distribution. Those are the New Opportunities Fund, the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the National Lottery Charities Board and the Millennium Commission. For something like two-thirds of the distributed lottery cash the Scottish parliament will have no influence on decisions about priorities between the different heads and competing interests. That is something we may need to look at. While this Parliament can shift money between one head and another, the Scottish parliament will be unable to do so. That seems wrong.
I would probably have let that pass if it had not been for the advent of what I think is grandly called the New Opportunities Fund. I remember sitting on the Government Back Benches at the time the lottery was set up and the legislation was passed. I remember many happy hours spent with the Labour Opposition probing the Government and seeking assurances that no lottery fund would ever be used for funding projects which government should fund through general taxation. They were insistent on obtaining those assurances. I cannot recall whether we were put to the test of Divisions on these issues but I recall my noble friends who manned the Government Front Bench on the issue being put to the test of debate. I suppose the Labour Opposition believed that the Conservative Government would promptly start to use the lottery to pay for things in the health service, education, the environment and other matters which government should pay for, and that by that substitution we would reduce government expenditure and be able to reduce taxation.
Many assurances were sought. We gave them; and we kept to those assurances. But now the grandly called New Opportunities Fund is funding the health service, the education service and other services that should be funded by government out of taxation. It is amazing how quickly the Government have done a major U-turn on this issue. They have cloaked it in the suggestion that they are providing new money for those important services and forgetting the assurances they demanded and received from us.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: The noble Lord must surely have missed last week's announcement on spending over the next three years in which health and education were prioritised. I seem to remember that

1083
members of his party were critical of those spending projections. How does he reconcile that view with the view he has just expressed that the money raised through the lotteries should not be spent on those matters? He says that public expenditure in general, as announced last week, should not be used for those priorities. Where does he stand on those issues?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I stand clearly with the assurances my party gave when in government in response to requests by the Labour Party: that we would not use—as we did not do—lottery funding to replace funding that should come from central government expenditure. That is the simple point. It is not an argument about whether the health service or education needs or can use extra spending. It is where that extra spending comes from. If the current Government were honest about the assurances they sought from us when the lottery legislation went through, they would not have created the New Opportunities Fund. They would not have set up a fund which is designed to put money into the health service, a service which should be funded by central government.
As for the Labour Party's smoke and mirrors spending last week, I suggest that the noble Lord has a look back over the past 20 years. My noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas recently asked a question. He will see that when the Conservative Party were in government there were many years when we spent considerably more year on year on the health service than their Government propose to do.
However, that is not the most important issue, which is this. The Government having broken the promises they appear to have made when in Opposition have now to realise that some lottery money is going into health, education, the environment and other matters which are devolved functions. That is the point I am driving at. If they are devolved functions, the money from the New Opportunities Fund in Scotland should be handed out on the basis of Scottish priorities and Scottish needs, not on the basis of United Kingdom priorities and United Kingdom needs.
If this fifth stream is to go to functions which are devolved and are to be paid for out of the Scottish block, some provision should be made for the Scots by setting up a new opportunities fund for Scotland, or whatever it may be called. In that way an organisation in Scotland will determine and work alongside government in deciding the priorities in education and health, for example, on which lottery money should be spent.
I have not created the problem; the Government have created it by the amazing U-turn they have made on lottery funding. If this is to happen and devolved functions are to receive lottery money as part and parcel of the core money they require to meet the demands of the public, the decisions about that money
1084
should be made in Scotland, just as the decisions on the core funding in the block will be made in Scotland. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I shall speak to my amendment, Amendment No. 190A, which is grouped with Amendment No. 190. Before doing so, perhaps I may say that I hope that the national lottery fund administrators will open Scottish offices and not rely on offices in London to administer the funds in Scotland.
The effect of Amendment No. 190A is to devolve lotteries which are organised at a local level. I believe that local lotteries should be devolved because of the existing responsibilities of local authorities in this respect. Not only is this a local authority issue, it is a social policy and a cultural issue. It seems nonsensical that a lottery in Clackmannon has to be conducted according to the writ of the Westminster Parliament. It is not a multi-national issue. It is a distinctly local issue.
Alternatively, do the Government fear the disapproval of the Church of Scotland? Is this another issue similar to the Government's fear of Cardinal Winning over the abortion issue, to which we shall come later? I believe that that type of moral issue is centred in the Scottish culture and should definitely be devolved to the Scottish parliament.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Sewel: I am sure that noble Lords recognise, because they are not questioning the reservation of the national lottery as a whole, that a single UK-wide national lottery, by offering the largest possible prize fund, offers the highest possible returns to good causes throughout the United Kingdom. A single UK-wide national lottery distribution fund is the most efficient and beneficial way of distributing national lottery funds. For example, it means that large individual projects can be supported which might not be possible if the distribution of funds was handled separately for Scotland. Subject to that, the Government recognise fully that money spent by the lottery on good causes has important implications for matters which are devolved. We intend to ensure that the Scottish executive can have the influence it needs over the distribution of lottery funds in Scotland.
Following discussions on the National Lottery Act earlier this year, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey set out our intentions very fully in a letter to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, which is available in the Library. I shall therefore run through the main points briefly. Distribution of lottery funds for the arts and sport is handled by Scotland-only bodies. Their members are appointed at present by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is also responsible for the issue of financial policy directions to those bodies. That point was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. In future these tasks will fall to Scottish Ministers. In other words, complete control over the membership of Scottish arts and sports councils will rest with Scottish Ministers and they will be able to

1085
direct the councils on matters of policy without reference to Whitehall and Westminster. In addition, Scottish Ministers will, if they choose, be able to appoint other bodies to act as distributors of the arts and sports shares.
The heritage and charities good cause and the new good cause for health, education and the environment are each administered by a single UK-wide distribution body; again, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, identified. That approach offers some obvious savings in administrative costs, but I have to point out that Scotland receives a greater share of grants for these good causes—I had better say this quietly—than it does for the arts or sports good causes and also than it would if funds were allocated according to the Barnett formula. So it is going in Scotland's favour. That said, however, the Government recognise fully that the Scottish executive will have a keen interest in the activities of these bodies and are determined to ensure that the executive can influence their activities, bearing in mind only that they are independent, arm's length bodies.
There are two main dimensions to the way in which a degree of influence can be obtained. One is through appointments and the other is through direction-making powers. As regards appointments, four members of the National Lottery Charities Board are appointed to represent the interests of Scotland and they have in practice formed the Scottish committee of the board. These appointments are made by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport after close consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland. We intend that Scottish Ministers should have a similar close involvement after devolution.
The National Heritage Memorial Fund is responsible for the distribution of lottery funds for the heritage. Appointments are made by the Prime Minister after taking advice from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Secretary of State for Scotland regarding the member appointed to represent the interests of Scotland. The National Heritage Memorial Fund is expected to be designated as a cross-border public authority under Clause 83 of the Bill, which will ensure that Scottish Ministers are consulted on future appointments. The fund is in the process of forming a Scottish committee in order to give a sharper focus to its activities in Scotland.
The New Opportunities Fund has been set up to administer the new good cause for health, education and the environment. Under the legislation, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport must appoint one member who makes the interests of Scotland his or her special care. Of course there is no reason why other members of the board should not come from Scotland. Just as the Secretary of State has worked closely with the Secretary of State for Scotland on these first appointments, Scottish Ministers will have close involvement in appointments in the future.
The New Opportunities Fund will have a particularly important part to play in the delivery of the Government's policies on education, health and
1086
childcare. Unlike the NLCB and the NHMF, we intend to ensure that Scottish Ministers will play an important role in the appointments process and in the power to issue directions. We are convinced that these actions, the exact mechanics of which are still being worked out by officials, will ensure that Scottish circumstances and priorities are given due recognition. In terms of the representation of Scottish interests through appointments, Scotland is well covered through the various aspects of the lottery and in terms of the internal committee structure of the various funds and the setting up of particular Scottish committees.
I turn now to that other area of influence, directions on policy. The Government recognise that the Scottish executive will have a strong interest in the activities of these three bodies because of their implications for areas of devolved responsibility. We therefore intend to provide mechanisms for the Scottish Ministers to exercise appropriate powers of direction over these bodies' activities in Scotland while keeping control at the UK level and after consultation with the Scottish Ministers over matters which can only be settled at that level; notably, directions affecting the allocation of resources between the different parts of the United Kingdom. We are still considering the details of these mechanisms but hope to make an announcement shortly.
In terms of what we wish to achieve and the proper congruence between the policy objectives and priorities in Scotland and the distribution of funds from the various national lottery funds, I do not believe that there is anything between the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and myself. We are just choosing a slightly different route. Rather than formally devolving them, we are making sure that their internal structures are sensitive to Scottish interests and we are creating a power of direction which Scottish Ministers will be able to use. I believe that the outcome will represent what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, seeks to achieve.
I turn to Amendment No. 190A. The noble Earl is concerned that locally run lotteries will fare badly under the proposal to reserve all gambling matters. With respect, I cannot agree. One of the primary purposes of bringing all types of gambling under uniform statutory control is to protect those involved. Devolution will not create borders within Great Britain, so it is right that an individual can expect the same degree of protection wherever he chooses to gamble. I see no reason why that protection should not be extended evenly. Lotteries may, on the face of it, seem relatively small beer in comparison with other types of gambling. But even lotteries of the type described by the noble Earl generate significant sums of money. But that is not really the point at issue. The issue essentially is one of protection—protection for the public and operators alike. We want to provide that in equal measure throughout Great Britain.
The amendment would simply fragment what is a very effective policy and remove one aspect of the lottery's arrangement from the general protections which, under our present plans, will be available to

1087
the public for all other types of gambling. I hope that I have been able to convince the noble Earl that what is proposed is in the best interests of the Scottish people. I therefore ask the noble Earl not to move his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Despite the Minister's response, I remain concerned that, in the event of the people of Scotland deciding that they have, for example, a stricter attitude towards gambling and a simultaneous desire by the people of England not to have such an attitude, Scotland will, as usual, remain as the minority partner who cannot in fact influence United Kingdom policy. It was for that reason that I was anxious to bring forward my amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Having listened to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, I should say, first, that I have some sympathy with his point about local lotteries. However, judging by the reply that he received from the Government, I do not believe that he made much progress. As we are dealing with the section of Schedule 5 which deals with betting, gaming and lotteries, Members of the Committee will be interested to know that I did not put on a bet that the Government would actually concede on this or, for that matter, on any other point.
I must say that as the Minister explained it all to us, I became even more confused. Indeed, if I may hark back to a previous amendment of mine, it sounded more and more like a dog's breakfast. Arts and sport are handled by Scottish bodies. Those bodies will be appointed by the Scottish executive and, essentially, Westminster will have nothing to do with them. So everything is fine as regards arts and sport; indeed, the Scottish parliament can be trusted with them, so to speak. I suppose that the Government will say that that is just a carry-over of what is happening at present.
However, when it comes to heritage, charities and the New Opportunities Fund, that is a different matter. There will be a Scottish member or two on those bodies—even four members in the case of one of them—and they will be dealt with as cross-Border bodies under the Bill. But the Scottish executive will have the power of direction on them. I wonder whether I dare say this: if the Scottish executive has the power of direction on these bodies, why on earth has my amendment not been accepted and separate Scottish bodies set up to deal with the lottery fund distribution in Scotland?
Secondly I was totally unconvinced by the arguments about the New Opportunities Fund. Of course, the Minister ducked entirely my points about the way that the Government have done a "U" turn and on the way that they are now using the lottery fund in order to meet expenditure which should be properly met out of general taxation. If I had any doubts about my amendment to begin with, those doubts vanished when I heard the Minister's reply.
1088
Indeed, I am now even more convinced that we ought to do something about this, and I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee.
6.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 190) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 79.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Balfour, E.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Minto, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Montrose, D.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cranborne, V.

Moynihan, L.

Cross, V.

Munster, E.

Denham, L.

Newall, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rees, L.

Dudley, E.

Renton, L.

Erroll, E.

Rowallan, L.

Fookes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Forbes, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sempill, L.

Harlech, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Stair, E.

Hylton, L.

Stockton, E.

Kimball, L.

Strange, B.

Kintore, E.

Sudeley, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Torphichen, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Wise, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alli, L.

Hardie, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Berkeley, L.

Haskel, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hayman, B.

Borrie, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Howie of Troon, L.

Chandos, V.

Hoyle, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hughes, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Desai, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Dixon, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Donoughue, L.

Jeger, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Judd, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Longford, E.

Gilbert, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Grantchester, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Grenfell, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Hacking, L.

Molloy, L.

Hanworth, V.

Monkswell, L.

1089

Morris of Manchester, L.

Simon, V.

Pitkeathley, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Puttnam, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Rea, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Uddin, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Serota, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Sewel, L.

Whitty, L.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.50 p.m.
[Amendment No. 190A not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 190B:
Page 69, line 7, after ("individual") insert ("or partnership under section 4(2) of the Partnership Act 1980)").
The noble Earl said: This amendment has the purpose of altering the definition supplied in line 7 on page 69. The amendment seeks to exclude partnerships from the definition of business associations; that is, partnerships in Scotland within the ambit of Section 4(2) of the Partnership Act 1890. In Scotland people who have entered a partnership form a firm which is a separate legal person distinct from the partners who compose it. The law in England is, of course, different on this issue.
The amendment would place responsibility for Scottish partnerships with the Scottish parliament. As these partnerships are already defined in Scots law, their reservation to this Parliament makes little sense. The thought that this United Kingdom Parliament would find time to amend the laws of Scottish partnership, presumably at the request of the Scottish parliament, can be seen as unlikely. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I support this amendment which, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, has the full support of the Law Society of Scotland. As many noble Lords will be aware, that society scrutinises Bills that come before this Chamber in great detail and is assiduous in its drafting of amendments and provision of briefing to noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber. It also sends briefing to government Ministers. This appears to be a good example of how the Government might take on board a helpful suggestion made by the Law Society, which is, of course, a non-political body and has members of all parties and of none. The noble Earl has explained the purpose—
Lord Sewel: I remind the noble and learned Lord that when he was in government and I was in opposition, the Law Society of Scotland provided a similar service, but on those occasions the noble and learned Lord always thought that its amendments were ill-founded and wrong.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I have no recollection of that but one tends to put unpleasant memories out of
1090
sight and out of mind. I fully accept that on some occasions its views do not command universal support. When one deals with—dare I say it?—more political issues, such as the contents of the Crime and Disorder Bill, I can appreciate that different Members of this Chamber may take different views on the matter.
Section 4(2) of the Partnership Act 1890 states,
"In Scotland a firm is a legal person distinct from the partners of whom it is composed".
It seems to me that that is a highly non-political issue. A constructive suggestion has been made and I hope that the Minister will consider it seriously.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am not clear as to the intention of this amendment. I am not sure whether it seeks to devolve the whole of the law of partnership as it applies to Scotland. If that is the case, I can understand in a theoretical way why the amendment has been tabled. But one has to bear in mind that it was at the instigation of the Scottish legal profession that the law of partnership was made the same in both England and Scotland with, I believe, the sole exception of the existence of a separate legal persona. With that one exception—there may be another stray exception of which I am unaware—the law of partnership is, in effect, the same. If one is considering this matter from the point of view of trade and industry, I am not aware of the kind of issues which would be likely to arise where it would make sense for the law of partnership—which, as I say, applies uniformly with the one exception of the separate legal persona—to be devolved in the way the amendment suggests. I can see the sense of that in a theoretical way but not in a practical way.
Lord Hardie: I oppose the amendment for reasons which I can state no more clearly than as stated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. We are dealing here with business associations. The reservation of business associations is intended to include all business associations, including partnerships within the meaning of the 1890 Act, and limited partnerships within the meaning of the Limited Partnerships Act 1907. It would not make any sense to make a distinction between Scottish partnerships and partnerships south of the Border in this context. I accept, of course, that in terms of the Partnership Act a Scottish partnership has a separate legal persona. But that is really neither here nor there in the context of this provision. Indeed making a specific exception for Scottish partnerships would be anomalous in this context. Therefore I am sure the noble Earl will agree that there should not be competing regimes of business regulation—that is what we are talking about—north and south of the Border. For that reason I invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I accept that competition policy is not being devolved. However, I am still left with the problem of knowing how the Scottish parliament will ask this Parliament to alter the law on Scottish partnerships when such an issue remains a minority one within all that the United Kingdom has

1091
to arrange and decide. However, as I suspect there is no answer to that point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 70, line 5, after ("solicitors") insert (", notaries public").
The noble Earl said: Under the competition provisions of Schedule 5 I felt that in the interpretation of the legal profession we should include the ancient position of notaries public. I understand that goes back long before the Union of the Crowns. I wondered why it had not been included. I think most of us have received letters from the Law Society of Scotland on this point as we are dealing with the interpretation of the legal profession. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, has tabled Amendment No. 192A on this point. The inclusion of estate agents and other such bodies in the definition of "the legal profession" leaves me with some doubts. I am sorry, but I cannot support that proposal. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Amendment No. 192A is grouped with this one. As the noble Earl said, that amendment goes further than his by adding definitions to "the legal profession".
The omission of notaries public, estate agents, those holding rights to conduct litigation and those with rights of audience from the definition is significant. I believe that the regulation of anti-competitive practices and agreements within the legal profession should be devolved. Aside from notaries public, estate agents are divided between solicitor estate agents and non-solicitor estate agents. An existing level playing field is now disappearing because the regulation of estate agents will fall under two different parliaments depending on whether they are solicitors.
Notaries public act wholly within Scots law; they are appointed by the Court of Session and are disciplined as solicitors. The position of those with rights of audience under Section 25 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 includes solicitor advocates as well as non-lawyers. As this section of Schedule 5 relates to competition policy, it would be appropriate to have one, rather than two, standards within the legal profession.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I support both these amendments. They highlight a problem that has arisen in the drafting of this section of Schedule 5. A role carried out by certain professional persons is, in certain instances, a reserved matter and in others a devolved matter. I should perhaps declare an interest, having at one stage petitioned to be a notary public, but having abandoned the position because I had decided to be struck off the roll of solicitors pending my admission to the Faculty of Advocates. So I am a "suspended notary public", if that is a concept recognised by the law.
1092
The council of the Law Society of Scotland has the role of preparing and presenting petitions on behalf of individuals to the Court of Session so that they can be admitted to public office as notaries public. As I understand it, it also has responsibilities for the regulation of notaries as they discharge their public duties and deals with any disciplinary matters which may arise.
Under the Bill, as is clear from Section 3 of Schedule 5, the,
"Regulation of … practices of the legal profession for the purpose of regulating that profession or the provision of legal services",
is to be a devolved matter, and rightly so. The Law Society is concerned that part of its duties in respect of certain individuals is to be reserved and part is to be devolved. The society believes that there is a measure of illogicality in that.
The same point arises in relation to the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. The noble Earl has fully explained how the problem arises. The estate agent is the classic example. As noble Lords may know, a significant part of the work carried out in solicitors' firms involves the buying and selling of houses. The estate agency part of that transaction is frequently handled by solicitors in Scotland, whereas it is normally handled by estate agents in England. But estate agents in Scotland will be regulated under the Bill as a reserved matter, whereas solicitors doing exactly the same job will be regulated by the Scottish parliament as a devolved matter. That seems illogical. So, too, is the very limited possibility of people holding rights to conduct litigation and exercising rights of audience under the 1990 Act who do not fall within the qualification of being solicitors or advocates. These are helpful amendments suggested by the Law Society. Notwithstanding my lack of success with a previous amendment, I hope for a constructive response.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: I support my noble and learned friend on this matter. It seems that the Government's drafting is based on a misunderstanding. I say that because the Scottish Home Affairs Minister, Mr. Henry McLeish, wrote to the Law Society of Scotland on 14th May. Perhaps I may quote from the letter. He said:
"As you say … all notaries public in Scotland … are solicitors",
and went on to say:
"That does not mean, however, that notaries public, as such, form part of the legal profession".
With the greatest respect to the Scottish Minister of State for Home Affairs, strictly speaking what he wrote was not correct. Notaries are admitted under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act; secondly, they are admitted by the Lord President of the Court of Session; thirdly, they are subject to the discipline of the Law Society of Scotland; and fourthly, they are capable of being prosecuted before the Solicitors Discipline Tribunal. I therefore suggest that as notaries have to sustain and endure the trials and tribulations of the legal profession, they should also be recognised for what they are. It seems that the definition of "legal profession" is defective for that reason. Should the Bill create a

1093
position where one branch of the profession—namely, notaries—is subject to United Kingdom regulation and control when their removal, admission and discipline are all functions of the Law Society, a body which comes in all other respects under the Scottish parliament?
Similarly, it is surely not appropriate that solicitors and advocates will be regulated by the Scots parliament, but that those with rights under Section 25 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act will be regulated by the United Kingdom Parliament. It could lead to problems with consumers in that it could create an uneven playing field. There might be difficulties in regard to local enforcement of competition rules.
I appreciate that Section 25 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act has not yet been enforced. However, it might come into force. If so, provision for that eventuality should be made in this Bill. It seems that for the purposes of competition law the Scots parliament should have jurisdiction over all the professionals acting in the same economic sector. If the Bill gives the Scots parliament powers over advocates and solicitors but fails to give those powers in relation to notaries and estate agents, the matter merits careful examination by the Law Officers. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be able to give a favourable reply.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have no owlish wisdom on this subject, except that some years ago I took through this House a Bill which became the Property Misdescriptions Act. That measure applied to both estate agents and solicitors acting as estate agents. I am wondering how the Act is affected by devolution. The noble and learned Lord may not be able to answer the question now. However, I believe it to be relevant.
Lord Rowallan: I must declare an interest as a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, needs to be examined closely. It seems totally illogical that estate agents and lawyers who are doing the same work should be dealt with in two different ways.
Lord Hardie: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on these amendments. I am also grateful to noble Lords for their explanation of the amendments, which seek to widen the definition of "the legal profession" for the purposes of the exception that was made to the reservation of competition policy.
The legal profession is currently defined in the Bill as meaning,
"advocates, solicitors and qualified conveyancers and executry practitioners within the meaning of Part II of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions)(Scotland) Act 1990."
It seems to us that that is an appropriate definition. I believe that the legal profession—indeed any profession—ought to be limited to those who can be said to be part of that profession or related to it and subject to its professional rules and practices.
1094
If I may deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, in relation to notaries public, I accept that from what I have said it would appear to follow that they ought to come within that definition because they are clearly part of the legal profession, are related to it and are subject to its professional rules and practices. However, the point may be academic. It is my understanding that all notaries public in Scotland are in fact solicitors. Therefore the word "solicitors" in the definition encompasses notaries public and it would be unnecessary to include them in the definition.
The issue might arise, as the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, anticipated, in relation to another aspect of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. If notaries public are covered by the word "solicitor", would it not be enormously helpful if that could be clarified in the legislation? In other United Kingdom legislation they are not covered by the word "solicitor". It would make a great difference to notaries public throughout Scotland if that matter could be clarified and tidied up with an amendment.
Lord Hardie: With respect, I do not think that that is necessary. The concept of a notary in England is quite different. It is my understanding that, whereas in Scotland all notaries public are solicitors, the position is different in England and Wales, and in that case I can understand that there would be a need for a specific reference to notaries public in English legislation. In Scotland, where all notaries are solicitors, they are encompassed by the definition in the Scottish legislation.
I intended to go on to anticipate a point. The noble Lord referred to a provision in the miscellaneous provisions Act which has not been introduced. I can see that the question might be raised as to what would happen if at some stage in the future it were possible for a notary public to be admitted who was not a solicitor. If the position in Scotland were to change so that notaries public were not also solicitors, the matter would be reconsidered at that time. Clause 29 provides a mechanism for making changes to the schedule of reserved matters, and we can thus allay the fears of the Law Society of Scotland in that regard.
As far as estate agents are concerned, I am surprised that the Law Society of Scotland is promoting an amendment to include estate agents as part of the legal profession. As I understand it, the Law Society of Scotland has for many years been at pains to explain that estate agents are not solicitors and that they provide a quite different service, and a different quality of service, from that provided by surveyors who act as estate agents—with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan.
The position of estate agents is regulated in another way. Estate agents are reserved and are subject to regulation by the Department of Trade and Industry in the context of consumer protection. That regulation will apply not only to estate agents who are surveyors and

1095
to estate agents who have no qualification at all; it will also apply to solicitors in the conduct of their estate agency business. There is uniformity in the regulation. If solicitors choose to have an estate agency aspect to their business, that is regulated by the DTI, in the same way as other estate agents are subject to regulation and controls. When they are acting in their capacity as members of the legal profession, as solicitors in the proper sense of the word, they are subject to the regulation and control of the Law Society. That is why this exception is mentioned.
As the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, very properly pointed out, Section 25 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 is not yet in force and there are no present plans to commence the provision. Again, I am surprised at the Law Society of Scotland suggesting that, once this provision was in place, someone who qualified under it should be seen as a member of the legal profession. They would have gone through a different training exercise from that undertaken by solicitors. If one went out into the street and asked members of the public what they understand by the term "the legal profession", I am sure that in England they would say, "banisters and solicitors", or, in Scotland, "advocates and solicitors". One can see why it would be extended to people undertaking executry business under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act because solicitors tend to undertake executry and trust business. If this provision came into force, one would be dealing with other professions, but non-lawyer groups, who would then be encompassed in the definition. In my respectful submission, it would not be appropriate to include such people in this definition—all the more so because the provision is not in force.
With that explanation, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can help me with one matter, on which he may wish to write to me. The definition of the legal profession is given as, "advocates, solicitors", and so on. But, as the noble and learned Lord will know, certain foreign lawyers set themselves up in Scotland and can deliver services there under various pieces of European legislation. In that regard, there is to be an establishment directive. So far as such people are subject to UK regulation, would they be subject to regulation by the Scottish parliament, or would that remain a reserved matter? Prima facie, unless they became solicitors, and so on, by virtue of the establishment directive, it does not appear that they would fall within that definition.
Lord Hardie: I should like to consider that point in some detail. As the noble and learned Lord observed, once the establishment directive is in place, if such people became, in terms of the directive, members of the profession of solicitors or of the
1096
Faculty of Advocates in Scotland, clearly they would fall within the definition. As far as the other issue is concerned, I should like to reflect on it. I do not think it would be appropriate to give an answer now. I shall write to the noble and learned Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
The Earl of Balfour: As I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, said, the law would need to be changed if notaries public were not necessarily solicitors. Who would change the law, the United Kingdom Parliament or the Scottish parliament?
Lord Hardie: Clause 29 would regulate that situation and Her Majesty, by Order in Council, would modify the schedule in the way in which Her Majesty considered it necessary or expedient. Accordingly, it would be an Order in Council in this Parliament which would alter the provision.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, am I right in thinking that the Clause 29 procedure would require affirmative resolution of both the Scottish parliament and this Parliament? This may be a matter on which we touched the other night, but as I read Clause 102(1) and 102(3) of the Bill, we see "29" in both. As I construe what are inevitably complicated provisions, both parliaments would have the right to have a say as to whether a matter goes one way or another.
Lord Hardie: The position that I put before the Committee was that it would require the agreement of the Scottish parliament. I should like to stick with that position. If I am wrong on that, I shall write to the noble and learned Lord.
I have been given advice, but in the exercise of my discretion I would rather check up and be precise. It would involve affirmative resolution in both Houses of this Parliament and the agreement of the Scottish parliament. Whether it would then require a specific affirmative resolution of the Scottish parliament, I am not prepared to say at this stage.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Before the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, concludes, I believe that the Lord Advocate said that there is a level playing field and that all estate agency regulations will continue to come from this Parliament. I intend to withdraw my amendment. But I wonder whether that is the way everybody sees the situation. No doubt we shall return to this issue at Report.
The Earl of Balfour: I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, would be kind enough to send me a copy of his letter. I should like to read what he says. Although I shall withdraw the amendment, I reserve the right to come back with further questions at Report if I am not satisfied with his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 192A not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 70, leave out lines 11 to 13.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 193 concerns intellectual property. There is a reservation on intellectual property and then an exemption from reservation for,
"The subject-matter of Parts I and II of the Plant Varieties Act 1997 (plant varieties and the Plant Varieties Seeds Tribunal)".
The Plant Varieties Act 1997 provides for a number of things. It seems odd that those matters are to be devolved to the Scottish parliament. If one reflects on the Government's arguments earlier about keeping films, videos, live animals, lotteries in part and various other matters in the UK—matters of health, animal health and labelling—it is odd that the Plant Varieties Act is being singled out to be exempt from reservation.
I should like to have a clear view as to why that subject was chosen. After all, plant varieties and seeds move pretty freely between different parts of the Kingdom. There is a fair trade in mail order catalogues; people order seeds and plants from different parts of the UK—Scotland to England or England to Scotland. It seems odd that Parts I and II of the Act are chosen to be exempted.
Given the arguments that I have been listening to for most of the afternoon—some of them I appreciated and some I did not and asked the Committee's opinion on at least one of them—I cannot understand why this Act was chosen to be the responsibility of the Scottish parliament. I should have thought we would want to keep plant varieties on a UK-wide basis, especially, as I suspect, European matters begin to impinge on this issue. I should be grateful for an explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, on this. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: The key to the solution is the fact that agriculture generally is devolved and this fits in with our approach to agriculture as it reads across to plant varieties.
Let me make it clear. We plan that the Controller of Plant Variety Rights and the Plant Variety Rights Tribunal should be delegated as cross-Border public authorities in the Order in Council made under Clause 83. That will facilitate the maintenance of a single regulatory regime across the UK by those bodies after devolution.
Therefore, we have an arrangement which is repeated in a number of areas where the formal power and function is devolved, but that devolved power and function is carried out—given the reality—through an existing and maintained UK body. Basically, it is the best of both worlds.
Having said that, it remains the case that at some future date, because the power is devolved, it is open to the Scottish parliament—if, in its wisdom, it thinks that a better arrangement could be made—to move away from the present UK body and set up some other body.
1098
But it is our intention to designate those two cross-Border bodies in terms of the Order in Council under Clause 83.
It is not a matter of trying to set up a specific number of Scottish bodies; it is just that the power and function is devolved. That is expressed through existing UK bodies. I hope that that explanation is not too complicated. I appreciate that it brings together two slightly different ideas but I hope, on that basis, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should have gone into this matter before coming to Committee, but I confess that I did not.
Does what the Minister said affect the seed potato industry? Very often a potato is invented south of the Border. It is kept under control until it has been multiplied sufficiently and much of the multiplication is done in Scotland; for example, in Angus, not far from where I live. It is still under the control of the inventors south of the Border.
I do not know whether this provision applies, but that aspect may be affected by what the Minister says. If he cannot answer at the moment, perhaps he will look at the issue. It is a matter which will be of interest to the National Farmers Union in Scotland.
Lord Sewel: I believe that seed potatoes are seeds. On that basis, I would hazard a guess that they are covered by this provision. If not, I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: If they are covered by that which is devolved, it will be extremely worrying.
Lord Sewel: That opens up again an area of potential misunderstanding. Although the power and function is devolved, the operational aspect by which that power and function is given reality is through an existing UK body. The intention is to maintain that existing UK body as a cross-Border authority.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend Lady Carnegy has raised a quite worrying point. Perhaps I may go on to look at the words in the exemption—the "subject-matter". I understood what the Minister said about the bodies which grant the proprietary rights and the tribunal. They would be designated "cross-border" and therefore nothing much would change except that the Scottish executive, I presume, would have some role in the appointments. But the "subject-matter" seems to go a little further than that. It implies that the Scottish parliament could change the legislation contained in Parts I and II of the Plant Varieties Act. That perhaps worries my noble friend and myself much more. I assume that Parts I and II of the Act do not cover the import of seeds and seed potatoes. The import of those products has to be controlled.
As my noble friend pointed out, and as the Minister will be the first to know, the seed potato industry is very important in Scotland. In many parts of eastern Scotland

1099
and the Borders seed potatoes are vital to the farming economy. I no longer need to bother declaring an interest because it is a long gone interest, but when I was a student I was a potato inspector. I actually decided the grade potatoes should have. So I look at potatoes in quite a different way from anyone else! I must say that it was a quite well paid summer occupation for students. I do not know whether it still is, but it certainly was then. Indeed, I can vouch for what my noble friend said. The Scottish seed potato industry is very important—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps I may—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Ah, another grower!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps I may be able to assist the committee. It appears to me to be perfectly clear that, if the proprietary rights are laid down in Great Britain, the administration of the protection of those rights in Scotland should be done by the Scottish parliament. What happens is that some people try to swindle. They could be putting in potatoes which had run out of the period after the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, had inspected them, or they might be trying to sell seed without paying the premium to the inventor. In the case of potatoes, this appears to be fairly straightforward.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention because he knows about this subject. My slight concern—perhaps the Minister can put me at ease—is that the subject matter of Parts I and II devolved to the Scottish parliament could lead to a position where the Scottish parliament either legislated ahead of the UK parliament or vice versa and the net result was that the cross-border traffic in seeds of all kinds and seed potatoes was disturbed. I realise that I am getting into technicalities, even for the Minister with responsibility for agriculture. Perhaps we might be grateful for a letter on the matter. If the noble Lord could give that assurance, that would end the debate.
Lord Sewel: The only thing I can say in response is that I shall now add seed potatoes and seeds to the two other minefield areas in your Lordships' House, which are salmon and forestry. At this stage, I think it is better that I write to the noble Lord—a well known and used expedient—and see whether we can clear up this matter through correspondence.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I should have studied Parts I and II of the Plant Varieties Act 1997 with more care before I came to probe. However, I did think that the Minister would have all the answers at his fingertips!
Lord Carter: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. I actually took the Plant Varieties Act through the House; and I cannot remember either! But I can remember that those on the Opposition Front Bench were entirely pleased with all the answers I gave them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We tend always to be pleased with the answers that the noble Lord,
1100
Lord Carter, gives. With that, and with the letter which I thought I could see coming a few minutes before the Minister promised it, I am content to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 193ZA:
Page 70, line 27, at end insert—
("SECTION 5A - SEA FISHING
Reservation
Regulation of sea fishing outside the Scottish zone (except in relation to Scottish fishing boats).
Interpretation
"Scottish fishing boat" means a fishing vessel which is registered in the register maintained under section 8 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and whose entry in the register specifics a port in Scotland as the port to which the vessel is to be treated as belonging.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Haskel: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Conditional Fee Agreements Order 1998
7.35 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th July be approved [42nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Order 1998 revokes the Conditional Fee Agreements Order 1995. The 1995 order specified the proceedings in which conditional fee agreements could be made: personal injury cases; insolvency cases; and cases before the European Court of Human Rights. The new draft order increases, to the fullest extent possible under the legislation, the proceedings in which a person may enter into a conditional fee agreement with his or her lawyers. Conditional fee agreements will be lawful in all civil proceedings, except family proceedings.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported the draft order as "making an unexpected use of powers". The committee says that "all proceedings" is not a description of proceedings which can be properly specified under Section 58. I disagree. For the purposes of Section 58(3) and (4) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 the test to be fulfilled is whether or not the proceedings are of a description specified by order. In my opinion the proceedings that can be described can logically range from one specific proceeding to all proceedings. Under the Interpretation Act the singular includes the plural and proceedings of a description can embrace proceedings of all descriptions other than those excepted. In my opinion the order proposed complies with the statute.
The new draft order also specifies, as I am required to do by the primary legislation, the maximum percentage that may be charged as an uplift on the fees. This is set at 100 per cent., as it was before. Your Lordships will know that I am urged by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner this evening to go further and to set a cap on the success fee by reference to a percentage of the damages recovered. I have to tell the House that I cannot accept his amendment, not least because I believe the course he urges me to take to be ultra vires.
Parliament has plainly provided, in subsections (2) to (5) of Section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, an exhaustive code by which the maximum uplift of normal fees is to be fixed. It is plain from subsections (2) and (5) that any order to be made by the Lord Chancellor shall prescribe the maximum permitted uplift by reference only to a percentage of the fees of the lawyer. There is no power to impose a cap as a percentage of the damages recovered. Therefore, the noble and learned Lord's amendment to my order, if carried, would produce this absurdity: the House would be inviting me to make an order which in law was ultra vires. Obviously I would not do that; and I would lack the authority of the House to make the order that I propose which is intra vires.
I turn now to the merits of the order. Conditional fee agreements will result in a huge expansion of access to justice. Today only the very rich or the very poor can afford to litigate. In future everyone with a really strong civil case will be able to secure his rights free of the fear of ruin if he loses. They will bring the majority of our people into access to justice. The Law Society has announced today that it strongly supports the order I bring before your Lordships this evening.
Conditional fees have been the means by which at least 45,000 personal injury cases have been brought. Many, in all likelihood, would not have been brought but for the existence of conditional fees.
In our consultation paper, Access to Justice with Conditional Fees, the Government sought views on the possibility of extending the availability of conditional fees as widely as possible. The responses we received showed conclusively that most respondents were in favour of extending the availability of conditional fee agreements more widely.
It is clear that people are enthusiastic to use funding arrangements which give them access to the courts and share the risks of litigation with their lawyers.
If successful, a lawyer is paid his normal fees and, as recompense for agreeing to share the risks of litigation and to take no fee in the event of an unsuccessful outcome, the lawyer charges a success fee. This is fixed in advance as a percentage of the normal fees. This cannot be more than 100 per cent. On average, the percentage is less than 50 per cent. Most lawyers have voluntarily agreed to a further restriction by agreeing that the success fee will not exceed 25 per cent. of the damages. This is of particular value in smaller claims.
Conditional fees do not give lawyers a direct interest in the amount of the damages. This can be contrasted with contingency fees, commonly used in America, where the lawyer's direct interest is in the amount of the damages because the fee is set as a proportion of the damages secured. A conditional fee agreement sanctions only an uplift on what the fee would be otherwise.
I also find it strange that complaint is sometimes made that lawyers should not have a financial interest in cases, as if our present system eliminated any interest of this kind. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann so lucidly pointed out to your Lordships on 9th December 1997,
"lawyers are paid according to what they do and they decide how much they are going to do. It is therefore in their financial interest to do as much as possible".—[Official Report, 9/12/97; col. 66.]
The profession has shown, and will continue to do so, that as professionals they are able to deal properly with any conflict and resolve it without detriment to their clients. It would be extraordinary if the only reason we continued to deny access to our courts through the use of conditional fees is that we cannot trust the lawyers to deal honestly with their clients.
In recent weeks I have spoken to the representatives of several leading insurance companies. I am impressed by the inventiveness and creativity of the industry in seeking to develop new products to meet the demands of clients who may now choose to use conditional fee agreements.
From my discussions with the representatives of the industry, I am confident that newer, even better products will be launched in the coming months, although for obvious reasons of commercial confidentially I cannot go into details at this stage. All of these products will make using conditional fees more attractive.
The Government are also considering making the success fee and the insurance premium recoverable from the unsuccessful defendant. To do so would require primary legislation. My present thinking is that it is reasonable to make those who have been held liable by the court responsible for all the costs the successful party incurs to secure justice, including the insurance premium and the success fee. This would substantially remove the argument that plaintiffs' damages should not be diminished by the amount of the uplifts.
The order demonstrates, if any further demonstration were necessary, the Government's determination to achieve maximum access to our courts. I commend this order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th July be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
7.44 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, to leave out from ("That") to end and insert ("this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Order 1998 and re-lay it in amended form so that the maximum amount payable under a conditional fee agreement expressed in percentage terms in relation to the amount of any sums which may be recovered shall not exceed 25 per cent.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we live in very strange times. From the Statute of Westminster 1275 until a little less than 10 years ago, speculative litigation was contrary to public policy. That was because it was considered that it affected, as it does, the independence of the lawyer so that his advice might be distorted; he might exploit his client and he might engage in practices which were contrary to the interests of justice and thus undermine its integrity.
Section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 changed the situation and made conditional fee arrangements permissible. It was introduced, I am sorry to say, and, I believe, quite unintentionally, on a false prospectus. We were told initially that only 5 per cent. could be added to the costs of the solicitor. Later it was increased to 10 per cent., then to 20 per cent. and then, with great hostility from the Lord Chancellor's own Advisory Committee, it went up to 100 per cent. However, it was intended that it would have no effect on legal aid. As a result we have provision in Section 15(4)(a) of the Legal Aid Act 1988, which provides:
"A person shall not be refused representation for the purpose of any proceedings on the grounds (however expressed) that it would be more appropriate for him and a legal representative of his to enter into a conditional fee agreement (as defined by Section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)".
It is now being proposed that legal aid should cease in money recovery cases and in its place should come the conditional fee. I am deeply concerned, as many others are, about the whole system. I appreciate that it is water under the bridge now as regards the whole question of conditional fees being permitted. But although it is water under the bridge, there is some significance that the section was enacted in the teeth of opposition from seven Law lords, the Master of the Rolls, a former Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, a former Attorney General and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, and the Law Commission as well.
The history has this relevance. It is incontrovertible that in this new field one should proceed gradually and with caution. It was in 1995 that a statement in Access to Justice. A Fair Way Forward produced, I believe, for the Labour Party conference of that year where conditional fees were dismissed as a
"gimmick designed to mask the chaotic state of the legal aid scheme and the court service".
It went on to say this—and I emphasise it,
"We regard conditional fees as an experiment to be monitored closely".
The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee advised my noble and learned friend's predecessor in 1995 that given the novelty and the potential risk to litigants of this untried scheme, it must be effectively monitored; merely monitoring a sample was not, in the committee's view, sufficient.
Conditional fees were introduced in July 1995 and all that the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee was permitted to do was to commission the Policy Studies Institute to provide a report on a sample. The sample involved only 60 lawyers and 197 cases. The report is
1104
entitled, The Price of Success. I refer briefly to one of its conclusions, headed, "Assessment of Risk". It is found on page 86 and it states:
"The research raises serious questions about the way in which solicitors assess the probability of success of cases. Personal injury claims generally have a very high success rate, yet solicitors in this survey rated a large proportion of cases as having relatively small chances of success. There are a number of possible explanations".
Those are referred to. It continues:
"This is a crucial issue, because it affects the level of fees that the client pays to compensate the solicitor for the risk of not being paid at all. If the public suspects that solicitors are inaccurately estimating the risk, it will undermine their confidence in the whole system. If they believe that solicitors are doing so in order deliberately to inflate the uplift, despite rules on professional conduct, there is a risk that the whole conditional fees system could be brought into disrepute. This would have serious implications for the extension of conditional fees (in other areas)".
The various respects in which further inquiries should be made are then set out.
In my noble and learned friend's speech in Cardiff—published after the report and no doubt at a time when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor had had an opportunity to read it—no mention was made of that report. There was this observation:
"Conditional fees are working well in the personal injury field".
Were they? Not from the perspective of the litigant. The average level of uplift was 43 per cent. That is in an area where 90-plus per cent. of the cases are bound to succeed. In 10 per cent. of the cases, the uplift was between 90 per cent. and 100 per cent.
In June 1995, the House had the benefit of a debate on the first of the conditional fee orders in which an important contribution was made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—he but being a mere shadow of himself. I had attacked the 100 per cent. because, in the view of his own advisory committee, it was excessive. My noble and learned friend said this:
"Personal injury cases, as the noble and learned Lord"—
that is me—
"has rightly observed, are a low risk area of litigation from the standpoint of plaintiffs. In the vast majority the plaintiff succeeds in whole or part. In fact I understand that around 95 per cent. settle, to the advantage of plaintiffs, without any court order. In my view the first thoughts of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on this subject were correct. A 10 per cent. or at most 20 per cent.—uplift was sufficient incentive".—[Official Report, 12/6/95; col. 1553.]
The noble and learned Lord should have adhered to that. On that basis, the average being paid out in personal injury cases, the subject matter of the institute's report, is double what my noble and learned friend considered was a generous uplift.
I return to the question of monitoring. In a television programme, "File on 4"—again, this would have been well known to my noble and learned friend's department because featured on it was Mr. Hoon, his right-hand man in the Commons—Mr. Hoon observed—I quote from page 11 of the transcript:
"There was a specific piece of academic research conducted by the PSI into a number of cases, by no means the total, but which concluded that there were no substantial difficulties about the way that the scheme worked and indeed which encouraged us to consider extending conditional fees".

1105
There is no indication in that statement that those carrying out the research had any form of reservation or anxiety. That was, in my respectful submission, a classical "spin".
Fortunately, the lady who carried out the research, Miss Yarrow, was also on the programme and, having heard what Mr. Hoon had said, she said:
"We're concerned that solicitors may not be calculating accurately the risk of success of the case, and it's on that calculation that the whole success fee is based. They seem to be saying that cases are a higher risk than they actually are, and that then means that the client is going to pay more. I think the issues about the way the success fee is calculated have not really been resolved, and more attention needs to be given to this before such a drastic action is taken".
That was a reference to replacing legal aid. She then said:
"And so far we haven't seen any signs from the Lord Chancellor's department that they are addressing this issue. Instead they've tended to concentrate on the positive aspects of our findings".
I referred to those earlier.
On 18th February, I tabled a Written Question in these terms, to ask Her Majesty's Government:
"Whether, since the publication in September 1997 by the Policy Studies Institute of its report, The Price of Success, they have carried out or caused to be carried out any research to determine whether the practice of conditional fees is working; and if not why not".
Back came the answer, signed by the Lord Chancellor:
"In the five months since the Policy Studies Institute report was published. I have not commissioned further research on the practice of conditional fees. As the noble and learned Lord will know, the Policy Studies Institute report concluded that many of the potential problems identified with conditional fees before they were introduced appear to have been successfully addressed. I accept that further research, at the appropriate time, may be necessary and I plan to seek views on what further research might prove useful in the consultation paper that I plan to issue shortly".—[Official Report, 18/2/98; col. WA 49.]
That brings me to a comment made in the paper entitled Access to Justice with Conditional Fees, issued by the National Consumer Council in April 1988, in which it makes the sensible observation:
"Without knowing the answers to key questions"—
those are the questions about what has happened in the CFA agreements, which have been the subject matter of this very inadequate monitoring—
"it is impossible for us—or anybody else—to make an informed judgment about how well conditional fees are working and therefore whether they are a suitable alternative to legal aid for personal injury claims. At the very least, the LCD should begin immediately to monitor how CFAs are working in personal injury cases. It will be essential to follow selected cases through from beginning to end and therefore monitoring should begin as soon as possible".
It is the absence of the monitoring which has emboldened me to suggest that there should be the capping of the proceeds of the court action so that no more than 25 per cent. of the damages which are recovered can be taken by the solicitor. A hundred per cent can produce large sums and there may not be an equivalent sum recovered in court; or there may be a judgment for such a sum but it is reduced because of a finding of contributory negligence.
I have come to your Lordships' House with more than that thin veneer of confidence which I occasionally manage to simulate. I achieve this by going back to the debate on conditional fees in June 1995 to which I made reference. There I find the following observations of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor (he being but a shadow in those days):
"The next question is whether the noble and learned Lord, if he is insistent on retaining a maximum of 100 per cent., should be imposing a statutory cap on the uplift of, say, 20 to 25 per cent. of the damages recovered. I regard such a cap as an essential protection for the consumer of legal services. Particularly in cases where the damages are low and the fees high, it would be possible to win but to have to pay out literally all the damages recovered in legal costs plus success fee. That would be litigation which would in practice have been conducted—this is how the public would see it—for the benefit of the lawyers alone. The Law Society itself sees the merit of such a cap because it will be recommending to its members a cap of 25 per cent. of the damages recovered. The noble and learned Lord"—
that is a reference to the Lord Chancellor—
"should himself be imposing a 25 per cent. cap as the only sure means of protecting the consumer".—[Official Report, 12/6/95; col. 1554.]
One understands that from time to time one wears a different wig or hat and that may condition one's views on policy. But what startles me is that my noble and learned friend has changed his view on the law, and that should not be the result of changing status.
I go back to the words of my noble and learned friend in the same column:
"I, however, for my part, do not agree that Section 58 of the Act does no more than permit the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to prescribe the level of uplift and so does not permit, or impliedly preclude, a cap being imposed on the amount of the uplift. There is no bar, in my view, on his prescribing such a cap. The issue is whether he should do so".
Before my noble and learned friend addressed the House I set out in detail why the Lord Chancellor had the power and how the chairman of his own advisory committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, had firmly disagreed with the Lord Chancellor, as had my Law Lord colleagues in this House when I informally asked their views. I shall be interested to hear how my noble and learned friend justifies this forensic volte face.
Accordingly, I move my Motion. I have been at some pains to deal with the absence of monitoring because I, and I believe others, wish to have an assurance from the Lord Chancellor that he will now institute the necessary detailed monitoring in order to satisfy us that this strange creature, as the former Lord Chief Justice Lord Taylor described the conditional fee, is working fairly. I beg to move.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I support the order and welcome the opportunity to say a few words about conditional fee agreements. I strongly support the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in opening the debate. He spoke of the need to improve access to justice. That is a wholly laudable aim with which I am sure everyone participating in the debate agrees. I also strongly support the words he has uttered on other occasions about the need to modernise the whole system of justice.

1107
Justice is often far too expensive and inaccessible. We must take steps to remove the obstacles. That is why I have always viewed conditional fee agreements as part of the picture, not the whole picture.
I speak as one who has specialised in defendant litigation for some 30 years. Although I started life as a solicitor for the Transport and General Workers' Union, it took me 10 years to learn the error of my ways. For the past 20 years I have acted only for defendants. The reason I see conditional fee agreements opening access to justice is that, notwithstanding the legal aid scheme, there is a gap.
I wish to make four brief points. First, conditional fee agreements must be only part of the picture. There are other ways to improve access to justice, for example, legal expenses insurance. I greatly welcome the comments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about new products. Insurance companies will come forward with new products, and legal expenses insurance is another example of the innovative nature of insurers in meeting market demand. But as a former Minister I see the heavy hand of the Treasury behind this whole scheme and greatly regret any hint that conditional fee agreements will take the place of a wide range of legal aid opportunities that presently allows access to justice.
I am very nervous about suddenly moving to this new system before it is tried and tested. I can understand the urge to move ahead swiftly but I share many of the reservations expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I have enormous respect for the noble and learned Lord, mainly because the decisions that he has handed down to me and my firm have always been favourable. I do not seek to court support. However, I must inform him that once again he has encompassed in his remarks many of the reservations that extend far and wide in the legal profession about the new method of conditional fee agreements. It is so important that we get it right, but it is only one of the opportunities to open up access to justice.
Secondly, a good deal of research still needs to be done. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made that very point. I have spent some time studying the research already conducted. The report of the Policy Studies Institute, published as recently as last September by Stella Yarrow, sets out several of the reservations that have been expressed. It states:
"However, there is also evidence which casts some doubt over the way in which risk is assessed and the uplift calculated. Particularly if conditional fees are to be extended to other areas of civil litigation, these problem areas need to be addressed. This survey has simply given an indication that there seems to be a problem with these two fundamental aspects of the scheme … Any plans to extend conditional fees … need to take into account that there are many unanswered questions".
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will take every opportunity to extend the monitoring and research that is taking place into conditional fee agreements.
My third point, which I make as a member of FOIL, the Forum of Insurance Lawyers, is about his indication that he might well be minded to introduce primary legislation at a future stage to allow the success fee and
1108
insurance premium to be payable by the defendant. Surely in CFAs this removes from the plaintiff and his solicitor the risk that they are being asked to bear, which risk sharing has always underpinned the concept of CFAs. The defendant is being asked to pay for those cases he has won through a levy on the cases he has lost. It is as simple as that. Surely access to justice requires fairness on both sides of the equation.
FOIL has made a very strong case. Surely if we are to have a system of no fault compensation for plaintiffs we ought to debate that proposal, just as we did following the Pearson Conunission in the 1970s. I am troubled. Christopher Hodges was troubled in the New Law Journal when he said:
"Is it really right that virtually all risk should be removed from a plaintiff in litigation?"
The defendant stands to pay out far more than he or she does currently. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will listen carefully to the evidence of FOIL.
My fourth and last point is merely to say that there have been a number of developments in the past 12 months which have greatly increased the cost of litigation, not only to insurance companies but to health authorities, the Government and other defendants. We had the retrospective effect of the changes to the Compensation Recovery Unit last October; we had the decision last week in this House in Wells v. Wells, all hugely increasing the cost of claims. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has power to rectify the unjust consequences of Wells v. Wells by laying an order under Section 1 of the Damages Act 1996, which no doubt we will be able to discuss in another debate. To include in this a provision that the costs of the action, including the additional success fee and the insurance premium will now have to be borne by the defendant does seem to weight the scales of justice unfairly.
I have enormous sympathy with the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. However, I am a spectator in a much more serious battle of legal opinions and I await the views of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Notwithstanding all that I have said, I strongly accept the principle of conditional fee agreements.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I intend to intervene very briefly, overwhelmed as I am by the legal expertise which surrounds me. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows that I am second to none in my admiration for him, for his courage and the way in which he has pressed on with reforms which are overdue and very badly needed.
Having said that, I pay great attention to the fact that he made the point that the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, would be ultra vires. We shall have to see to what extent this will govern any decision. I was originally seduced by the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, because it seemed so simple. Certainly he

1109
very kindly quoted from the National Consumer Council report Access to Justice which was published at the time when I was its chairman.
Many of the fears which have been quoted have been somewhat overdone. There is always a fear of the unknown. At the same time, quite legitimately, as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, have said, people are apprehensive when they are faced with something and they do not know how it will work. It is important that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tells us what are his views about the future monitoring of the scheme when it is expanded to the extent that it will be, in a welcome way, by this order.
I suspect that the noble and learned Lord is not keen on conditional fees. I get that feeling from what he has said, but it is mere suspicion. I see a number of difficulties. There will be difficulties; there will be hiccups; there will be all sorts of cases coming up where people will point and say, "There you are. Woe is us. We told you it would happen". I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will want to protect his flank to ensure that people are satisfied that adequate monitoring is taking place.
A point that has not yet been raised—I might be wrong—is that very often those who would benefit from being able to bring a conditional case will have to find lawyers who will also think it is going to benefit them. Insurance or no insurance, they are certainly not going to want to take on that sort of case. Will they ever want to take on a case under those circumstances where the other side is being represented by legal aid? Where will they go for their damages if they win their case? That poses a certain restriction.
I have great sympathy with the points that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made about the capping of the fees. I can see where the problem arises in relation to the original Act. There is a structure within Section 58 which is said to provide for a determination with regard to the fees, which should not allow a fee of 100 per cent. to be more than that which would be obtained in the damages. That is the point that is being made.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to reassure us in relation to monitoring. After all, this is new to practically everyone in the legal world. I hope that he will also be able to give an assurance to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, with regard to the points that he has raised about the limitation of fees.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, in this my first speech from these Benches, I am delighted to support my noble and learned friend—as I am pleased now to be able to address him—for the order that he has put before the House. I support him for the principal reason that he gave to the House, the great need for increase in access to justice. I also support him because, in the three years of their operation, the evidence from the Law Society is that the conditional fee arrangements are, on the whole,
1110
working well. I am told by the Law Society that there have been approximately 40,000 cases to date which have used the Society's Accident Line Protect insurance scheme.
I am also told by the Law Society that the fears of the automatic doubling of fees have not been realised. Your Lordships have heard from my noble and learned friend that the evidence is that fees have gone up by an average of no more than 50 per cent. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, gave a lower percentage of 43 per cent. I am therefore happy to agree that the time has come to expand this scheme.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, opposes the scheme and seeks to put an amendment to it. I disagree with the noble and learned Lord for a number of reasons. First, there is a voluntary scheme already in place set up by the Law Society. In my submission, it is better to leave it as a voluntary scheme. Secondly, from my reading of the Act, there is no power for the Lord Chancellor to set up a cap based upon percentage of damages.
Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, goaded my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on views that he expressed in a debate in your Lordships' House on 12th June, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, did not address your Lordships on the basis of his submission that there is a power under the Act. If he examines Section 58(2) and (5) he will not find there a power in the Lord Chancellor to bring—
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am being criticised for not replying in some detail to the point about ultra vires in this debate or in the previous debate. In the previous debate, on 12th June 1995, it is set out in considerable detail. I propose to refer to that when I come to reply.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I leave it there. Under Section 58(2), the conditional fee arrangement is set as a percentage uplift of the amount of the lawyer's fees. If we look at Section 58(5) there is a reference to the same percentage. That percentage is only the percentage, and can only be construed as the percentage, of the uplift of the lawyers' fees.
Even if there were the power to make the order in the form that the noble and learned Lord urges, the linking of lawyers' fees to the amount of damages is moving us towards a contingency fee system which is undesirable. I agree with the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor which were the views that he also expressed in another place before the Home Affairs Select Committee last October. His noble and learned predecessor put it well in the earlier debate in your Lordships' House on 1st November 1994, when he said:
"It is not easy to suggest a particular cap as being justified by way of general regulation even if I had the power to do so. After all, in the case of a quadriplegic, for example, a cap might allow a huge uplift but in smaller cases it might not. I regard as very important the principle which underlies Section 58: that it is related to the work done. The work that the lawyer does should be basis upon which he or she is paid and not the amount of damages".—[Official Report, 1/11/94; col. 808.]

1111
It is impossible to see how the capping system could work in practice; for example, with a defendant or in the case of a structured settlement where moneys are paid by instalment over a period of time. There are practical and legal difficulties facing the noble and learned Lord's amendment. In those circumstances I hope that he will withdraw it.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, like motherhood and apple pie, all noble Lords, and certainly all lawyers, will be in favour of the proposition that access to justice should be increased. The issue is whether the conditional fee agreement should be the only route. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the order is strongly supported by the Law Society. So it is. But conditional fee agreements are supported by the Law Society only as an alternative, and not in substitution for legal aid. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, who said that there should be other routes of access to justice than that proposed by the Government. What one fears by the order is that the Government are closing down those routes and directing everyone into one flow of traffic.
I note that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is still against contingency fees. In his evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1997 he described them as:
"The most eloquent criticism of contingency fees is that by giving the lawyers a significant slice of the action they run the risk of polluting the fountain of justice at the source. The lawyers have too great an interest in the outcome".
The curious thing is that since the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said those words the Court of Appeal in the Thai Trading case decided that it is possible for contingency fees to be charged. I declare an interest in that I have settled a petition to your Lordships' House in relation to that case, challenging that decision.
The Legal Action Group which exists for the purpose of promoting equal access to justice, and which has some 8,000 members from the legal profession—solicitors and barristers who are engaged in litigation— said about conditional fees:
"The experience of practitioners operating conditional fees in the personal injury field is that the voluntary 25 per cent. of damages capped on the amount of the success fee comes into play in most cases so that in effect a contingency fee of 25 per cent. is currently being charged".
Your Lordships will appreciate that if that cap is reached in every case, it becomes a contingency fee. The interest of the lawyer in settling the case below its value, or perhaps in interfering with the way in which that case is presented to the court, is in conflict with the interests of his client.
The order is now to extend the system to all proceedings. While the uplift is limited—the limitation has grown as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said from 5 per cent. to 20 per cent. and now to 100 per cent. uplift on the success fee—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not prepared to extend it to a cap as a percentage of the damages. I wait to hear what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor
1112
says in answer to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that he appears to have given conflicting views to the House on this issue as to whether it is ultra vires.
In an earlier debate on this subject I urged the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to hasten slowly—festina lente. No one doubts his courage in pressing on with reforms, as the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, said. But it is an area which should await primary legislation and debate. Reforms in this field should not be introduced piecemeal.
Primary legislation is required for a number of reasons. First, the criticism of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and its reservations that this is an unexpected use of powers under Section 58 of the 1990 Act, should not be lightly dismissed. It is forcing the language to say that all proceedings can now be brought under that head.
That is not such an important matter as others. The proposals to alter the legal aid system have, as I understand it, been delayed until primary legislation can be brought into effect. I should have thought that it would have been sensible for all the matters concerning access to justice to be dealt with in a single Act, covering those fields.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, encouragingly said to your Lordships tonight that it is reasonable to make the uplift and the success fee payable by the defendant, but your Lordships have heard the strong reservations that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, expressed on behalf of the defence side of litigation. The matter is not absolutely straightforward; it should be debated. The various interests should be balanced because there is a public interest on both sides: from the insurance premium payer to the injured litigant. It is not a matter, I respectfully suggest, that can be dealt with lightly.
However, the most important reason why there should be a delay—a hasten slowly to bring in this scheme—is that, as noble Lords have said, there has been limited research in this field. There has been no research as to whether solicitors overestimate the risk in order to justify an excessive uplift of the fees. There may be a doubling of fees now that 100 per cent. uplift is permitted. But the solicitor who is charging the fees, who determines that uplift, has to justify that uplift, assessing the risk himself. Is he doing it properly?
The effect upon the lay clients has not been surveyed. There has been no research into whether clients feel they have had a fair deal as a result of conditional fee agreements. There may have been 40,000 cases, but how many of those have gone to court? How many of them have been successfully completed to the satisfaction of the client? We simply do not know. There is a lack of monitoring of the services available at present in personal injury cases from the insurance industry. It may take four or five years to judge the success of the insurance cover that is provided to the client and from the point of view of the insurance company. If we are now to have conditional fee agreements extended to all other proceedings, it will take a long time to work out the level of premiums that insurance companies will

1113
charge and in what type of case. Will those premiums be acceptable to the lay client? Will it be affordable litigation for him?
The answer to those questions—the protection for the consumer—lies in awaiting a comprehensive Bill, primary legislation, which could contain important safeguards. For example, if a solicitor enters into a conditional fee agreement with his client, at present that is entirely between him and his client. The degree of uplift is simply not known. Is it fair and appropriate? Whether the solicitor has assessed the risk properly is not clearly made out to the courts or to the public. A proper proposal for a Bill might be that a conditional fee agreement should be filed in court and be open for inspection by the court as the mitigation is commenced, so that the court can consider, should any problem arise, whether a proper risk has been assessed and whether the uplift charged is appropriate in the particular case.
Secondly, a provision could be made in primary legislation that the solicitor should make a file note of his risk assessment when he first sees the client and considers the problem placed before him. If the proposal that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor puts forward tonight comes into effect, and I support it—namely, that the uplift and the insurance premium be paid by an unsuccessful defendant—the defendant will want to have his say as to whether the uplift charged has been properly charged, and whether the risk that has been assessed and the insurance premium paid for that assessment, which will fall upon the defendant at the end of the day, was a fair and proper assessment in the first place.
Primary legislation could consider whether the Office for Supervision of Solicitors should have power to investigate the possibilities of malpractice that might arise in a delicate situation where, as the scheme is presently framed, the solicitor has an interest in the outcome of the proceedings.
To those of us who are trained as lawyers, there is something fundamentally wrong in the concept that lawyers should have an interest in the outcome. But if we are to accept that times have moved on, and that there is some advantage to be gained through having a personal stake in proceedings, then at least it should be possible for what the solicitor does to be investigated and for him to be before the Office for Supervision of Solicitors if he does something inappropriate.
I support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. In the last case in which I appeared before the noble and learned Lord in which he gave the lead judgment, I was completely unsuccessful. But I have to tell your Lordships that the other side was completely unsuccessful; and their Lordships took their own view of the case we had presented to them. Neither side won at the end of the day. So I do not have the problems of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in supporting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in his amendment.
With those comments, I invite your Lordships to accept the amendment that has been moved.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, so apposite and incisive have been the contributions of noble Lords and noble and learned Lords in this evening's debate that I hardly need do more than bang the drum in admiration.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, reminded the House, the notion that a lawyer should have a financial interest in the outcome of a case is wholly repugnant to our legal tradition, and has been for the past 700 years. Indeed, one of the ornaments of our constitution, with few exceptions, has been the incorruptibility of our legal profession. The introduction of contingency fees for civil matters on such a wide range can be justified only if it brings with it substantial benefits. In my submission, it is for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to establish to your Lordships' satisfaction that these benefits are made out.
In that context I have three questions to put to the noble and learned Lord. First, does he believe that there is already hard evidence that the measures he proposes will substantially improve the access to justice of that category of persons he identified in his opening remarks—essentially the middle classes? Secondly, is he confident that the insurance industry is now ready with the right product at the right price on the right timescale to deliver the system that will meet his access to justice objectives? Thirdly, can he be sure that the new temptations that will be presented to the legal profession will be resisted? I shall briefly consider each of those questions.
On the question of access to justice, as short a time ago as 1995, in a document published by the Labour Party called Access to Justice, we read:
"We regard conditional fees as an experiment to be monitored closely and in the light of the Scottish experience do not expect their introduction to make a significant improvement to access to justice. They are at present little more than a gimmick designed to mask the chaotic state of the legal aid scheme and the Court Service".
Noble Lords have heard the exegesis by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, on the one study that has been made on CFAs, and relating only to CFAs in the context of personal injuries cases. Your Lordships will be aware that the conclusions of the report were couched much more in terms of questions than answers. Are solicitors being too conservative about risks and asking for too high an uplift? What percentage of damages are really being paid disguised as fees? What effect will CFAs have on the inclination to issue proceedings? There are many more questions besides those.
We do not even know the answers to those questions in the context of personal injuries, yet now we are seeking to expand the system to all civil litigation. There is no comparable set of surveys in any other country to give us help.
If your Lordships were the Medicines Committee deciding whether to grant a licence to a new drug, would you really grant a licence on the basis of the evidence in front of you tonight in relation to contingency fees? I believe I know what your Lordships' answer would be.

1115
The second question that I wish to address briefly is that of insurance. I turn to the statement made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, this time in the House of Lords Debate on 9th December 1997, when he stated:
"The insurance industry is competitive. It is already developing the products that will be needed, including products where there would be no up-front costs and where lawyers could protect themselves from an unlucky run of losing cases by `stop-loss' insurance".
The noble and learned Lord then went on to say:
"The innovative capacity of the industry to match insurance cover to need should not be doubted. The industry has told me that it expects to move sufficiently quickly to develop and launch new products so as to have them available by the time the changes that I propose to conditional fees and legal aid are made".—[Official Report, 9/12/97; col. 45.]
We are now on the threshold of those changes. The noble and learned Lord has said a little more tonight about what he thinks the insurance industry might deliver. But we still do not know what the costs are and, above all, we still do not know when the insurance industry will be able to deliver. Until we know the answers to those questions it would, in my submission, be extremely dangerous to take the matter further.
The final set of questions relates to the legal profession itself. I described our legal tradition as one, I am happy to say, of incorruptibility. But there is no doubt that the onset of these CFAs will present new temptations for the legal profession. There will be temptations not to reveal documents which ought to be revealed. There will be temptations to say things to witnesses which ought not to be said. There will be temptations not to disclose things to judges which ought to be disclosed. How are we to be sure that the profession will not be tempted? With respect, I believe that the noble and learned Lord ought to be thinking about, for example, setting down careful and detailed rules about the contents of CFAs; about whether to institute a system whereby in High Court litigation Masters have to review on a regular and spot-check basis a percentage of these agreements; the kind of instructions that ought to be given to taxing masters; and in what circumstances the agreements ought to be subject to compulsory taxation.
Until we have the answers to those questions, it is my submission that it would be unsafe for your Lordships to allow these matters to proceed. The thing that worries me most of all about the noble and learned Lord's approach is the suggestion that somehow the legal profession ought to behave more like businessmen. Indeed, in a previous debate I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, subscribe to that proposition. I have to say to your Lordships in all frankness that I do not subscribe to it. The right parallel for our profession is not business, it is the medical profession. I believe that if the noble and learned Lord keeps that in mind he is likely to find his way through the deep undergrowth that lies ahead of him with a great deal more success.
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, at this hour I shall not address your Lordships at great length, but I shall
1116
endeavour to cover the salient points. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, acknowledges that he is hostile to speculative litigation and that he regards proceedings under conditional fee agreements as speculative litigation. But I have to say he is fighting the battles of long ago, as he himself acknowledged when he said that all this was water under the bridge.
I submit that conditional fee agreements have been proved to work in the personal injuries field. In our extensive consultation, they have been virtually unanimously supported by our consultees. I submit that it is self-evident that they enhance access to justice. It is well known that only the very poor and the very rich can afford to litigate in this country because the risks of losing are too great. Middle England in Britain is left out in the cold and conditional fee agreements will bring it access to justice.
The Law Society supports the extension. So, too, do the National Consumer Council, the Consumers' Association, NACAB, the TUC, many trade unions, Victim Support and other bodies.
Legal aid is not to be removed pro tern. What I am proposing by the order is the extension of availability of conditional fee agreements—therefore, the freedom of the consumer and the potential plaintiff to use them—to the whole field, and removing nothing from legal aid. We are extending opportunities to people without removing any legal aid benefits.
I have indicated that when legislative opportunity arises I propose to make the success fee recoverable from the unsuccessful defendant. Despite the general reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I note that I had his support in that proposal. Perhaps I may reassure him that if the uplift is thought to be excessive it could be reduced for the benefit of the defendant via the unsuccessful defendant liable to pay it by an officer of the court, a taxing master, to a fair level. But I regard the recovery of the success fee as the answer to the point that uplifts are bad because they are at the expense of plaintiffs whose damages would otherwise be diminished.
I was gratified to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, favours conditional fees in principle, but he had particular concerns. Nothing that I say is intended to discourage individuals in their own interests from taking out before the event insurance. Of course that would be in their interests. Where I part company from him, however, is where he says that on the plaintiff's side no risk is run if the success fee can be recovered from the unsuccessful defendant in the event that the plaintiff wins. Of course the risk assumed by the plaintiff's solicitor and not the plaintiff himself, and which he continues to run if he loses, is that he recovers no fee. He has done a lot of work for nothing. That is what will ensure that only strong cases go forward. Indeed, it is only strong cases that should go forward. But where a strong case is won, I see no reason why a defendant should not in justice pay the success fee which the plaintiff has had to incur in order to establish a just liability against the defendant.
In the consultation process we are considering much of what has been said about the need for monitoring, and we are giving active thought to it. Meanwhile, we

1117
are giving people an opportunity to bring proceedings under conditional fee agreements, extended very widely, if they choose. Monitoring could be achieved either by establishing a monitoring system in agreement with the profession or by commissioning research, which includes consideration of the fairness of uplifts. Essentially, we would seek to establish whether the success fees were commensurate with the risk in much the same way as insurance premiums are intended to reflect the risk to the subject of the cover. However, if we make the success fee recoverable—and I have not concealed that I am minded so to proceed—then the protection for the unsuccessful defendant would lie in the taxation process.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, reminded the House of a view that I expressed on a previous occasion. I have considered Section 58 of the statute most carefully and I am now of the view that there is no power under Section 58(3) to (5), for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Hacking conveniently summarised, to impose a statutory cap on the damages. I noted—as did my noble friend Lord Hacking—that the noble and learned Lord did not meet the specific reasons that I gave in support of the view that I now have of the ambit of Section 58.
However, even if I were wrong in that respect and I did have the power—and I do not doubt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will tell me that my first thoughts are always right, however long ago they were expressed, provided that they accord with his current thoughts—I would not be minded to exercise it because I consider that the way through is to make the success fee recoverable from the unsuccessful defendant, so the argument that the plaintiff's damages are diminished by uplifts goes. I think it right in principle that unsuccessful defendants should pay all the costs that the plaintiffs have to incur in order to establish a defendant's liability. For all those reasons, I urge the noble and learned Lord not to press his amendment and indeed to withdraw it.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I accept that there are many things that I do badly and one of them is to dissemble. I do not hesitate in admitting to my dislike of conditional fees. Indeed, that is certainly the view of the majority of the judiciary. However, to suggest that I am fighting battles long ago when all I do is produce an amendment to the order proposed by my noble and learned friend—in terms that he himself had enthusiastically approved some three years ago—seems to me a little unkind as a suggestion.
My amendment is not a wrecking one. It has the support of the Law Society—
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I should point out to the noble and learned Lord that that is not correct.
Lord Ackner: In that case, my Lords, perhaps I may read out what the brief says:
"The Society recommended the voluntary cap on damages received but does not disagree in principle that there should be a mandatory cap on the success fee".
1118
Perhaps the noble Lord has not read that brief. Further, the Legal Action Group says:
"Any general extension of conditional fees should be accompanied by a clear commitment by the government to keep their operation under review and to commission further research into the impact of conditional fees. In addition, the voluntary cap on the success fee of 25 per cent of damages should become statutory".
I do not know whether the group and the Law Society are also to be accused of fighting battles long ago.
Perhaps I may now deal with a few further matters. I begin with the vires of the Lord Chancellor. I am blamed for not immediately replying to an attack on the vires when, three years ago, the noble and learned Lord, in terms, contradicted his predecessor and said that it was well within his predecessor's power. It was because that was based on a forensic issue, where I assume that change in status does not mean a change in law, that I did not come complete with the full argument this evening. However, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has himself given the barest of detail to support his proposition, I should point out that, in the debate on 12th June 1995 on conditional fees (at col. 1551 of Hansard), I said:
"Your Lordships may remember that in the debate on 1st November my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor took the point that he is taking today; namely, that he has no power to make the provision to cap. I respectfully submitted that I and a number of my judicial colleagues with whom I informally discussed the matter did not accept that view. I drew attention inter alia to his wide regulation making power in Section 120(3) of the Act which provides: 'Any such regulations … may contain such incidental, supplemental … provisions or savings as the person making the regulations … considers expedient'. In his letter of 24th March 1995 my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn"—
he was the chairman of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee—
"informed the Lord Chancellor that the committee did not agree that he had no power to impose such a limit or that to do so would be to attempt to modify his power to set a maximum increase in fees. My noble and learned friend gave his reasons in detail. They were as follows:
'The committee finds that in the Act no expressed or implied restriction on that power such as to prevent its exercise in order to limit the proportion of damages payable to the legal advisers. The Committee recalls your substitution of the words "requirements" for "information" in an earlier draft of the provision at the Committee stage in the House of Lords. You then explained that "requirements" included, and went further than "information" so as to include, for example, the power to prescribe how conditional fee agreements should define success in the action. The Committee does not agree that a limit on the proportion of damages would modify your power to set a maximum uplift. Permission to increase a fee is logically distinct from any limit on the proportion of a particular source from which that increase may be satisfied. Moreover, the argument has no reasonable limit; it could presumably be said to apply even to your own example of a prescription of the way success in the action is to be defined. Such a definition would undoubtedly affect the amount of fees the legal adviser could recover"'.
Those were the submissions that I hoped the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would meet if he were going to withdraw his previous concurrence of what is there set out. But it is of no great consequence because,

1119
as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said in the earlier debate,
"If the Lord Chancellor does not have the power, for Heaven's sake he should seek it".
He added,
"I do not believe that there would be any impediment either in this House or the other place in obtaining power".
With respect, I do not look upon this as a serious answer to the amendment I have suggested.
I deal now with the contingency fee point. The Green Paper from which the conditional fee agreements have come was itself headed "contingency fees". A conditional fee is a contingency fee; the contingency being the success or failure. Without the capping mechanism, the conditional fee can produce a situation which is far more lethal than the American system which is attacked. Under the American system, you cannot obtain more than 40 per cent. of the proceeds of success, but under the conditional fees without a cap you could burn up the entirety of the amount you succeed in recovering by doubling the fees. In fact, the then Lord Chancellor agreed that this was such a case.
I have few other points to make. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, says that the cap raises problems with regard to a defendant. It raises no such problem at all. It has no relevance to the position of a defendant because, unless he is counter-claiming, there is no fund that he is recovering, and nothing to be the subject matter of a cap. As regards structured settlements, it is not difficult to make an exception in that particular case.
Finally, I deal with the point about the uplift and the insurance to be payable by the unsuccessful defendant. I cannot find any principle upon which this can be justified. If a plaintiff is short of funds and takes up a big loan to bring his ex hypothesi successful action, can he charge the unsuccessful defendant with the interest he has to pay on that loan? That is certainly not the case on any principle of which I am aware, but the situation is comparable. The person who takes out the conditional fee and the insurance is supporting his action in that way.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given no assurance—although we have requested it—that there will be any immediate research or monitoring of what is taking place. Yet this order is to move conditional fees right across the civil litigation board, a matter which many of those who have spoken say is unsafe. In that situation I think I would be lacking in responsibility, having raised the point, in not asking for the views of the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the original Motion was, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th July be approved, since when an amendment to the Motion has been moved to leave out from ("That") to the end and insert ("this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Order 1998 and re-lay it in amended form so that the maximum amount payable under a
1120
conditional fee agreement expressed in percentage terms in relation to the amount of any sums which may be recovered shall not exceed 25 per cent."). The Question is, That this amendment be agreed to.
9.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 55.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L. [Teller.]

Mar and Kellie, E.

Addington, L.

Meston, L.

Carlisle, E.

Minto, E.

Clement-Jones, L.

Renton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Stair, E.

Greenway, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller.]

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Thurso, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tope, L.

Maddock, B.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alli, L.

Haskel, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hayman, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blackstone, B.

Hoyle, L.

Borrie, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Chandos, V.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Judd, L.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Coity, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Desai, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dixon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Puttnam, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Randall of Budeaux, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sewel, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon, V.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Grenfell, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hacking, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hanworth, V.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hardie, L.

Whitty, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Lord Chancellor: The Question is that the original Motion be agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 2) Order 1998
9.12 p.m.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 1st July be approved [40th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 1st July be approved [40th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotland Bill
9.14 p.m.
House again in Committee on Schedule 5.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 193A:
Page 71, leave out line 6.
The noble Lord said: The Government have already expressed their view on this subject. There are one or two additional points which the Law Society wish to be made. I shall, if I may, follow those up in correspondence. I believe that it is unlikely that the Government will have changed their view in the last hour and a half.
[Amendment No. 193A not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 71, leave out lines 11 to 13.
The noble Lord said: I am pleased that we have managed to return to the Scotland Bill. We are returning to the issue of whether certain difficult matters should be placed with the Scottish parliament or retained at Westminster. We have now moved on to the field of consumer protection. A number of consumer protection items are reserved. I fully understand that and believe that the Government are right about it. In consumer protection there is so much of a flow of goods around the country, by one means or another, with people living in Scotland and shopping in England, and vice versa—mail order and so on—that it would not make much sense if consumer protection were devolved to a Scottish parliament. I suspect that that parliament would simply have to follow slavishly whatever was done here. The Government have my support in that regard.
I wish to turn to the question of the exemption from reservation under this section. The exemption is the subject matter of Section 16 of the Food Safety Act 1990. The problem here is that, given the inter-UK trade, if I may call it that, it is wise that
1122
there should be one control over food safety, labelling, and so on, and it would not make sense for Scotland to have different regulations on these matters. In addition, so much consumer protection is now controlled, or at least triggered, by material in Brussels that it would not make sense to devolve many of the consumer protection items.
We know that the food standards agency will be a UK body. That was said by Mr. Henry McLeish at col. 1004 of Hansard on 30th March. I wonder, as I have on a number of occasions, why the Government have decided to have any exemption under this head at all. I look forward to the Minister's explanation. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: These amendments would seriously undermine the devolution of responsibility to the Scottish parliament over all matters related to food safety, plant health and animal health. Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 seek to include within the reservation of consumer protection and product standards matters related to devolved areas of food safety, animal and plant health, fertilisers and pesticides. We intend, however, that the Scottish parliament should be able to legislate in relation to agriculture, fisheries and food on a "field to fork" basis—the quality chain. That is becoming more and more important. It is critical that we operate on that basis if Scottish agriculture is to thrive. The whole legislative competence from field to fork ought to be located with one parliament. That is what we are doing. Consumer protection and product standards, safety and the related labelling thereof are essential aspects of that process and go together as a unity. For these reasons, the Government cannot support the amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, mentioned the food standards agency. It is true, as he reported, that that agency is to be a UK body. Food standards and safety will be devolved matters. The Scottish parliament would therefore inherit responsibility for funding the agency's activities in Scotland, and appropriate arrangements will be made for it to be accountable to the parliament and for joint control by the Scottish Ministers and the United Kingdom Government.
I understand the interest in these kinds of organisations. We come back to another example of a situation where responsibility for the power and the function is devolved. That responsibility is carried out and maintained in collaboration and co-operation through a UK agency. That is the choice of the Scottish parliament. It does not affect the logic of the devolution of those functions to the parliament in the first place. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I see from the Notes on Clauses that tobacco advertising seems to be devolved. Is that the case? If so, how will that work?
Lord Sewel: There is only one possible response to that: if it is in Notes on Clauses, it is in Notes on Clauses.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is it the case and how will it work?
Lord Sewel: I do not know how it will work.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I wonder whether my noble friend is assisted by the observation that it is not even devolved to the UK. Tobacco advertising is a European matter, as I understand it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I can intervene here, as it is Committee stage. My recollection of tobacco advertising and the affair of Mr. Ecclestone suggests that it is a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament. The Government changed their policy on tobacco advertising in relation to Formula One motor racing, thanks to the pressure brought on them by Mr. Ecclestone.
My noble friend makes a good point. If the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, is right and it is entirely a European matter, why bother having it devolved at all? It is not worth it. If it is devolved, do different rules on advertising apply? I need not labour the point because, frankly, I cannot see how that would work. For example, would it work with television? Would our television pictures cut off at the Border if tobacco was advertised? We need an answer on that.
Again, I shall need to study what the Minister said. Is he saying that while these regulations and so forth will be carried out by a UK body, the regulations north and south of the Border could be different, or just the administration of them? If the regulations could be different north and south of the Border, it might be difficult. In agriculture, the supply of produce is a fairly unified market inside the United Kingdom, as are fish and fish products. For example, the Aberdeen-based fish processing industry sells its products in the whole of the United Kingdom. It would be extremely difficult if there were different regulations north and south of the Border. The same is true of other products. If product standards in fertilisers were different north and south of the Border, it would be extremely difficult for farmers. I hope the noble Lord can give us some help on these matters.
Viscount Thurso: Before the Minister gives that help, perhaps I can point out to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that there are already a number of areas where the regulations north of the Border are quite different from regulations south of the Border. The one that immediately springs to mind—we had a short debate on it in your Lordships' House not so long ago in which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was kind enough to reply for the Government—relates to fire regulations. The fire regulations north of the Border are
1124
quite different and based on different principles to those south of the Border. In fact, we believe that those north of the Border are better than those south of the Border.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps I could also point to the noble Lord that the fishing industry is now concentrated in Peterhead and not Aberdeen.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before both noble Lords sit down, I did not refer to the catching sector; I referred to the fish processing sector. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that that is still concentrated in Aberdeen.
As to the other point, there is a considerable difference between fire regulations which concern premises which clearly are in Scotland and cannot move too readily to England and a fish or food processing factory whose markets may be throughout the UK and abroad.
Lord Sewel: I shall try to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, on tobacco. As I understand it, we are moving towards the implementation of an agreement on a European basis on tobacco advertising. But that must be implemented. It is the implementation of that type of agreement which would be a devolved matter. I hope that gives the noble Baroness some clarification.
On the basic point, I see the tension in the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. At the end of the day, it comes down to this. We start with a principle which says that agriculture, fisheries and food are an entire devolved area. That seems to me to be a good starting point. We then get into areas of subdivision but we maintain the essential unity of the policy and the principle that that subject should be devolved. When it comes to matters such as food safety, animal and plant health, in the application of the principle we say, "Yes; that means that those subdivisions are devolved to the parliament", but in fact there is every practical, commonsense and pragmatic reason to maintain a UK approach.
Although the power is devolved, the way in which that power is exercised is through a UK agency. Formally, that means that it would be within the scope of the parliament to withdraw from that kind of arrangement if it so chose. But that would not be the wisest or the most prudent thing for the parliament to do.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: To be honest, I am totally bemused by that answer. I am still extraordinarily puzzled. However, I can see that we will not get very much further this evening. I think I will take this away and check with some of the people I know in the fishing industry and in agriculture and try to work out with them how this will work, and during the long Recess I may correspond with the Minister. I may be much better informed after the past few minutes, but I am afraid that I am none the wiser. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 195 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 71, line 38, at end insert—
("The regulation of the design and erection of telecommunication masts and equipment.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an amendment to Section 9 in Schedule 5. The section deals with telecommunications and wireless telegraphy. The purpose of the amendment is to except from the reservation of telecommunications and wireless telegraphy and the other related topics the issue of the regulation of the design and erection of telecommunication masts and equipment.
The reason for the amendment is straightforward. Throughout Scotland one sees erected a variety of steel structures. Some are for the transmission of electricity and some are for the transmission of telephone messages. In the area of telecommunications and wireless telegraphy one has masts and associated equipment which, on occasion, are quite frankly an eyesore. Planning issues and environmental issues arise. It seems to me that there is a strong argument for saying that the design and siting of such equipment should be a devolved matter, albeit that I fully accept that there is good sense in the topic of telecommunications and wireless telegraphy falling within the reservation. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: As the noble and learned Lord explained, the purpose behind the amendment is to ensure that the Scottish parliament will be able to regulate the design and erection of telecommunication masts and equipment. As such installations will be subject to the Scottish parliament's competence in the field of land use planning, it is the Government's position that the amendment is unnecessary.
We recognise the need to balance the benefits of nationwide access to telecommunications networks against any consequent detriment to the environment. That is why the licences granted to operators under the Telecommunications Act 1984 contain a variety of conditions designed to protect amenity and the environment. Masts and equipment are also covered by planning legislation. Major installations are subject to full planning controls, while smaller installations enjoy certain permitted development rights. As the noble and learned Lord, with his experience of planning law, will appreciate, where there is permitted development rights, the person who benefits from those may erect the mast or whatever it is without the necessity of formal planning permission.
However, the permitted development rights to operators under the Act have certain environmental safeguards granted on the strength of the licences. The operators are not even as advantaged as others who have the benefit of permitted development rights. They have to look to the safeguards in operators' licences. Included within them is a provision that operators should not install masts or other equipment without planning authorities having had an opportunity to have their say on the appearance and siting of proposed developments.
1126
So large installations have to obtain planning permission. The operators of smaller installations with permitted development consent as a condition of the licence still have to go to the planning authority about siting appearance. If the noble and learned Lord finds, as I do, that many of these installations are unsightly, that could be the fault of the local planning authority.
These planning matters are to be wholly devolved and, accordingly, the amendment appears to be unnecessary. Therefore, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw it. I sympathise with his objective and share his concern. But his objective will be achieved without this amendment in view of the fact that planning law will be devolved.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I believe that the Scottish parliament will have to take an interest in the fact that these masts are to last for about 15 years. At the end of that period almost all mobile phones which the masts are erected to serve will have converted to satellite. Therefore, the Scottish parliament may have to legislate for their removal, which will be important for the environment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am happy to accept the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that the amendment is unnecessary. I am sure that what he said will reassure those concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 72. leave out lines 14 to 16.
The noble Lord said: This amendment removes from reservation,
"The subject-matter of section 1 of the Industrial Development Act 1982".
This is something more than just a probing amendment because there is no doubt that the Scottish Office, through Locate in Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and the Highlands and Islands Enterprise, has been extremely successful in the economic work it has done in Scotland in the attraction of inward investment to such an extent that the United Kingdom as a whole has received more foreign investment from outside Europe than the rest of the European Union put together. That has been due almost entirely to the successes of the policies of the Conservative government and those pursued by my noble friend Lord Lang, when he was Secretary of State, and others.
What bothers me here is that this may well be the thin end of the wedge. I want to explore just how thin or thick is that part of the wedge. Late last year it became clear that the Government were planning to end Scottish control over inward investment matters by centralising power in the DTI. Designation of assisted areas is an important part of that inward investment. It is an important part of the attractions that Scotland can offer to incoming industry. The DTI Minister, Mr. Ian McCartney, confirmed on 18th November last year

1127
plans to strengthen Whitehall control over Scottish aid packages aimed at wooing major job-creation projects by multinational companies. Indeed, it was also reported that Sir George Russell, the chairman of the Northern Development Company, was complaining that Scotland and Wales had tried to poach inward investment from his region by offering over-inflated packages. Also in November—
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: Does the noble Lord agree that a committee of the other House agreed that was not the case and that the Scottish Office had not been pinching jobs from the North-East? The reason for Whitehall supervision—I should not say "control"—is to stop the different regions of Britain outbidding each other with the same public money in an attempt to get jobs from abroad.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is exactly the point that I thought I was making. I was reporting that Sir George Russell had claimed that. I did not say whether or not it was true. I was merely laying out the background for my suspicions about the "wedge"—and the noble Lord has just confirmed them.
Last November, the Scotsman and Herald reported a leaked document suggesting that Whitehall would decide the size of the aid packages aimed at securing inward investment. That document said that there would be strict limits on the value of the grants that Locate in Scotland could offer.
The passing to Whitehall of control over those grants and perhaps of control over the designation of assisted areas may well be designed to level up the playing fields, as some parts of the Kingdom see it. However, if that is the case, they are being levelled—perhaps "levelled" is not the right word—to Scotland's disadvantage. As I have explained on a number of occasions, I do not believe in level playing fields. If there were such a thing, there would be no need for teams to change ends at half-time, yet that seems part and parcel of any game.
My worry is not that there will be a levelling up of the playing field, but that the playing field will be tilted to the disadvantage of Scotland by the DTI, Ministers of which will be here in London, answerable to the other place on industrial matters relating to England and Wales, who will no longer be terribly concerned about what happens in Scotland. They may well take the view, as we heard in this House not long since, at Question Time, that they want to clip the wings of Locate in Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and the new Scottish executive so that they will not be able, as the DTI might see it, to have unfair competition with other areas of the country.
This is a serious matter. I hope that the noble Lord can explain the reasoning behind the reservation. If I may say so, I hope that that reasoning will be a little clearer than was the reasoning behind the exemptions in relation to foodstuffs which we discussed a few moments ago. I beg to move.
Lord Lang of Monkton: My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said that this was little more
1128
than a probing amendment. I hope that it is not much more than a probing amendment because I am hound to say that I think that the Government are probably right on this point. It is, nevertheless, right to debate this subject. Similarly, I believe that the Government were wrong on the business rates issue. I must apologise to the Committee because I was unable to be present in time to participate in that debate. I got here in time only to make up my own mind and to vote in favour of the amendment! That was an example of how Scotland could be seriously disadvantaged if we forfeited the uniform business rate, which we achieved after great difficulty over a period of years, funded by the Treasury in a way in which will no longer be open to a Scottish parliament.
Scotland stands to lose considerably on this point if the present arrangements are forfeited. However, as my noble friend pointed out, when consideration is next given to the redrawing of the map, if a strong Scottish voice is not participating in those negotiations privately within government—not in the Chamber of the House of Commons, this place or any other forum, and we shall have forfeited the right to have a Secretary of State who is able to do that—we shall be disadvantaged because the criteria that will be brought to bear will be skewed in favour of other parts of the country. I know from experience of the previous parliament how this matter was addressed then. Although substantial changes were not made, consideration was given to changing the criteria quite considerably. Scotland would not be able to argue its own case in that situation. There is a real concern here which I do not think can be solved by removing the power from the Westminster Parliament. That illustrates what the schedule itself underlines. I hope that the schedule will be named "the San Andreas schedule" because it illustrates the faultline that runs all the way through this legislation.
Scotland's inward investment record has been a good one over the years. We have been able to achieve that within the existing designation of assisted areas under United Kingdom control. It is important that Scotland retains discretion to apply increased funds from its own budget, as was possible in the past, thereby attracting a larger number of inward investment projects by applying the criteria that apply universally. But it is inconceivable that Scotland can apply different criteria and yet expect the United Kingdom Treasury to continue to fund it in a way that enables it to bid up against other parts of the United Kingdom.
There is another reason why I believe it is impossible to change the situation. The rules of the European Union allow only a certain proportion of the population of the country to be within an assisted area. If we in Scotland unilaterally changed that assisted area designation we would be in breach of EU rules. It is inconceivable that the sovereign Westminster Parliament can possibly allow such a situation to arise. My noble friend addresses an important issue in tabling this amendment. The issue underlines the fatuity of seeking to achieve

1129
a devolved parliament within a sovereign state. Nevertheless, on balance I urge my noble friend not to press his amendment.
Lord Sewel: It is important to make clear what this amendment deals with; namely, the designation of assisted areas according to Section 1 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. Although I did not agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lang, said, his appreciation and understanding of the interplay between assisted areas and our European obligations was absolutely spot on. To take away this reservation and give power to the Scottish parliament to make its own designation of assisted areas is simply not compatible with our European Union obligations.
Assisted areas are those areas which in the context of regional policy are identified as deserving or effectively requiring higher levels of aid to promote their economic development. To that extent a certain distortion in the single market is allowed in order to benefit those areas so identified. Because of that distortion it is important that designation is handled fairly across all areas. All parts of the country have a legitimate concern about the basis upon which assisted areas are selected and the criteria that are used.
The European Commission has the role of enforcing the European Union rules. As the noble Lord, Lord Lang, said, the Commission sets a ceiling on the total eligible population in a member state and expects evidence of a proper methodology adopted by each member state to determine which areas qualify for additional help. That applies across an entire member state. I believe that the argument starts and stops there. One cannot get round that problem by seeking to devolve responsibility to a devolved parliament for defining assisted areas. Essentially, it is a member state function. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: Before the Minister sits down perhaps he can clarify one point. It used to be the case that the UK Government could define assisted areas either on the basis of unemployment or (as in the case of the constituency that I once represented) depopulation. I believe that a Scottish parliament would be more sensitive to the second issue. Latterly, the UK Parliament has not been. For that reason I have sympathy with the amendment. It does not detract from the powers of the European Commission to determine the total population that is eligible for assisted area status, but I hope that the question of depopulation will not be overlooked in the future as it has been in the recent past.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Sewel: I make the general point again. A single methodology applying to the whole of the member state is required. We cannot take a methodology which is of particular benefit to Scotland and apply it to Scotland. One could keep on developing individual methodologies to one's heart's content. That is not a way forward. It has to be a single methodology applied within the
1130
member state. As I recollect, the main drivers of the methodology now are unemployment and GDP. I am not sure about depopulation. It may have been, but I am not sure that it still is.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This has been a useful probe. I am pleased that at least some of my fears have been set aside by the Minister. It is odd that the Minister now changes his ground from that on which he stood firmly previously and tells me that the designation of assisted areas is deeply tied up with the European Union and that it would not be sensible to devolve it. If anything is deeply tied up with the European Union it is the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. The Minister refuses to address the argument as to why they cannot be devolved, and yet the European dimension remains. Here we have the argument turned on its head because there is a European dimension, which I fully accept.
I remember one redrawing of the boundaries in the early 1980s when I was at the Scottish Office. I fully accept the European aspects of that. But why cannot that be devolved to the Scottish parliament? It can play within the European rules, just as it is supposed to do on farming and fishing without being represented at Europe and without being a member state. I am left in some puzzlement as to the contradiction in the Minister's arguments.
I see the point of keeping designated assisted areas at a UK level, as my noble friend Lord Lang explained. He is rather uniquely placed to do so; not only was he the Secretary of State for Scotland but the President of the Board of Trade—it is always nice to count a president among one's friends—and he saw the problem from both sides.
I am grateful to the Minister. I accept that the reservation here is narrowly drawn. Perhaps my fears—triggered by Mr. McCartney's interventions earlier in the year into this general field—were unfounded. I shall read the defence on the European aspect with some interest when we come back to the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 197A:
Page 73, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) the subject-matter of Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 so far as relating to oil and gas exploration and exploitation. but only in relation to deposits in the sea outside such controlled waters,").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the reservation of matters relating to the oil and gas industry will catch the deposit of substances or articles in the sea so far as that relates to oil and gas exploration and exploitation. This does not represent a change of policy. The amendment is needed merely because there is scope for doubt that the reference to "pollution" in the present text of the reservation will catch this matter.
In particular, this reservation will catch the ministerial powers to exempt from the licensing regime under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 "operational

1131
discharges" from oil and gas installations and, where compatible with international obligations and where safe and practicable to do so, to license the deposit in the sea of oil-related articles such as redundant oil installations.
The Government recognise, of course, that the Scottish executive and parliament will have an interest in the protection of the marine environment. We therefore propose that there should be a statutory requirement for a UK Minister to consult the Scottish Ministers before exercising his powers to license oil and gas-related deposits in the sea under Section 5 of FEPA in Scottish waters and for operations commencing in Scotland, and to approve the in situ abandonment or disposal of redundant oil installations within Scottish waters under Part IV of the Petroleum Act 1998. The Government intend that, before exercising these powers, the UK Ministers should not only consult Scottish Ministers but also use his best endeavours to secure the agreement of the devolved administration.
I hope this explanation makes clear the reason for the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not like to disappoint the Minister, but it is not clear what he has amended. I shall read carefully what he said, and perhaps return to the matter at a later stage.
In dealing with a matter relating to oil and gas, I suppose that I am bound to make a declaration of interest, as I am a director of Elf Exploration (U.K.), which is engaged in the largest capital project in the North Sea at £1.4 billion. I guess that that is probably a declaration of interest that is more appropriate to any future debate we may have on taxation in the North Sea rather than this Bill.
I am concerned to discover in narrow ambit from the Minister that we are dealing, as I understand it, with two separate statutes. One relates to pollution with regard to oil and gas exploration and exploitation, but only outside what are described as "controlled waters". As I understand it they are defined in Section 30A(1) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The amendment relates to a change to the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Where we talk about "controlled waters" I should like to be clear that there is no difference in definition between "controlled waters" as they apply to the Control of Pollution Act and as they apply to the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. I believe that it is intended that "controlled waters" are the same area under control, but it would be helpful if we could have that confirmed.
Furthermore, as I understand it, for oil and gas exploration purposes and other administrative reasons, Scottish waters are in UK legislation for administrative purposes defined as being those waters that fall north of parallel 55°50'. Is there any difference in the way those Acts apply to those areas which are within Scottish waters for administrative purposes and those south of them? It is not such an arcane matter as it might appear to be, because the parallel that is used comes out, as it were, in a straight line from the Border at Berwick. If one were to look at a BBC weather map it will be found as coming out in a horizontal line directly across at 90
1132
degrees, whereas of course if we were to think the unthinkable and Scotland were to be unwise enough to contemplate going its own way as a separate sovereign state, there is real dubiety about whether that is the correct line to be drawn if sovereign waters are to be adjusted.
If we were to do it properly, according to my understanding of the existing rules of international law, that line has to be extended in a fashion outwards from the line of the Border. That would mean that waters, and oil and gas developments which lie some 200 miles off Aberdeen, would fall within the waters of England. I consider this to be an important matter, because the Scottish nationalists would tell all and sundry that there is no question but that they would be Scottish. There are sound international legal principles upon which to argue for the line being that of the land boundary that lies between two countries extended out into the sea.
I hope that those are unnecessarily arcane matters to raise under this amendment. But given the way that the Government's policy—I have to say—has been so remarkably unsuccessful in stemming the SNP's advance in the polls in Scotland, before we finish consideration of the Bill, it might be marginally advisable to ensure that we do not so set in concrete the administrative lines about what are Scottish waters that those who have the desire to separate Scotland from the rest of the UK would take advantage of what has been originally introduced as a purely administrative arrangement to argue a case at some future point for their sovereignty over those waters.
Lord Sewel: We are not talking about establishing the sea boundaries of a sovereign state. That is an entirely separate and different exercise.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the noble Lord will give way, I should be grateful if from time to time he listened to the argument. I understand perfectly well that we are not discussing that. I had thought that for a moment he might listen to an argument while appreciating that we deal with matters which are extremely complicated. The provision may only run to some 25 lines in Schedule 5 to the Bill but it engages us in all manner of complicated matters which take us into international obligations, conventions and the like. I appreciate that. All I have asked—I should be grateful if he were not quite so peremptory when serious points are raised with him—is that he considers them in some detail.
Lord Sewel: I apologise if I gave the impression that I was peremptory. I was not being peremptory. I sought to make the point as quickly as I could that we are not involved in the exercise that would be necessary if we were setting up something like a separate sovereign state of Scotland. That is not what we are about. I know that the noble and learned Lord recognises that.
I am well aware of the discussions involved, and the difficulties of deciding on lines. What we have fallen back on—it is more a practical way rather than one that is necessarily driven by processes which would normally apply to international law—is the basis of

1133
Amendment No. 173ZA to Clause 29 which we debated on Tuesday. That establishes the building block of Scottish waters in relation to fisheries matters. We build from that because we have to go beyond that, for instance, to areas of the UK Continental Shelf which extend beyond fisheries limits, in particular to the west of Rockall. The details of those discussions still need to be agreed and clarified. But we shall be able to come back to the House on that.
I accept all the points the noble Lord made. I was not trying to be peremptory. I sought to make a distinction between what is almost a pragmatic decision which is required in the nature of the devolution exercise we are about now and a very separate type of approach which would be necessary if we were dealing with these matters in the context of a completely separate sovereign state.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 73, leave out lines 24 and 25.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. I ask a simple question. I begin by quoting Section 2 in Schedule 5 to the Bill on oil and gas. Under Reservation, it states:
"Oil and gas, including—

(g) liquefaction of natural gas, and

(h) the conveyance, shipping and supply of gas through pipes".

That seems perfectly sensible; I understand it and have no problem with it.
I then turn to the Exceptions from reservation and the manufacture of gas, and the reference to,
"The conveyance, shipping and supply of gas other than through pipes".
I wonder why that distinction is being made. Leaving aside that I am not sure whether there is much manufacturing of gas currently, I refer to conveyancing. I presume that we are talking about cylinders and the like. I should have thought that if there is an argument in favour of reservation for pipelines, there is equally an argument in favour of conveyance, shipping and supply of gas, especially as liquefaction is being reserved. The two are related.
Having rightly decided to reserve the long list in subparagraphs (a) to (h) of items relative to oil and gas, including the two I read out, I cannot understand why the Government promptly make an exemption for the manufacture of gas and then for its conveyance, shipping and supply through pipes. Companies which do that do so on a United Kingdom basis. I cannot for the life of me see why it is exempted. The moment something is exempted, the possibility exists—I put it no higher than that—that there will be different rules and regulations in Scotland than in England and Wales. The Government having reserved everything else in oil and gas, quite wisely, I cannot understand why they have made these exemptions. I should be grateful for some kind of explanation, preferably one that we can all understand. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I join my noble friend in asking some questions about these reservations. Subparagraph (g) relates to the liquefaction of natural gas. Does that mean that it does not extend to the liquefaction of petroleum gas? Do I understand that as regards subparagraph (h) the conveyance, shipping and supply of gas through pipes extends to a wider classification and categorisation of gas and might include the old fashioned town gas?
I do not have the faintest idea whether these days anyone manufactures town gas in Scotland, but it seems to me that the provision would cover that if someone wished to revert to such a technique for manufacturing gas? What would be even more curious, as my noble friend has pointed out, is the exception from that of the manufacture of gas. But once manufactured and supplied through a pipe a different set of statutory regulations would apply.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: Amendment No. 198 would extend the reservation of oil and gas to the manufacture of gas or its conveyance, shipping or supply by means other than pipelines. In the Government's view, that is unnecessary.
The intention behind the oil and gas reservation is to preserve a uniform regulatory regime for the exploitation of oil and gas reserves, and especially for the offshore oil and gas industry and pipelines. It would make no sense to break up, for example, the regulation of the integrated system of gas pipelines within Great Britain. Such considerations do not, however, apply either to the manufacture of gas or to the transport of gas other than in pipes—for example, the supply of camping gas in cylinders. The health and safety aspects of those activities are covered by other reservations on health, safety and transport. However, there is no need to reserve general control of the manufacture and conveyance of gas any more than there is for any other industrial process.
In answer to a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, the liquefaction of natural gas is part of the process of conveyance. Petroleum gas is also natural gas. I hope that answers his point.
I hope that I have made the Government's position clearer for the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I hope therefore that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining to me that natural gas also includes liquefaction of petroleum gas. Indeed, she might tell the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister that, because, as I understand it, they respectively use different gases for the cars that they now drive. However, I am happy to accept that definition.
However, I am still slightly troubled by the exceptions from the reservation. I am a happy camper who has travelled in the Lake District and bought some gas for my caravan. Am Ito expect that it will have a

1135
potentially different make-up, a different set of safety regulations, a different sort of packaging and that it is to be stored in a different way on site? Am I to understand that when I trundle out with my caravan all the way up to Loch Lomond, or wherever it may be, I will perhaps find that a different set of regulations applies? If that is so, it seems to me to be absurd.
I thought that the Minister's opening point was an extremely good one. If the noble Baroness wishes to maintain a regime across the whole of the UK so far as concerns the conveyance, shipping and supply of gas through pipes—in other words, that there should be a uniform arrangement across the country—that seems to me to be an extremely good idea and one which I would warmly support. But I do find the exceptions from the reservation rather tricky to understand.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the noble Baroness replies, it may be helpful if I pose a few questions. In that way, she will, with any luck, only have to return to the Dispatch Box once—at least, "with any luck" from her point of view. I notice that the noble Baroness said that the Government wished to preserve a uniform regulatory regime. If that is so, why do they not just accept my amendment?
If I understood the noble Baroness correctly, she said that all the health and safety matters and all transport matters would not be devolved; in any words, they will be reserved. Therefore, all those items will be covered by UK-wide regulations. So what does that leave? What does that actually mean in real terms for a Scottish parliament? What decisions will a Scottish executive have to make with regard to regulations governing, say,
"the conveyance, shipping and supply of gas other than through pipes"?
There is more to this than just the case of the happy camper, which my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser suggested he might be. There is the simple fact that the same companies which provide gas for domestic consumers in Scotland not only transmit it through pipes but also do so by way of vehicles. Some outlying areas like parts of the Highlands, which I used to represent, actually get their natural gas by container vehicle. Presumably it is transmitted to the trucks in pipes and, then, when they get to Dunoon, Oban or Campbelltown; it is then, again, put into pipes. It seems to me to be illogical that that little gap in the middle should have regulations controlled by the Scottish parliament. That does not seem to me to make for a uniform regulatory regime. The noble Baroness gave us an explanation of the words, but we would be grateful for some examples of the kind of things that the Scottish parliament might do regarding the conveyance, shipping and supply of gas.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may just make two points in addition to what my noble friend has just said. There are also gases like carbon-dioxide for soda water or oxyacetylene torches for garages and welding gear. I believe that those types of gas should also be taken into consideration.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am having some difficulty in understanding the detail. If one bought a
1136
cylinder of gas—and I believe I understood the noble Baroness to say that that would be included—would it be a "product" for the purposes of this part of the schedule, where the product's safety would be a reserved matter and, therefore, a matter for the UK Parliament? In other words, would one have the situation where the specification of safety of the cylinder of gas would be a matter for the UK Parliament but the supply of the cylinder of gas would be a matter regulated by the Scottish parliament? It seems, prima facie, slightly surprising if that is so.
The Duke of Montrose: We are now reaching the stage where cars will be running on gas. I do not know whether that has been taken into consideration. That gas will presumably be supplied to cars through a pipeline.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I hope the Committee will forgive me for saying that I think it is making extremely heavy weather of what is, to my mind, a rather straightforward situation. I repeat what I said about the regulatory regime; namely, the intention behind the oil and gas reservation is to preserve a uniform regulatory regime for the exploitation of oil and gas reserves, especially for the offshore oil and gas industry and pipelines. That is where the regulatory regime comes in. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, queried that.
The health and safety aspects of the manufacture and transport of gas, either by "happy campers" or anyone else, are covered by other reservations on health and safety and transport matters. There is no need for a general reserve control over the manufacture of gas and its conveyance. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, asked whether a safety aspect would be a reserve matter and whether a cylinder of gas would be a devolved matter. The answer is yes because health and safety matters cut across everything. I do not know why the Committee finds that odd.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. We are pleased to hear that health and safety will be a reserve matter and that transport will be a reserve matter. I do not think we find that odd. But what puzzles me is what the words mean in terms of what regulations and rules a Scottish parliament and a Scottish executive would be able to consider with regard to the,
"conveyance, shipping and supply of gas other than through pipes".
If I was given an answer to that I might understand why those words appear at all; otherwise I shall take a leaf out of the book of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: The provision concerns anything that is not the manufacture of gas or its,
"conveyance, shipping and supply … other than through pipes".
Pipelines are covered, but conveying gas in any other way is not. Any question of health and safety is reserved under another heading. Cylinders and everything to do with marketing and matters other than health and safety will be devolved because there is no reason why that should not be the case, as with any other industrial process. It seems odd to me that noble Lords opposite find this so difficult to understand.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The last sentence the noble Baroness utters is usually the despairing remark of a schoolmaster or mistress who has failed to get a point over to the class. In this case I do not think the class is entirely stupid. I still await a real example of what a Scottish parliament might do differently from the UK Parliament. I do not believe that the Scottish parliament will have anything to do with the marketing of gas. I believe these words are totally unnecessary. I shall take a leaf out of the book of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and suggest that the words be removed from the Bill. I therefore seek the opinion of the Committee.
10.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 198) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 60.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Attlee, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Balfour, E.

Minto, E.

Burnham, L.

Montrose, D.

Byford, B.

Mountevans, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Rawlings, B.

Chesham, L.

Rowallan, L.

Courtown, E. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sempill, L.

Kintore, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Stair, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Torphichen, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Alli, L.

Desai, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dixon, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Borrie, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Carlisle, E.

Gilbert, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Chandos, V.

Grenfell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hacking, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hanworth, V.

David, B.

Hardie, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Haskel, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hayman, B.

1138

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Puttnam, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Sewel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Simon, V.

Judd, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

McNally, L.

Thurso, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tope, L.

Monkswell, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Whitty, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.21 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 73, line 40, at end insert—
("The subject-matter of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.").
The noble Earl said: I rise to move Amendment No. 199. Amendment No. 200 is consequential upon that amendment. I believe that radioactive and nuclear materials should be a United Kingdom responsibility. I seek to place the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 in the reservation area of Section 4 under Head 4. In order to support my argument, perhaps I could ask the Committee to look at Head 5, Section 5, page 76, at line 31. The transportation of radioactive material is a reserved function, which I believe strengthens my argument that radioactive substances should be a reserved matter. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My name is also down to this amendment. I have the same puzzlement. The Radioactive Substances Act 1993 is about registration of premises and so on, as far as I can see from the copy of Statutes in Force which I obtained from the Library. I wonder whether it is wise to take one small part of the nuclear industry and devolve it to the Scottish parliament. Would it not be better to keep the whole subject together and reserved?
Lord Sewel: We start from the point that environmental protection is a devolved area. We then go through and look at environmental protection in relation to radioactive waste. The Radioactive Substances Act 1993 contains provisions under which the Scottish Environment Protection Agency at present grants authorisations for the disposal of radioactive waste on or from premises in Scotland.
At the moment the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA), operating with the authority given to it under the Radioactive Substances Act, controls the disposal of radioactive waste in Scotland in terms of environmental considerations. That specific part was taken out and not reserved because it reflects what happens at the moment. It is not a deviation of policy

1139
from that which obtains at the present time. On that basis, with that clarification, I hope the noble Earl can withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 74, line 27, leave out from ("training)") to second ("of') in line 28.
The noble Lord said: We now move on to Head 5 which concerns transport. The amendment relates to road transport. A number of matters are reserved about which I have no argument. Once again my puzzle comes from the exemption reservation. The exemptions are the subject matter of Sections 39 and 40 relating to road safety and training—I have no trouble with that—and Sections 157 to 159, which relate to payments for treatment of traffic casualties, of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
That seems to suggest that the payment for treatment of traffic casualties should be devolved to the Scottish parliament and implies that the Scottish parliament could opt for a different system. It may decide to claim all the costs of any patient treated as a result of a road traffic accident. I suspect that that would be an awkward position inside the United Kingdom where motorists move between one country and another and it would be even more awkward for insurance companies. They would clearly have to increase their premiums for any driver who lived in Scotland or anyone in the United Kingdom who drove in Scotland because they would be carrying a higher risk.
I am puzzled as to why the Government decided to devolve that matter. It seems to me to be part and parcel of the uniform way in which we deal with the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. I shall be grateful for an explanation. Perhaps 1 am missing some subtle point, but it seems to me to be worthy of at least a probe. I beg to move.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in his amendment. Sections 157 to 159 of the Road Traffic Act apply where the insurer or the vehicle owner contributes to the hospital treatment costs of the person injured up to a maximum of around £2,949. We do not see why the cost incurred of someone being treated should not be payable in Scotland to a Scottish health board.
The Scottish parliament should be able to vary the circumstances and rate at which payment for the treatment of patients in road accidents should be made. After all, the parliament is being entrusted with the responsibility of varying income tax by up to 3 per cent. and should also be able to take other decisions which impact on public spending. Health is one of those. Regulations on payments to health boards are a good example.
1140
The amendment would prevent the Scottish parliament from increasing the maximum amount that should be paid in compensation for hospital treatment or for stopping it altogether should it so choose. We do not support the amendment because it would further restrict the powers of the Scottish parliament.
Lord Hardie: For the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, the Government cannot accept the amendment. The sections to which reference has been made deal with the recovery of payment for hospital treatment of road traffic accident casualties. The provisions are not an integral part of the roads legislation. Powers in relation to those charges are currently exercised by health Ministers. Most health matters are to be devolved to the Scottish parliament. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for this area of recovery of payment for hospital treatment to be reserved. I hope the noble Lord will accept that explanation and withdraw the amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Frankly, no, I do not accept that explanation. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has taken pains to try to paint a logical pattern that if the major parts of an issue are devolved, that should drive where one goes with the other parts of the issue. I accept that the health service is devolved; but quite clearly, under transport, the bulk of transport is not devolved. I should have thought that there would be some logic in following the transport route here rather than the health route.
I do wonder whether the Government have spoken to the insurance industry about this. Will the provision lead to the possibility of higher or lower premiums? I did not understand the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater. She just seemed to think that the Scottish parliament should get as much as it can. But that was not my concern. I was concerned about what would happen to the customer. Will Scottish residents be treated differently from people in England for road accidents in the same National Health Service? That is what I am exploring. Before I decide what to do with the amendment, I should be grateful for an indication as to whether or not the Government have discussed this matter with the insurance industry.
Lord Hardie: I cannot give a direct answer to that question. But what I can say is that we are not treating Scottish customers differently from others. With respect, the noble Lord seems to misunderstand the position. Clearly, a driver from England who has an accident in Scotland and causes an injury would be liable to pay for the hospital treatment just as a Scottish driver in England or his insurers would be liable to pay for the hospital treatment of someone who was injured by him in England. I should be very surprised if the insurance industry were able to apply loaded premiums because someone drove in Scotland or might drive in Scotland.
Be that as it may, the issue is not a transport issue. The issue is a health issue. Health Ministers currently recover the costs from insurance companies for these accidents. If the noble Lord genuinely accepts the logic

1141
of my noble friend Lord Sewel, the position is that, if health is devolved, it makes sense to devolve this health aspect of the road traffic provisions. It happens to be a Road Traffic Act, but it is clearly a health provision.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If a Scottish driver in England, or an English driver in Scotland, will be paying the same or will be liable to pay the same if he is involved in a traffic accident and has to go to hospital or have medical treatment, there does not seem to be any point in devolving it. The whole point about devolving it is the presumption that at some stage in the future the Scottish parliament may act differently. If it acts differently, if it says that for accidents in Scotland drivers will not have to pay anything, that is fine. I suspect that Scottish drivers will then suggest that they might pay slightly lower premiums. But if the parliament decides that they will pay more—I do not seem to be able to get this point over—I suggest that the insurance industry would then say, because that is the way its business works, that there is a risk of greater payments having to be made to a Scottish driver who is involved in an accident in Scotland.
I suggest to the Government that it would be nice if they would just take something away and think about it without commitment. Perhaps I may suggest to them that, before we come back for Report stage, they should explain this and say whether they envisage that there could be different arrangements for the payment. Perhaps they could even talk to the insurance industry. With those comments, I rather reluctantly withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 75, line 28, leave out ("or finish or both") and insert ("and finish").
The noble Lord said: I hope that this amendment is not too complicated for the Government to cope with. It is about shipping services. The implication is that the Scottish parliament will be able to finance, help and subsidise shipping services that run within Scotland; namely, leave ports in Scotland and arrive at ports in Scotland. So that deals with Caledonian MacBrayne, shipping services to the northern isles and so on. That is fine; I have no problem with it. However, there is a reservation on those services which do not start or end in Scotland. I take it that that means that the new service running from Campbeltown to Ballycastle in Northern Ireland or the services from Stranraer to Belfast or Larne will not be eligible for financial assistance. I do not believe that the Stranraer to Larne or Belfast service receives any financial assistance, but I suspect that the Campbeltown to Ballycastle service does. Does that mean that that is not to be a responsibility of the Scottish parliament but reserved to Westminster?
There is a possibility of a service from Kircudbright to the Isle of Man. Clearly, that would be outwith the powers of the Scottish parliament. The argument about it is based on the economic well-being of Kintyre and pulling in more tourists. All these are devolved matters.
1142
It seems a little illogical that when the case for subsidising a shipping business to get it started, if not to run it, is based on grounds which are devolved, I am puzzled as to why a restriction is contained in the schedule to forbid the Scottish parliament helping such shipping lines. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Amendment No. 203 is grouped with this amendment. I am quite happy that the protection of wrecks prohibition on approaching dangerous wrecks is a reserved function because the buoying and marking of such wrecks while at sea is carried out by the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners. Equally, I am quite happy that "ports, harbours, piers and boatslips" should be a devolved function.
Except in relation to paragraph (d), which is the protection of wrecks, I cannot see why, if there is a wreck within the precincts of the port or harbour, it should not be dealt with by the devolved parliament. That is my reason for deleting that paragraph.
Lord Sempill: I support my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on this amendment. There is one issue which I find slightly baffling. Making the assumption that the company concerned is Scottish—there are quite a few of them—and it pioneers a new destination in which the port is outwith Scottish waters, surely it is right for the Scottish parliament to be in a position to give assistance in setting up or subsidising the company. After all, it is to the benefit of the Scottish economy that the boats return laden with tourists. I can see no reason why Scottish shipping companies should not turn to their own parliament to look for that financial assistance.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that phrase means that help will be available from the UK Treasury for those shipping lines which start or finish there (or both)?
Lord Hardie: On the question of the Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry service, support for, or subsidy to, that service would be reserved to Westminster, so the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has correctly interpreted those provisions. That services operates commercially and without financial assistance, although the harbour facilities at Campbeltown and Ballycastle were both upgraded with support from public funds, including European assistance. The Scottish parliament would continue to have competence to provide assistance for ferry services in the form of support for pier and harbour works, just as they have already been so provided in that example.
I regret that I cannot accept Amendment No. 202. It would have the effect of devolving to the Scottish parliament the matter of financial assistance for shipping services between Scotland and another part of the United Kingdom, or even another country. Financial assistance to shipping services operating wholly within Scotland is a devolved matter.
The Government recognise that shipping services between Scotland and other countries are of economic significance to Scotland. Our intention in the Bill is to

1143
give the Scottish parliament appropriate powers to maintain and develop the internal shipping services it considers necessary for the maintenance and improvement of economic and social conditions in Scotland, particularly in island and remote Highland communities. The noble Lord's amendment would give the Scottish parliament and executive competence over financial assistance to existing or new external shipping services. I shall come in a moment to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, when I deal with the European position.
In the case of services between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, the Government consider that those services are best dealt with on a UK-wide basis because they are as much the concern of the UK in its entirety as they are of Scotland. Furthermore, in the case of the devolution of international shipping services to or from Scotland, such a provision would be inconsistent with the general reservation of international matters, including trade.
Finally, if competence were exercised so as to provide for financial assistance to shipping services to or from Scotland where such financial assistance was not available to operators of services in other parts of the United Kingdom, there might be a valid complaint of unfair competition from those other shipping operators. There might also be difficulties with EC state aid regulations. That deals with the point of the noble Lord, Lord Sempill.
State subsidies to assist passenger ferry services are subject to EC state aid guidelines. Any subsidy agreed by the European Commission would have to seek approval as a public service obligation under these guidelines which apply strict criteria about when support is justified.
Support is available only for services serving,
"peripheral regions of the Community or thinly served routes considered vital for the economic development of that region where the operation of market forces would not ensure a sufficient service level".
In view of my earlier comments, the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, are not in that position. Therefore, one cannot accommodate that service.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. I begin by declaring an interest as an ex officio commissioner of the Northern Lights. The noble Earl has set out the reasons for the amendment. I recognise that he brings experience to this subject and I understand the arguments behind his explanation, but I should like to draw the Committee's attention to our concern over his amendment and ask that it be withdrawn. The effect of Amendment No. 203 would be to give the Scottish parliament responsibility for the subject-matter of Section 2 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 as it applies in ports, harbours, piers and boatslips around Scotland's coastline. Noble Lords will recall that responsibility for ports and harbours is devolved.
The Scotland Bill reserves to the Westminster Parliament legislative competence over matters relating to marine transport where there is a need for consistent
1144
provision across the United Kingdom. Schedule 5, Head 5, Section 3, reserves the subject-matter of the relevant legislation on marine safety and pollution matters. But the Bill identifies ports, harbours, piers and boatslips in Scotland as an exception from the reservation. That exception is, however, subject to a qualification which continues to reserve the subject-matter of certain legislation including at item (d) the subject-matter of Section 2 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973.
As the noble Earl explained, under Section 2 of the 1973 Act the Secretary of State has powers to designate an area round a wreck as a prohibited area if because of anything contained in it the vessel is in a condition which makes it a potential danger to life or property and on that account it should be protected from unauthorised interference. It is an important role in securing overall levels of safety in and protection against pollution of territorial waters throughout the United Kingdom. It is operated in practice by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Section 2 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 is a reserved matter for very good reasons. The Government's guiding principle was clearly set out in the White Paper. Paragraph 3.3 states that transport safety and regulation, including regulation of shipping and marine services, would be reserved.
The subject-matter of this legislation is a reserved matter on the grounds that it is a matter of maritime safety regulation and pollution prevention which requires consistent provision across the UK. Section 2 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973 in our view comes clearly within that criterion and the Government wish to ensure that such matters are treated consistently on a UK-wide basis. Furthermore, these matters are bound up with international conventions to ensure the security of navigation throughout UK territorial waters. I hope noble Lords agree that for the reasons stated the Bill should remain unchanged. I hope that, given the explanations, the noble Earl is able to seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I cannot speak for my noble friend, but I believe he indicates that he is satisfied. I have one small point. I understand the distinctions that have been drawn, but I am not entirely sure that the reasons have been explained. I understand that in the case of the Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry no financial provision could have been made by the Scottish executive under this Bill. Could the Scottish executive have contributed to the harbour costs at Campbeltown?
Lord Hardie: That is so, because harbours and piers are devolved.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I understand that that applies even to a ferry service that is not covered by the provision. I am grateful for that response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 204:
Page 75, leave out lines 36 to 39.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 206A:
Page 77, line 24, leave out ("section 22") and insert ("sections 22 and 26").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 206A and 206B are grouped together. Amendment No. 206A seeks to devolve the powers and duties of social work departments to provide residential accommodation and to recover the costs in respect of accommodation provided both by the social work department and by private contractors. As conditions vary widely throughout the United Kingdom and because social work is one of the most essential matters to be devolved, the setting of cost limits and charges of residential accommodation should be devolved to the Scottish parliament. It would be especially useful if the Scottish parliament were to adopt policies towards residential accommodation which differed substantially from elsewhere.
Amendment No. 206B seeks to devolve social security policy in respect of Section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 concerning the provision of accommodation for children. That Act allows the local authorities to make financial charges on parents for the provision of accommodation. It would be sensible if these charges were approved by the Scottish parliament, especially as it will set social work policy and standards. I beg to move.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I have listened carefully to what the noble Earl has said. The Government do not consider that the subject matter of Section 26 of the 1948 Act is covered by the reservation anyway. However, in view of the points he has raised and the relationship between Sections 26 and 22, I would like to take the opportunity to consider the noble Earl's views more fully. I would like to take this away and I would find it helpful if he would agree not to press this amendment tonight.
Amendment No. 206B seeks to except Section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 from the social security reservation. This amendment is unnecessary. Section 25 of the Children (Scotland) Act imposes a duty and powers on local authorities to provide certain children and other young persons with accommodation. Along with other local authority responsibilities, these fall to be devolved to the Scottish parliament. In view of this explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will agree that the amendment is not necessary and withdraw it.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, for her encouraging remarks. It is quite remarkable. As usual, I do not know what to do with myself.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I can congratulate her.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 206B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 207 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 208 not moved.]
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendment No. 208A:
Page 78, line 3, at beginning insert ("The regulation or).
The noble Baroness said: I speak to Amendments Nos. 208A to 208C, 209A, 209B, 292NA, 293ZA, and 294ZA. Over the past two weeks we have looked again at the structure of the pensions reservation at Section 3 of Head 6. We have concluded that this section would benefit from some restructuring to make it easier to follow. Amendment Nos. 208A to 208C, 209A and 209B bring about these changes. They do not reflect any change of policy. Occupational and personal pensions are to be reserved, but matters relating to the provision of pensions for certain persons are to be within the competence of the Scottish parliament. The amendments reflect an attempt to make our policy intentions clearer.
The amendments should be looked at as a group. The net result of the amendments is that Section 3 on occupational and personal pensions will now contain two parts only. The first will be an expanded section dealing with the reservation of the various pension matters, making clearer the particular areas where the parliament can legislate. The second will be a much smaller interpretation section. The section dealing with the illustration of the reservation will no longer be necessary as the material from that will be incorporated within the section dealing with the reservation itself. The same applies to the exceptions from the reservations section.
As the Committee may remember, the section dealing with Scots private law has already been discussed in Amendment No. 209. The key amendments in the group are Amendments Nos. 208A and 208B. Amendments Nos. 294ZA and 293ZA move the definitions from the pensions section to the general definition in Clause 112 because they are also needed for other provisions in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 208C, 209A and 209B are consequential amendments which delete material that is no longer necessary. Amendment No. 292NA is of course a purely technical drafting amendment. I can expand on the amendments, but in view of the lateness of the hour I shall stop there. I shall expand on the matters if any noble Lord wishes to put any questions. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Minister will be happy to hear that due to the lateness of the hour I have just one question to put to her. This is an important matter. When I read it. I appreciated that the Government were doing a considerable rewrite of the way they were approaching the issue. I should be grateful if during the Recess I could have a letter which will show me what the clause will look like, rather than just have the amendments, and an explanation. I should be grateful to have that so that I can study it. Pension matters are of some interest to me. That is not just a reflection of my age

1147
but of the fact that I took the Pensions Act through this place, and I should like to study this to ensure that the Government are doing the wise and sensible thing with regard to those people who will be affected by a reservation on pensions.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I understand that, and of course I am happy to agree to the noble Lord's request.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendments Nos. 208B and 208C:
Page 78, line 3, at end insert ("including the obligations of the trustees or managers of such schemes.
Provision about pensions payable to, or in respect of, any persons, except—

(a) the persons referred to in section 76(3),

(b) in relation to a Scottish public authority to which paragraph 1 or 2 of Part III of Schedule 5 applies, persons who are or have been a member of the public body, the holder of the public office, or a member of the staff of the body, holder or office.

The subject-matter of the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971.
Schemes for the payment of pensions which are listed in Schedule 2 to that Act, except those mentioned in paragraphs 38A and 38AB").
Page 78, leave out lines 13 to 26.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 78, leave out lines 27 to 35.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale moved Amendments Nos. 209A and 209B:
Page 78, leave out lines 37 to 42.
Page 78, leave out lines 44 to 46.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
House resumed.

City of Westminster Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Government of Wales Bill
Returned from the Commons with one amendment agreed to with an amendment, with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreements, and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the Commons amendment and reasons ordered to be printed. (HL Bill 149).
House adjourned at one minute before eleven o'clock.

  Treasury: Reviews
  Treasury: Reviews
  European Court of Justice: Case C-106/96
  European Court of Justice: Case C-106/96
  Office of Public Service: Reviews
  Office of Public Service: Reviews
  East Timor: EU Troika Mission
  East Timor: EU Troika Mission
  European Union Heads of Mission Troika visit to East Timor: 27–30 June 1998
  European Union Heads of Mission Troika visit to East Timor: 27–30 June 1998
  Fayli Kurds
  Fayli Kurds
  Nuclear Disarmament Initiative
  Nuclear Disarmament Initiative
  United Nations Convention on The Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families
  United Nations Convention on The Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families
  Greece and Turkey: Transfer of US Military Equipment
  Greece and Turkey: Transfer of US Military Equipment
  Cyprus: Transfer of S300 Missiles
  Cyprus: Transfer of S300 Missiles
  Korean Peninsular Energy Development Organisation: Supply of Oil to North Korea
  Korean Peninsular Energy Development Organisation: Supply of Oil to North Korea
  UN Security Council Resolution 1173
  UN Security Council Resolution 1173
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Reviews
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Reviews
  Council of the European Union: Calendar of Events
  Council of the European Union: Calendar of Events
  Special Operations Executive: Release of Records
  Special Operations Executive: Release of Records
  Welsh Office: Reviews
  Welsh Office: Reviews
  British Board of Film Classification: Annual Report
  British Board of Film Classification: Annual Report
  Independent Commission on the Voting System: Telephone Number
  Independent Commission on the Voting System: Telephone Number
  Firearms Consultative Committee: Annual Report
  Firearms Consultative Committee: Annual Report
  Forensic Science Service: Annual Report
  Forensic Science Service: Annual Report
  Overseas Domestic Workers
  Overseas Domestic Workers
  Training and Enterprise Councils: Review
  Training and Enterprise Councils: Review
  Scottish Fee Support Review Committee: Chairman
  Scottish Fee Support Review Committee: Chairman
  Indonesia: Arms Contracts
  Indonesia: Arms Contracts
  Reserve Forces: Service by Officers of Regular Forces
  Reserve Forces: Service by Officers of Regular Forces
  Medicines Control Agency: Annual Report
  Medicines Control Agency: Annual Report
  NHS Estates Executive Agency: Annual Report
  NHS Estates Executive Agency: Annual Report
  Cancer Research: Government Funding
  Cancer Research: Government Funding
  Department of Social Security: Reviews
  Department of Social Security: Reviews
  Empty Homes
  Empty Homes
  Small Businesses: Environmental Performance
  Small Businesses: Environmental Performance
  Ordnance Survey: Comprehensive Spending Review
  Ordnance Survey: Comprehensive Spending Review
  Special Waste Regulations 1996 and Waste Management Licensing Regulations: Consultation
  Special Waste Regulations 1996 and Waste Management Licensing Regulations: Consultation
  Regional Development Agencies: Payment of Board Members
  Regional Development Agencies: Payment of Board Members
  Fishing Vessel Accidents and the Recovery of those Lost at Sea: Consultation Paper
  Fishing Vessel Accidents and the Recovery of those Lost at Sea: Consultation Paper
  Environmental Protection Programmes: Public Expenditure Plans
  Environmental Protection Programmes: Public Expenditure Plans
  M.40: Deer-Proof Fencing
  M.40: Deer-Proof Fencing
  Transport Policies and Programme: Bids
  Transport Policies and Programme: Bids