Sitting of 24 July 1998

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

Department of Culture, Media and Sport
9.34 am
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will no doubt be aware that, in recent days, we have had a succession of Ministers coming to the House to outline the spending plans for their Departments. Is it not a disgrace that, when it comes to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, what we get is an interview on the "Today" programme and a press conference in the National Gallery?
Given the wide-ranging structural changes that are proposed, including the dismantling of the Arts Council and the abolition of the English tourist board, and the fact that the statement has been awaited with great interest by many people across the country whose livelihoods will be affected by the changes, will you use your influence to recommend to the Secretary of State that he comes here forthwith to make an oral statement to the House and to answer some difficult questions on a contentious document?
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. As vice-chairman of the all-party tourism group, I know that tourism and hospitality are responsible for creating more new jobs than any other industry. To sound the possible death knell of a strong, independent English tourist board to journalists rather than to the House leaves us in great difficulty when we want to represent the interests of our constituents.
Madam Speaker:As the House knows, Secretaries of State determine for themselves whether statements are made at the Dispatch Box or by means of a written question. If there is not to be a statement at the Dispatch Box, I should expect the Secretary of State to make a statement in the usual way, by means of a written answer, and to see that the supporting documentation is available to Members in the Vote Office. I know that those on the
1352
Treasury Bench this morning will have noted my remarks, and I am sure that they will ensure that the proper procedures are now carried out.

PETITION

  Acid Gas Escape (Killamarsh)
  Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Barnes: I wish to present a petition, which arises from two incidents in which highly dangerous clouds of acid gas escaped in Killamarsh in my constituency. Following the first incident, I made a speech in the House on the matter on 20 May, but I was prevented from seeking a speech on the second incident, as I was rushed into hospital with a stroke on 4 June. I am pleased to be able now to press my constituents' justified concerns with this petition. It reads:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of the residents of Killamarsh, N. E. Derbyshire
  Declares that the siting of the Sarp UK plant (formerly Leigh Environmental) extremely close to centres of population—particularly two schools and a popular country park—is inherently dangerous. We call for its closure.
  Until this can be achieved, the Petitioners therefore request that the House of Common

  1. Introduce legislation requiring provision of an off-site safety plan to warn the community of dangerous incidents; an

  2. urge the Minister for the Environment to:

  a) refuse permission for any further developments or extensions of existing licences to Sarp UK or any other company operating on this site which may be requested of his Department;

  b) instruct the Health and Safety Executive to conduct a complete safety review of the plant; and

  c) instruct the Environment Agency to undertake constant monitoring of the operation of the plant, taking particular account of the gases and foul smells in the atmosphere regularly reported by residents, with a view to providing a complete cessation of these and the foul smells coming from the drains in the village
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.

  It is signed by Jane Holden of Nethermoor Lane, Killamarsh and 7,191 residents of the area. There are fewer people than that on the electoral register in Killamarsh, but we need to take into account the additional people living in the surrounding area.
  To lie upon the Table.
  Madam Speaker: It is good to see the hon. Member back.

Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland Bill
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [17 July] [Progress, 23 July].
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  Northern Ireland Bill
    Clause 24

      DATES OF ELECTIONS AND DISSOLUTIONS
      9.39 am
      Mr. David Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 150, in, page 13, line 4, leave out from 'If' to 'by' in line 12 and insert
      'three months after either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister ceases to hold office the Assembly has not elected a First Minister or Deputy First Minister Her Majesty shall'.
      The amendment is to some extent consequential to an amendment that we discussed yesterday. It concerns an issue that goes to the very heart of the concept of an Assembly that will sit for a fixed four-year term, unlike this House, which sits not for a fixed term but for a maximum period during which the Prime Minister may, at any time, seek a dissolution. The objection to clause 24(4) is that it undermines the basic concept of the fixed term that is proposed for the Assembly.
      Subsection (4) says that the Assembly may be dissolved on three conditions. The third, which is particularly sweeping, is that
      "it is in the public interest that the Assembly should be dissolved".
      Who is to consider that? The clause states that it will be Her Majesty, but, in practice, it will be the Secretary of State. A simple provision states that a body that is supposedly elected for a fixed four-year term may be dissolved if the Secretary of State believes that it is in the public interest.
      That is contrary to the concept of the Assembly's existence and undermines the democratic process. It says to the electorate of Northern Ireland that although they may elect a body, the Secretary of State, who represents and is accountable to no one in Northern Ireland, may, if she considers it appropriate, turn out all its Members. That treats the electorate with contempt and disdain. I trust that it would never happen because no one would be foolish enough to do it. There is therefore no reason why the provision should be in the Bill.
      Objection can also be made to the other grounds for dissolution set out in paragraphs (a) and (b). The first is that
      "the persons who are the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers are not able to carry out their functions".
      That does not refer to issues of individual incapacity such as the First Minister being ill or unable to discharge his functions, in which case action could be taken. There is no such provision in the clause. We need only read the history books to see that there have been times when persons have occupied positions on the Treasury Benches and been incapable of discharging their functions for
      1354
      various reasons, but we need not go into the details of that. One wonders what circumstances the draftsmen envisaged in which all Ministers, not only the First Minister, would be unable to carry out their functions and, as paragraph (b) states,
      "if they were to resign, the persons who would be likely to succeed them would not be able to carry out their functions".
      Although the provisions in paragraphs (a) and (b) are somewhat absurd, it is the provision in paragraph (c) which is fundamentally objectionable. It runs counter to the spirit of the Bill by demonstrating a degree of contempt for the electorate in Northern Ireland, and it undermines the concept of the Assembly as a body that operates for a fixed four-year term.
      Hon. Members will remember that yesterday, when we were considering the provisions for the election of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and the consequences of one or other resigning, I proposed an amendment providing for a three-month period subsequent to that resignation in which there would be an opportunity for re-election. We may argue about whether the period should be three months or less—the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) suggested a seven-day period, which I thought too short—but we need to provide a period of between one week and three months in which the Assembly should try to re-elect First and Deputy First Ministers. If it were unable to do so during that period, that is the only case in which the Assembly should be dissolved before it had completed its four-year term.
      9.45 am
      The amendments that I have tabled would mean that either of the two largest parties would be able to bring about a dissolution of the Assembly if it were determined to do so, simply by arranging for its leader—the First or Deputy First Minister—to resign, not offering any candidate to be re-elected and using its votes to block the re-election of other persons. However, the procedure would be rather cumbersome and would take time, during which the party would have to justify its action, not only to the Assembly, but to the electorate. That is appropriate. It should not be easy for people to bring about the dissolution of a body that is elected for a fixed four-year term. Dissolution should certainly not be caused by the wave of a hand of someone who is not a Member of the Assembly, who is not elected in Northern Ireland and who is not answerable to its people. That is objectionable in principle.
      I ask the Government to reconsider clause 24(4) and to consider the amendment, which would provide a procedure to bring about a dissolution while maintaining the integrity of the fixed-term concept by making it difficult to dissolve the Assembly. I point out that, in drafting the amendment, I omitted to provide for the deletion of subsection (5), which would not be appropriate if the amendment were made. We can consider that at a later stage.
      My crucial point is that these provisions should be deleted because they are objectionable on democratic grounds and contrary to the concept of the scheme, but there may be circumstances in which a dissolution before the end of a four-year term would be appropriate. The amendment provides for that, but the procedure would not be easy to use because it should be biased in favour of

      1355
      the Assembly serving its full fixed four-year term and dissolving before that only when it would be difficult, or almost impossible, for it to continue. It should not be easy to seek an early dissolution and it should certainly not be done on the ridiculous grounds set out in clause 24(4).
      Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I welcome the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) because it is interesting to debate the subject. I will not be supporting it, however, because—this is my central point—the clause provides a necessary reserved power. I follow the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that using the provision would bring about a dissolution by the back door, but the sad fact is that if one wanted to dissolve the Assembly, there would be several ways of making it unworkable, as there are in any assembly. The history of Northern Ireland contains examples of assemblies which, through no one's fault, have proved difficult to work for various reasons. That is why the Bill contains the reserved power in clause 24(4).
      The clause is not an attempt to undermine the democratic process. Everyone is trying to give Northern Ireland the maximum amount of representative democracy. This is a reserved power, exercisable through Her Majesty by the Secretary of State. As I have said in other discussions on the Bill, we must realise that we are dealing with the democratic process in Northern Ireland and at Westminster. In making the decision to dissolve, the Secretary of State would be answerable to this House.
      Mr. Trimble: If it is necessary to have a reserved power in this matter, will the hon. Gentleman compare and contrast it with whatever reserved powers there might be in the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill? I do not believe that there is equivalent provision in either.
      Mr. Temple-Morris: I think the right hon. Gentleman is right. However, I believe that he has more cause than almost anyone in the Committee at the moment to appreciate and acknowledge the fact that the situation in Northern Ireland is different. The history is different. The effort at devolution to Scotland and Wales is the first in modern times; the circumstances are totally different here, because this is not, by a long chalk, the first effort at devolution toward Northern Ireland. In view of the history and the circumstances, I have no hesitation in saying that the reserved power is necessary.
      The reserved power deals with the plural—the whole cross-community concept. The power would be exercised if
      "the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers are not able to carry out their functions"—
      plural—and the same for those who might succeed them. Part of the concept is the idea that, if one Minister cannot carry out his functions, it is likely that the other cannot carry out his either. That is how such a situation might come about.
      In clause 24(4)(c) we have the saving grace—quite apart from the overall accountability to the House—that it is for the Secretary of State to gauge whether it is in the public interest for the Assembly to be dissolved. Then, far from doing a dreadful act to democracy, one goes to the people in order to elect a new Assembly; the democratic process takes over.
      1356
      I am grateful to the right hon. Member for drawing attention to the matter, but I do not believe that amendment No. 150 helps the Bill. It would merely prolong a situation which the Secretary of State must have the power to deem a crisis, in which she would accordingly dissolve the Assembly. If the amendment were passed, we would have three months' agony in such a situation: we would lose a very valuable part of the Bill.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the points that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) made. I do not have clear in my mind the force of the distinction between subsections (3) and (4) of the clause. Amendment No. 150 deals specifically with subsection (4). We have been repeatedly told that the Bill must be in keeping with the spirit of the agreement, so it is interesting that a four-year term is not mentioned in the agreement. We have already stipulated a specific passage of time during which the Assembly should be operative.
      I am puzzled; I do not see why subsection (4) is necessary. We are considering the concept of Her Majesty acting on the advice of the Secretary of State—but the Secretary of State already has the power to act by virtue of subsection (3).
      Some people may think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was in dreamland when he tabled amendment No. 150. Some years ago, I visited Holland shortly before a general election. For six months, the two parties that had formed the coalition Government had been unable to come to terms to form a new Government. As I understand it, in such circumstances we would not be in a similar position to Holland, where the existing Government continued to exercise their power until the new Government were in place. We are contemplating a situation where, for whatever reason, the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and other Northern Ireland Ministers were not prepared to work together. If that happened, Her Majesty should have a power by Order in Council to dissolve the Assembly to hold a fresh election after a specified period. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility—humans being what we are—that such a situation might arise. In fact, the Government were considering it. We are suggesting that their proposals are too cumbersome. Our amendment could help by making things easier and more straightforward.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I understand and sympathise with some of the concerns voiced by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) too quickly dismissed those concerns.
      I also say to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann that, where possible, and always acknowledging the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, we should attempt to establish similarities in the legislation governing the new assemblies and parliaments that we are creating. He was right to question the difference between clause 24(4) and the provisions relating to a dissolution of the Scottish Parliament. In Scotland, extraordinary general elections are to be held where the Parliament so resolves and, on a Division, a majority of not less than two thirds of its Members votes that it should be dissolved. They are also to be held if the Parlliament does not nominate a First Minister during the period specified. The right hon. Gentleman's anxieties are therefore entirely legitimate.

      1357
      I should like to know the definition of "public interest" in clause 24(4)(c). Clause 24(4)(a) speaks of circumstances where
      "the persons who are the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Ministers are not able to carry out their functions".
      Could such a situation be brought about by a vote of no confidence by two thirds of the Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly?
      I hope that the Minister will treat amendment No. 150 sympathetically. I did not hear the right hon. Member for Upper Bann say that it was a probing amendment, but I believe that it is the type of amendment that should be treated with sympathy, especially when considered in relation to the Scottish legislation.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: What pressures would be placed on the Secretary of State to decide that it was in the public interest to dissolve the Assembly? We well know that, since the process that brought in the Irish Republic, the latter has had, and continues to have, a strong influence on what happens in Northern Ireland. If the Irish Republic said that it was not in the public interest for the Assembly to continue, I am sure that—judging by the past record—that view would be immediately accepted and the Assembly would be axed, because the pressures that have been exerted on Northern Ireland have been largely directed from the south of Ireland.
      The same thing happened when the Stormont Parliament was first prorogued and then disbanded. We had the same agitation when other assemblies were put in its place, especially the most recent. It is a very serious thing, given that the Anglo-Irish Conference—which continues under the agreement, under another name—would continue to have a very big say in pressurising the Secretary of State to say that it was not in the public interest for the Assembly to continue. The public interest, to the Irish Republic, is its own parochial interest.
      The Secretary of State is being given a very wide power indeed. The result of all that we have done in the House, and all the talks, can be taken away by a stroke of a pen, without any Member of the Assembly or Minister of the Assembly—even the First Minister or Deputy First Minister—having any say in the matter.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The Question is—
      Mr. John D. Taylor rose—
      The Chairman: It would be helpful if Members seeking to participate in the debate in the Committee could give a clear indication to the Chair. Otherwise, the Chair may assume that the debate has been completed.
      Mr. Taylor: I would definitely have done so, Sir Alan, had it not occurred to me only two seconds ago that I wanted to speak.
      I shall make two brief points. First, it seems amazing that, although the Government are not prepared to remove people from the Assembly Executive even though they belong to a political party that is inextricably linked to a paramilitary organisation that is killing people on the
      1358
      ground, they are prepared to take upon themselves the power to remove all Members of the Assembly. I do not follow that inconsistency.
      Secondly, I share the fears expressed by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) that the Government will be influenced by the Dublin Government in deciding whether the Assembly should proceed. As a result of that influence, the Assembly could be closed—and there are precedents for that in the history of Northern Ireland. On numerous occasions in Committee, the Government have rejected amendments from the Ulster Unionist party or from Her Majesty's Opposition on the basis that they are inconsistent with the Stormont agreement. I hope that the Secretary of State is listening to this point. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the amendment is inconsistent with the Belfast agreement—because I believe that he certainly cannot do so in this case.
      10 am
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): This has been an interesting short debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) referred to the histories of past assemblies and similar bodies, and reflected on how it was important for Parliament to have the power to dissolve those bodies in the event of various crises. However, I believe that times have changed and that this agreement and this Northern Ireland Assembly will be more permanent.
      We have consulted widely on this clause in recent days, and we have sympathy with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) referred to the Scottish comparison, which is a valid point. It is worth examining it so that we may determine whether there is a read-across from the Scottish to the Northern Ireland situation.
      I think that we should re-examine the clause and the consequential amendments that would have to be made to other parts of the Bill.
      Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the Minister agree that proponents of the amendment claim that the clause gives total, absolute and almost dictatorial powers to the Secretary of State? However, clause 24(5) states:
      "No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order under subsection (4) unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
      That is surely a very strong and adequate democratic safeguard relating to the cause, reason and execution of such a proposal.
      Mr. Murphy: In no sense is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a dictator and she, and anyone who succeeds her, will have to be accountable to the House of Commons and the other place.
      Mr. Lembit Öpik: The issue is surely the balance between the autonomy of the Northern Ireland Assembly versus the insurance policy of referring the decision to this Chamber and the other place. The real

      1359
      concern is that the clause goes some way towards undermining the responsibility and trust invested in the Assembly to be able to manage its own affairs.
      Mr. Murphy: This is the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, as such, authority ultimately rests here.
      In terms of the Assembly's workability, we believe that we should plan not for failure but for success. We propose to re-examine the clause, consult in detail with the parties during August and September and refer the matter to the other place.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Parliament is sovereign anyway, and thus would be able to do what the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) suggests. However, Northern Ireland representation in this place is very small, and Northern Ireland parties are not represented in the upper House. According to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the SDLP, it would not have any representatives in the other place. My party has never been represented there. Therefore, the House of Lords would not have a full complement of spokesmen to represent the people and put the views. The Assembly should at least—
      Dr. Godman: Lord Paisley.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not think that that will ever happen—and I would not want it to. I would rather be in a place that has real power. Apparently the other place will be dehorned anyway—and does the hon. Gentleman think that I would offer my head for the chop? I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would make such a suggestion. I will allow him to take my seat.
      It is important that the Assembly be allowed at least to express its feelings about the matter.
      Mr. Murphy: That is why it is important to talk to the parties in Northern Ireland.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) referred to the four-year term. He is correct in saying that that is not in the agreement, although it was discussed during the negotiations and all parties agreed that a four-year term should be the norm. The poll may be shifted up to two months before or after it would otherwise be held in order to ensure that it could be held on the same day as other elections, where appropriate. For example, the Assembly election would coincide with local elections in Northern Ireland, which makes sense financially and would increase the voter turnout. Subsection (4)(c) enables a dissolution of the Assembly at any time during the four-year term.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde raised several issues. There is no specific provision for votes of no confidence in the Administration rather than in Ministers or parties. We could consider a dissolution on a two-thirds majority—which would be comparable with the Scottish model, as my hon. Friend is aware. As elsewhere, the definition of public interest is in statute and it is not easy to define in abstract. They are just a few reasons why it is important to re-examine the issue, and I ask the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister for his response and for his willingness to re-examine the matter. I am glad
      1360
      that the Government have had second thoughts, and I particularly thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) for his comments about the desirability of having a read-across into the Northern Ireland institutions from the newly devolved institutions. I thank the Minister for taking that point on board.
      It was also pleasant to hear the Minister make the simple but fundamental point—which has been sometimes lost sight of in the past few months through misinterpretation of the position—that Parliament remains sovereign and that, at the end of the day, power over all parts of the United Kingdom returns to the House. That point is made clear in clause 5(6). Therefore, those who are concerned about the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 can be reassured about the absolute sovereignty of the House.
      That is also the answer for the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). If there is a need for a reserved power in order to act in an emergency, the Parliament has the capacity to do so and has no need of such a clause in this Bill. The one time that it was felt necessary to intervene in the terms that the hon. Gentleman described—I did not agree, but it was done—when the House decided in 1972 to prorogue and abolish the Northern Ireland Parliament, legislation was passed in the course of one day to give effect to that action. The point about the undiminished sovereignty of Parliament remains.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Under the terms of the agreement, Parliament and the British Government have agreed that, in the event of a simple majority of people wishing to leave the United Kingdom, there will be no claim of sovereignty—which is exactly what section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 declared.
      Mr. Trimble: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely wrong. While the United Kingdom continues, the sovereignty of this House is undiminished. If part of the United Kingdom seceded, the situation would be different. The possibility of secession has been explicit in British constitutional legislation since 1921, so the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) does himself no credit by advancing arguments that are simply wrong in law. I shall not pursue the issue further at this stage.
      I thank the Minister for his willingness to look again at the matter. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 27

      VACANCIES
      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to move amendment No. 100, in page 14, leave out lines 9 to 11 and insert—
      '(2) Subject to subsection (2A) below an order under subsection (1) shall provide that where a seat was last filled by a member of a registered party, any vacancy shall be filled by another member nominated by that party (without a by-election).

      1361
      (2A) Provided that where the condition mentioned in subsection (2) is not met, a vacancy shall be filled by—

      (a) a by-election, or

      (b) such other method as the Secretary of State may prescribe in the order.'.

      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 151, in page 14, line 9, leave out 'or substitutes'.
      No. 92, in page 14, line 10, leave out from 'substitutes' to end of line 11 and insert—
      '(2A) The Secretary of State shall also provide a scheme for updating and replacing substitutes.'.
      Mr. Mackinlay: Amendment No. 100 would write into the Bill the requirement that, if a vacancy occurs in the Assembly's membership, the vacancy shall be filled by a member of the party that had ownership—if I may use that term—of the seat at the time of the Assembly election. The Bill leaves the method of filling the vacancy vague. It gives the Secretary of State the discretion to fill the vacancy in the way that I have just outlined, or to hold a by-election, or to use some other method.
      Now that we have had considerable discussion of this Bill and the earlier Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill, it is time that we clarified how vacancies are to be filled. Vacancies will inevitably occur, and there must be clarity and precision on the matter now. In our discussions on the earlier Bill, the Minister implied that the Government would have resolved the matter by the time this Bill reached the House. I do not complain about the fact that they have not moved forward since then, but it is appropriate now that we resolve that vacancies shall automatically be filled by members of the same party as previously held the seat.
      My amendment also provides for circumstances in which that condition cannot be fulfilled—for example, because the member was an independent. Only then would a by-election be the correct method of filling the vacancy. That is a common-sense approach.
      In our earlier debates, we drew attention to the fact that, under the proposed electoral system, a perverse situation could arise where a member of the nationalist minority lost the seat in a constituency where there was a numerical majority for the Unionist persuasion. If a by-election were held, the Unionist persuasion would inevitably win, which would be a source of considerable irritation, and demonstrably unfair. The opposite could happen in a constituency with a nationalist majority, where someone of the Unionist persuasion might feel unfairly treated.
      We used as an analogy the European Parliament seat of Northern Ireland. If, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) had sought the presidency of the Irish Republic and got it, there would have been a vacancy. If there had subsequently been a by-election for the European Parliament, the seat would have been won by someone of the Unionist persuasion. That is a matter of fact. The absence of a provision such as I am outlining would create enormous difficulties.
      With respect to the Secretary of State, I believe that we must resolve the matter now, rather than some weeks or months down the road. Such a vacancy could occur at any time. Numbers are critical to all parties in the Assembly,
      1362
      as we see from the complicated criteria for votes. I hope that the Minister will be persuaded that my amendment improves the Bill.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: When the elections were held, each candidate had to list in order a number of persons whom he would want to fill the seat if anything happened to him. What is the use of such a list, if there is no intention of using it? When I was fighting the election and I was asked who would get the seat if anything happened to me, I could refer to the list that I had drawn up.
      10.15 am
      Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is correct. One of the up-sides of the electoral system is that, if the amendment is adopted, it will be clear who the substitute, the suppliant or the alternative member will be. It is good for the electorate to understand that.
      That is the principle envisaged for future European elections in England, Wales and Scotland. The same also applies, I think, to Northern Ireland, but I need to check that. At the next European parliamentary elections on a multi-member constituency basis, the intention is that there will not be by-elections. If a vacancy occurs, a replacement will be supplied from the existing ranking order of the party list. That seems sensible.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: There was nothing in the legislation to deal with the Northern Ireland single transferable vote system. There would be by-elections. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in this sense: if anything happened to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), for example and a vacancy arose, there is no way, on an ordinary vote, that a member of the Unionist family would not take that seat. That is unfair. Under those circumstances, the seat should be retained by a member of the same party as held it previously. However, that was not touched on by the legislation that deals with the rest of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hesitated because I thought that, perversely, Northern Ireland was the exception in European Union legislation. I trespass on that merely to buttress my argument that England, Wales and Scotland will have the arrangements that I propose in my amendment. It is profoundly sensible and I hope that it commends itself to the Committee.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I concur with the call for clarification of the matter. The appropriate time for that was before the election to the Assembly, when the situation was extremely vague. The Secretary of State by an order brought into play the substitute system. Many of us would prefer by-elections, if a by-election could produce a fair result.
      If the Assembly is to be frozen for four years, that ensures that no matter what changes take place in the community, the Assembly is cut off from them. If by-elections do not occur because of the substitute system, no account is taken of changes that occur democratically in society. That is one of the dangers of the proposed system.
      If a party that was in the minority in a constituency lost the seat through resignation or by some other means, it would have little or no chance of winning it in a by-election, and would therefore be disadvantaged for the remainder of that term.

      1363
      Alongside the amendment, we must consider our earlier discussion of the designation of political parties. I think that the Government should reconsider the provision.
      Under the substitute system, the party did not have control of the substitutes: it was the candidate who had that control. Some put in more than others, but they were in complete control of who their substitutes were. Suppose that a candidate was elected as a Member representing one political party but transferred his allegiance to another. I am sure that he would wish to change his substitutes, who would be members of the party with which he had previously been aligned. There must be some provision for that, and such provision does not at present exist within the Secretary of State' s New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order. Amendment No. 92 is, to a large extent, a probing amendment to give those on the Government Front Bench the opportunity to say that the Secretary of State will modify the order to allow for the natural change that may take place over time.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the electorate should have some rights in these matters and that, if there is to be substitute provision, the names of those persons who are likely to be appointed should also be made known to the electorate at the time of the election?
      Mr. Robinson: It is my recollection that the chief electoral officer indicated that the names of those persons would be available at the polling stations. However, when I went to vote I never saw any of the names of substitutes at the polling station. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the electorate have a right to know. It could be a circuitous route to get an unelectable individual into the Assembly. A popular person might stand with an unelectable individual as his substitute. He may be elected and then hand the seat over to that substitute. I suppose that that is possible. I agree that the electorate have the right to know.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the Bill is turning back the tide of electoral reform to a pocket borough situation?
      Mr. Robinson: Many arguments can be advanced against the substitute system, but I do not see a better option if we are to have a system that provides for multi-Member constituencies. In those circumstances, it is the best that can be made of the system. That is what makes me rather concerned about the option that the Secretary of State seems to leave open within the clause, which refers to
      "such other method of filling vacancies as the Secretary of State thinks fit."
      It is my recollection that those words, or words similar to them, are in earlier legislation. Yet since then the Secretary of State has come down in favour of a substitute system, which is in play. However, the right hon. Lady still wants to maintain the option of changing the rules of the game somewhere down the line.
      We either have by-elections or we have substitutes: an unknown alternative which the Secretary of State wants to keep close to her chest is unacceptable. That provision should be deleted so that we run with the two options
      1364
      available to us, with the Secretary of State redefining the order to ensure that there can be updating. That updating does not take place simply because a Member has changed his party. A substitute may have died or may have made known their intention not to take up a seat. That would force us into by-elections unless those substitutes were replaced. For the good working of the Assembly, it is appropriate that the order should be updated to take into account the possibilities to which I have referred.
      Dr. Godman: With your permission, Sir Alan, I shall speak to amendment No. 151. I shall not detain the Committee for long because there is little support for my views in this instance. My hon. Friends the Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) disagree utterly and completely with my view that vacancies should be filled only by way of by-elections. My hon. Friend the Member for South Down pointed out to me that substitutes are the case for local elections in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North reminded me that Norway and Sweden have provisions for substitutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock reminded me, in a not very gentle way, that I had voted for a similar system for the European Parliament elections. Nevertheless, despite this inconsistency, my view is that, in an ideal world, vacancies in any sort of Assembly, whether local authority Assembly or Parliament, should be filled by way of a by-election.
      The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) asked in an intervention, "What about the concerns of the electorate?" We have experienced in recent years in Scotland the disaffection of the electorate with the Labour party in by-elections. All parties suffer that fate; it is not peculiar to the Scottish Labour party. I acknowledge the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, but it is my view that we should aim for vacancies being filled eventually by by-elections. That is the position in the Irish Republic, which has a similar electoral system for its long-established Parliament. I would perhaps go along with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who said that there should just be the alternatives of substitutes or by-elections rather than the clause giving powers to the Secretary of State.
      The helpful guidance notes state:
      "The thinking behind a system of substitutes is based on the impact of vacancies in a system combining election by a multi-member STV system and an Assembly based on the principles of proportionality."
      I can understand that, but it still seems to me that we must take into consideration the views of the electorate. I correct slightly what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said about the Scottish system in comparison with what is proposed for Northern Ireland. I refer to the Scottish system in terms of comparative evidence. There is a different electoral system for our Scottish Parliament. Clause 8 of the Scotland Bill provides for constituency by-elections and clause 9 refers to
      "where the seat of a regional member is vacant."
      My hon. Friend is correct to some extent because clause 9 provides that a vacancy in a regional Member seat that had been allocated to a registered political party will be filled by the nomination of another person from the same party list. However, that party list is known. That answers the concern that has been voiced in this context.

      1365
      My only support comes from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), who is not in her place at the moment.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) sends her apologies to my hon. Friend. She has a meeting at the Scottish Office.
      Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The name of my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill is appended to amendment No. 151.
      It seems that I am perhaps being over-idealistic in advocating that vacancies should be filled only by by-elections. I am keenly aware of the social, political and economic circumstances of Northern Ireland. However, as an old-fashioned democrat, I believe that we should aim for a system whereby vacancies are filled only by by-elections. At the end of the day, we have to win the consent of the people whom we seek to govern.
      From time to time, the local electorate may become disaffected with a party, its policies and practices. In between elections, the electorate should be given the right to demonstrate how they feel about a party. If, God forbid, there were to be a by-election shortly in Greenock and Inverclyde, it would be a by-election with a number of candidates representing different parties. That is the ideal for which we should aim in all assemblies—not just within the multinational state that we call the United Kingdom, but everywhere.
      I make no apologies for detaining the Committee briefly, even though I know that I have no support from my hon. Friends. I have difficulties with the single transferable vote system. Even the Scottish system has difficulties, but it is a hell of a lot better than the system in Northern Ireland. The regional list of registered members of political parties will be known to the Scottish electorate. If there is a vacancy in a constituency where someone won under the first-past-the-post rules, there will, rightly and properly, be a by-election to fill that vacancy.
      I stick to my guns, although I acknowledge the serious concerns of my hon. Friends at my advocacy of the system. However, one day, I hope that, in Northern Ireland as elsewhere, vacancies will be filled by the tried and trusted procedure of a by-election. That way, we meet four-square the concerns, expectations, needs and desires of the electorate. At the end of the day, the electorate must reign supreme over elections.
      10.30 am
      Mr. Öpik: This is something of a triumph for the Liberal Democrats. Just over a year ago, we had no proportional representation at all. Now it looks as if Britain will have every kind of PR we can think of. I thank the Government on behalf of my party.
      It is necessary to have clarification now, rather than leaving the matter to a point when we are faced with a by-election. The more specific and objective that we can be about the rules, the less likely it will be that we shall have problems later. I was impressed by the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), which tries to clarify the process, rather than leaving it to a decision as and when we need one.
      1366
      Having said that, there are problems with any system that we propose. If we depend on substitutes, we are under an obligation to make sure that those substitutes are known. As with Scotland and Wales, it is clear that, in a regional list system, the substitutes should be clearly defined and advertised by the parties. My understanding is the same as that of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—very few people, if anybody, knew who the substitutes were when the elections took place in Northern Ireland. Whatever else we do, we must make sure that that situation is amended for future elections.
      The substitute system is not so much of a problem in Wales or Scotland because the system is rather different. In Wales and Scotland, the first-past-the-post system will be used for individual constituencies and the list system for regional constituencies. STV presents a rather different problem.
      I do not agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman)—not so much because of social or political concerns in Northern Ireland, but because of practical concerns about the spirit of proportional representation. That spirit would not be achieved if we simply had a by-election in the simplest form in a multi-seat constituency. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman's intention, which is a form of democratic purism, but it would not be achieved by a by-election. An individual by-election—depending on how it is organized—is unlikely to uphold the principle of proportionality in a multi-seat constituency. I am sure that some colleagues could think of a formula that would correct that, but I shall leave that to the anoraks.
      Dr. Godman: What I suggest is not in any way a panacea. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the Irish Republic not so long ago, the Irish Labour party won seats in by-elections in two constituencies, causing some difficulties for the Administration? There are difficulties with every kind of system. It might be democratic purism, but the concept of vacancies being filled by by-elections is long established.
      Mr. Õpik: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and in fact Liberal Democrats tend to poll better in first-past-the-post by-elections to this Chamber. It is a workable system, and I have no objections to it in principle. I am looking at it from a practical consideration of proportionality. We have a difference in judgment. We could formulate a system of by-elections in Northern Ireland that would achieve everything that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde and the rest of us want—a fair system of filling vacancies that maintains the principle of proportionality. However, in my judgment, it is hard to see how that can happen, given the multi-seat STV process that we have in place. We must then add the secondary point of the political sensitivities in Northern Ireland, which are not quite so prevalent in, for example, the Republic of Ireland.
      A system of by-elections could create problems, and we would have to be explicit about the terms. For example, the Winchester by-election was called because the original result was regarded as nullified or unsafe. The majority was two, and it was decided that more than two votes could not be reliably considered to have fallen one way or the other. If we followed the process recommended by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, we would have to be explicit about the context of the by-elections, and when they would be acceptable

      1367
      or unacceptable. Needless to say, there could be a lot of acrimony in any such situation, and we would need to fall back on objective facts. The Winchester by-election involved a great deal of time in the courts. That could create even more frictions if it were to occur in Northern Ireland.
      Ministers should consider seriously the clarifications that are being proposed. If we do not have a more objective system in the Bill, it will be a recipe for trouble. It is inevitable that, if a by-election is called and we do not have objective criteria, vested interests will cause acrimony and conflict. That may obscure the true intent of the by-election, which is to fill a vacancy in the Assembly. There is an urgency now, and I hope that we can receive objective clarification of how we proceed. We must not wait for the first by-election to become a hostage to fortune and descend into potential conflict of exactly the type that we are seeking to avoid.
      Mr. McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Martin, for allowing me to participate in the debate.
      The question before the Committee is how properly, adequately and continually to represent to the views of the electorate. For Northern Ireland, another overriding consideration is added to that: we desire an Administration who represent a deep cross-section of our community and a system which enables minority groupings to have political expression and representation. That is the basis on which we should be approaching the structures and the way in which people are elected to them.
      We have not only proportional representation, which is the foundation of such a model, but six-member constituencies, which is a high number per constituency. The purpose is to ensure the maximum possible representation of a broad political spectrum. We should keep those two principles in mind, because they should be the yardstick by which we measure the filling of vacancies. Under PR, minority grouping representation could go out of the window in by-elections because, by the mathematics of the situation, the largest party in any constituency will inevitably win every by-election. In England, there may be a swing from one side to the other, but there have not been dramatic swings in Northern Ireland since it came into existence in 1920, so representation by minority groupings would be withdrawn from the electorate.
      A Member may change party allegiance during his term of office. Notwithstanding that, the electorate would still have elected a person on a party ticket. If allegiance were transferred, that would be the fault of the representative, who would deny those who voted for him and for his party or philosophy.
      On substitution, it is intriguing that participants in the Assembly elections were required in their nomination papers to nominate a maximum of six substitutes. As I recall, that was not a legal requirement, but it was a legal opportunity. The electorate could and should have made themselves aware of whether substitutes were of the same temperament or of the same political party or philosophy as the primary candidate. They made their decisions on the basis of candidates' nomination papers and their nominated substitutes, so what is the legal situation and what would it be if we made a change?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said that I have already reminded him of this practical point, but I must do so
      1368
      again: in the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland, which are also elected by PR, it is the norm to fill a vacancy by substitution, through the nomination of the party whose representative previously occupied that elected position. Indeed, I can recall no recent by-elections. The community already accepts and operates—
      Dr. Godman rose—
      Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
      Mr. McGrady: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde.
      Dr. Godman: I think that I was first to ask.
      I readily acknowledge that my hon. Friend presents a powerful case for substitutes, but does he agree with clause 27(2)? It states:
      "Such provision may be made by reference to by-elections or substitutes or such other method of filling vacancies as the Secretary of State thinks fit."
      Does he think that we should we have by-elections or substitutes, not a three-options system?
      Mr. McGrady: I now give way to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Although such a system may be the norm, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there has to be unanimity in the council chamber, and that, if anyone objects to not holding a by-election, he overrules the council? The hon. Gentleman will agree, because he has wide experience of local government, that holding an election, perhaps six months before the whole council went to the electorate, would throw the electorate into spending a lot of money.
      10.45 am
      Mr. McGrady: The hon. Gentleman has made a helpful contribution, which is unusual in my experience. To take the point further, in multi-party council chambers, there is usually agreement across the parties that vacancies should be filled through substitution by the party that has a vacancy. That has been the norm in local government for about a decade; there is nothing unusual or unacceptable about it, and it has cross-party support.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde referred to clause 27(2). I probed this matter earlier; substitutes have already been nominated in the electoral process, and his question is difficult to answer because we need clarification of the legal situation. If the current legal position is to continue, how can we make changes midstream when the electorate have already cast their votes?
      There is much validity in all the arguments about filling vacancies, but I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that we are basing our decision on the special circumstances of Northern Ireland. We are endeavouring to achieve the greatest participation by the greatest number of parties and philosophies. The tenor of the Bill is based on cross-community, cross-party support for the

      1369
      way forward. In that context, substitution, as predicated by the electoral process, is probably best, although I hope that there will be evolution as time goes on.
      Mr. McNamara: I thank you, Mr. Martin, for calling me to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), not after the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Õpik). I woke up this morning saying, "X is equal to minus B, plus or minus the square root of B squared, minus 4AC, all over 2A—or is it?" I did not want to go back to using squared paper.
      Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman's membership card is in the post.
      Mr. McNamara: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman means a Mensa membership. I can remember mensa, mensam, mensae, mensa, but that is thanks to the Irish Christian Brothers, not the academicals attended by the hon. Gentleman.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) demolished his own case. He considered all the examples and everything that had been said, and was left hanging on to the straw of what happens in the Irish Republic. There is considerable difference between what happens in the Irish Republic and what is happening in Northern Ireland. First, people in the Republic vote for a sovereign Government, not for a devolved Assembly. The second and more important difference is that, by and large, candidates in the Republic of Ireland accept the political institutions and the allegiances to, and sovereignty of, the state. That does not apply in Northern Ireland, and the agreement recognises that in its references to citizenship.
      In our electoral system, parties divide on a class or ideological basis—if one is able to talk in those terms nowadays—and, especially in Northern Ireland, according to allegiances. The proportional system was introduced in Northern Ireland specifically to allow allegiances, and differences of opinion within those allegiances, to be adequately represented. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Down has said, if we change to a system of by-elections, the majority in a particular constituency could take the day. I shall refer only obliquely and briefly to last night's debate, Mr. Martin. If that were to happen, it would mean challenging the acceptance of the whole basis of the d'Hondt system.
      That brings us back to the question whether a person in the new Northern Ireland Assembly should be able to cross the Floor, to change party or to change designation if that would upset the arrangements under which the elections took place. The electorate vote for candidates for a particular purpose. People vote for the Democratic Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Ulster Unionist party or the Alliance party knowing where that party stands on constitutional, social, political and economic matters, and believing that, if the successful candidate died, someone from the list of substitutes would take that person's place on the basis of his allegiances and his known stance.
      If we do not have substitutes and if we give the Secretary of State the discretion provided in the Bill—although she will have to bring the orders before the
      1370
      House for resolution—we shall be leaving matters up in the air. The most sensible thing to do is for the Secretary of State to adopt the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock either in a new clause or a new schedule outlining the specific means of substitution. We should also specify what should happen if a person crosses the Floor or changes his political allegiance.
      The position in Northern Ireland is different. People are elected not only for their innate qualities—I am sure that that applies to every Member of this august Assembly—but for their political allegiances and their understanding of how that can affect matters in the overall body of the Assembly. That is of the utmost importance.
      Dr. Godman: I have never denied the strength of the case put by my hon. Friends the Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady). I am sorry that my hon. Friend for Hull, North thinks that my view that the electorate should reign supreme hangs by a straw. I think that he was referring to the example, which I used to strengthen my case, of what happens in the Republic. Does my hon. Friend think that the reference to by-elections in clause 27(2) or the phrase
      "such other method of filling vacancies"
      should be deleted?
      Mr. McNamara: I think that both should be deleted. I suggest that the Secretary of State, either in a new clause or in a new schedule—the latter is probably the best place—should outline the precise system and should say how substitution should be treated when a person crosses the floor. It is important that the electorate should not be misled. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde said that I do not believe that the people are sovereign. I hope that he will support my ten-minute Bill on Wednesday, which will show that the people are sovereign on membership of the House. However, we are talking about a devolved Assembly that will be elected, we hope, for a fixed period. People will know what is happening and will seek to ensure that their views are represented in a particular way. That is best achieved by a system of substitutes, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will table an amendment in the other place to meet the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and others.
      Mr. Paul Murphy: The debate, which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), has been interesting and useful. Schedule 14 to the Bill provides that the New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 1998 remains in force after the appointed day. If a vacancy occurred, it would be filled by a substitute from the list submitted by a candidate at the 25 June elections.
      Much of the debate has centred on the principle of substitutes versus by-elections. During the consideration of the previous Bill dealing with this matter, there was no doubt that a system of substitutes must inevitably be the one we use. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who said that, for the system of elections to the Assembly, there is no real alternative to the use of substitutes in order to maintain proportionality and the important cross-community aspects of the Assembly. The Government propose to ensure that the substitute system remains.

      1371
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock wanted more detail included in the Bill. His amendment refers to registered political parties. We shall see what impact the Registration of Political Parties Bill has on Northern Ireland. We shall have to consult political parties in Northern Ireland on that matter.
      We can make any necessary changes to the system of substitution in future through an amendment to the New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 1998, to which the hon. Member for Belfast, East referred. Under the provisions of schedule 14, that will continue to apply to elections to the Assembly. I propose to discuss this matter further with the parties, because I know that they regard it as an important issue. There is the matter of by-elections being held if substitutes die or do not wish to take up their place. We shall have further consultation on that. It may require changes, although not necessarily to the Bill.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister referred to by-elections and to the substitute system. What was in the Government's mind when they added the rider
      "or such other method of filling vacancies as the Secretary of State thinks fit"?
      Mr. Murphy: That is exactly why we need to consult further. It is unclear. We should consider how we deal with by-elections if a substitute does not want to take up his seat, dies or moves away. Because of the lack of clarity, we need to talk with parties in Northern Ireland. Changes could be made by order and not necessarily by amendments to the Bill. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Mackinlay: I hope to hear further news from the Minister over the summer. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 28

      DISQUALIFICATION
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in clause 28, page 14, leave out lines 32 to 34.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 21, in page 14, leave out lines 38 to 41.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The amendment deals with an interest that Northern Ireland and its people expressly have, in that Ministers of the Crown, as they may well be called under the new system, may also be nominated by the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic and take their seats in the Senate of the Irish Republic. It is not consistent that a Minister of the Crown in one part of the United Kingdom should take a seat in the Senate.
      It being Eleven o'clock, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

  First World War (Executions)
  11 am
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): With permission, I will make a statement about executions of soldiers and others in the first world war.
  I doubt whether anyone who has not gone through the awesome experience of war can ever truly imagine its effects on the emotions of human beings. Some 9 million troops from all sides died during the great war. Almost 1 million British and Empire soldiers fell, heroes to their nations and a testimony to the awfulness of war.
  We rightly remember them still, not only on the 11th of November, but in ceremonies throughout the year and throughout the globe. Today, I am sure that I am joined by the whole House in once again paying tribute to the courage and fortitude of all who served from throughout Britain and the Empire.
  For some of our soldiers and their families, however, there has been neither glory nor remembrance. Just over 300 of them died at the hands not of the enemy, but of firing squads from their own side. They were shot at dawn, stigmatised and condemned—a few as cowards, most as deserters. The nature of those deaths and the circumstances surrounding them have long been a matter of contention. Therefore, last May, I said that we would look again at their cases.
  The review has been a long and complicated process, and I have today placed a summary in the Library of the House. I will outline some salient features.
  Between 4 August 1914 and 31 March 1920, approximately 20,000 personnel were convicted of military offences under the British Army Act for which the death penalty could have been awarded. That does not include civilian capital offences such as murder. Of those 20,000, something over 3,000 were actually sentenced to death. Approximately 90 per cent. of them escaped execution. They had their sentences commuted by their commanders in chief.
  The remainder, those executed for a military offence, number some 306 cases in all. That is just 1 per cent. of those tried for a capital offence, and 10 per cent. of those actually sentenced to death. Those 300 or so cases can be examined, because the records were preserved. In virtually all other cases, the records were destroyed. It is the cases of those 300 that many hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), and others outside the House, including the Royal British Legion, have asked us to reconsider with a view to some form of blanket pardon.
  Let me make it plain that we cannot and do not condone cowardice, desertion, mutiny or assisting the enemy—then or now. They are all absolutely inimical to the very foundation of our armed forces. Without military discipline, the country could not be defended, and that is never more important than in times of war.
  However, the circumstances of the first world war, and the long-standing controversy about the executions, justify particular consideration. We have therefore reviewed every aspect of the cases. We have considered the legal basis for the trials—field general courts martial. The review has confirmed that procedures for the courts martial were correct, given the law as it stood at the time.

  1373
  The review also considered medical evidence. Clearly, if those who were executed could be medically examined now, it might be judged that the effects of their trauma meant that some should not have been considered culpable; but we cannot examine them now. We are left with only the records, and in most cases there is no implicit or explicit reference in the records to nervous, or other psychological or medical, disorders. Moreover, while it seems reasonable to assume that medical considerations may have been taken into account in the 90 per cent. of cases where sentences were commuted, there is no direct evidence of that, either, as almost all the records of those commuted cases have long since been destroyed.
  However frustrating, the passage of time means that the grounds for a blanket legal pardon on the basis of unsafe conviction just do not exist. We have therefore considered the cases individually.
  A legal pardon, as envisaged by some, could take one of three forms: a free pardon, a conditional pardon, or a statutory pardon. We have given very serious consideration to this matter. However, the three types of pardon have one thing in common—for each individual case, there must be some concrete evidence for overturning the decision of a legally constituted court, which was charged with examining the evidence in those serious offences.
  I have personally examined one third of the records—approximately 100 personal case files. It was a deeply moving experience. Regrettably, many of the records contain little more than the minimum prescribed for this type of court martial—a form recording administrative details and a summary—not a transcript—of the evidence. Sometimes it amounts only to one or two handwritten pages.
  I have accepted legal advice that, in the vast majority of cases, there is little to be gleaned from the fragments of the stories that would provide serious grounds for a legal pardon. Eighty years ago, when witnesses were available and the events were fresh in their memories, that might have been a possibility, but the passage of time has rendered it well-nigh impossible in most cases.
  So, if we were to pursue the option of formal, legal pardons, the vast majority, if not all, of the cases would be left condemned either by an accident of history which has left us with insufficient evidence to make a judgment, or, even where the evidence is more extensive, by a lack of sufficient evidence to overturn the original verdicts. In short, most would be left condemned, or in some cases re-condemned, 80 years after the event.
  I repeat here what I said last May when I announced the review—that we did not wish, by addressing one perceived injustice, to create another. I wish to be fair to all, and, for that reason I do not believe that pursuing possible individual formal legal pardons for a small number, on the basis of impressions from the surviving evidence, will best serve the purpose of justice or the sentiment of Parliament. The point is that now, 80 years after the events and on the basis of the evidence, we cannot distinguish between those who deliberately let down their country and their comrades in arms and those who were not guilty of desertion or cowardice.
  1374
  Current knowledge of the psychological effects of war, for example, means that we now accept that some injustices may have occurred. Suspicions cannot be completely allayed by examination of the sparse records. We have therefore decided also to reject the option of those who have urged us to leave well alone and to say nothing. To do nothing, in the circumstances, would be neither compassionate nor humane.
  Today, there are four things that we can do in this House, which sanctioned and passed the laws under which these men were executed. First, with the knowledge now available to us, we can express our deep sense of regret at the loss of life. There remain only a very few of our fellow countrymen who have any real understanding or memory of life and death in the trenches and on the battlefields of the first world war. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the end of the war, and we are recalling and remembering the conditions of that war, and all those who endured them, both those who died at the hands of the enemy, and those who were executed. We remember, too, those who did their awful duty in the firing squads.
  Secondly, in our regret, and as we approach a new century, let us remember that pardon implies more than legality and legal formality. Pardon involves understanding, forgiveness, tolerance and wisdom. I trust that hon. Members will agree that, while the passage of time has distanced us from the evidence and the possibility of distinguishing guilt from innocence, and has rendered the formality of pardon impossible, it has also cast great doubt on the stigma of condemnation.
  If some men were found wanting, it was not because they all lacked courage, backbone or moral fibre. Among those executed were men who had bravely volunteered to serve their country. Many had given good and loyal service. In a sense, those who were executed were as much victims of the war as the soldiers and airmen who were killed in action, or who died of wounds or disease, like the civilians killed by aerial or naval bombardment, or like those who were lost at sea. As the 20th century draws to a close, they all deserve to have their sacrifice acknowledged afresh. I ask hon. Members to join me in recognising those who were executed for what they were—the victims, with millions of others, of a cataclysmic and ghastly war.
  Thirdly, we hope that others outside the House will recognise all that, and that they will consider allowing the missing names to be added to books of remembrance and war memorials throughout the land.
  Finally, there is one other thing that we can do as we look forward to a new millennium. The death penalty is still enshrined in our military law for five offences, including misconduct in action and mutiny. I can tell the House that Defence Ministers will invite Parliament to abolish the death penalty for military offences in the British armed forces in peace and in war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  There are deeply held feelings about the executions. Eighty years after those terrible events, we have tried to deal with a sensitive issue as fairly as possible for all those involved. In remembrance of those who died in the war, the poppy fields of Flanders became a symbol for the shattereds innocence and the shattered lives of a lost generation. May those who were executed, with the many, many others who were victims of war, finally rest in

  1375
  peace. Let all of us who have inherited the world that followed remember with solemn gratitude, the sacrifices of those who served that we might live in peace.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: I thank the Minister for generously allowing me a copy of his statement and the background information well in advance. He spoke with great understanding and sensitivity about a war that took place 80 years ago. There is probably no man or woman in the House whose father, grandfather or great-grandfather did not serve in the first world war. Many will have been wounded or killed. I was in the minority; both my grandfathers came back from the war. We should remember that a generation of Members of Parliament also served in that war, with great suffering. I think in particular of both the Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee and the Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan.
  The British soldiers who were executed during that war have been subject to great debate over the past 80 years. The Minister rightly pointed out that there have been numerous internal and external Government inquiries. Before 1994, all Governments refused to release the case files and other documentation for public access, thereby creating a suspicion in some people's minds of a cover-up. I hope that the Minister's statement will leave no suspicion of a conspiracy or cover-up on a highly sensitive issue.
  The matter has recently been brought to a head by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who has pursued it since 1992 with early-day motions and a private Member's Bill. All hon. Members recognise the hon. Gentleman's great interest in the matter. In February 1993, when he was Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) rejected the hon. Gentleman's call for a pardon for those who were executed. Members who were here will recall that my right hon. Friend spoke with a great deal of sensitivity, advancing arguments similar to those of the Minister for the Armed Forces.
  My right hon. Friend's Government's decision was based on a detailed, two-stage study of the files—first selective, then comprehensive—between 1992 and 1994 by the Army historical branch of the Ministry of Defence. I pay tribute to the men and women of that branch for their hard work in difficult circumstances. Their studies reached basically the same conclusions on legal and medical evidence that the Minister has outlined today.
  On 16 September 1995, the office of the then Leader of the Opposition—now Prime Minister—announced that a future Labour Government would consider the matter sympathetically. The Minister, when in opposition, signed an early-day motion calling for a review. In May 1997, the Minister announced his review, and he has taken a personal interest in the matter, considering the cases himself and holding discussions with many legal and medical experts and historians.
  The Minister's conclusions are virtually the same as those of the previous Government, but there are two differences. First, he has pushed for greater transparency. The previous Government began to move towards that, but he has continued it, and we should all welcome the move. Secondly, he has concluded, as he put to the House today, that, having reviewed the evidence, he faced three options. The first was a legal pardon, the second was the status quo and the third was an expression of regret.
  1376
  Like previous Governments, the Minister has rejected the legal pardon. He finds the status quo unacceptable, and has opted for an expression of regret. I fear that the Minister may not satisfy two perhaps large groups of opinion. I may be assuming in advance the views of the hon. Member for Thurrock, who I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be lucky enough to catch your eye, but he has, of course, always argued for a pardon. Equally, there are those, including me and others, who believe that the status quo—leave history alone—is perhaps the option that we should still consider.
  The status quo is not about indifference or callousness; I do not think that anyone who has looked at these questions can believe that. I have to declare a personal interest here: as a military historian 20 years ago, I interviewed dozens of surviving soldiers of the first world war on this issue and many others. There is a recognition of the impossibility of rewriting history. Among British soldiers at the time—I know that the Minister found this when he interviewed some of the very few surviving veterans—to say the least, there was an ambivalent attitude to the whole question of executing soldiers for desertion or mutiny.
  Expressions of regret can become so generalised as to appear meaningless. I am not by any means implying that the Minister is trying to do that, but my fear is that we will end up setting a precedent. Last year, the Prime Minister expressed regret over the Irish potato famine, an action which many people agreed with. However, we have to consider: where does this begin and end?
  I say in all seriousness: are we to consider giving expressions of regret for those people who were executed in the highlands after the battle of Culloden by forces of the Crown? Are we to express regret for those people who were executed by forces of the Crown after the Indian mutiny? Those are questions that involve our looking back into history and making value judgments. My fear is that the Minister's statement has not drawn a line under this issue.
  Every hon. Member will stand in awe of those men and women who endured so much, so that we today can debate this issue. In particular, I stand in awe of all those hundreds of thousands of men and women who, in the face of the most appalling circumstances, controlled and conquered their fear and did their duty, so that we might live in a democracy, as we do today.
  Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) for what I think was a cautious, though at times cynical, welcome of the statement; perhaps I misinterpreted it. I join him in thanking the Army historical branch and the services for all their work. I want to put it on the record that, despite the rumours that accompany such reviews from time to time, there was no resistance whatever to a full and transparent, academic and compassionate review of these cases from the forces, which have been of immeasurable assistance to me in attempting, after all these years, to do justice to a complicated issue.
  Of course I join the hon. Gentleman in recognising the sacrifices of all those who died, which I recognised at the top of my statement. We in the House owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude to those who went over the top, fought in the battlefields and made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. We promised at the end of that

  1377
  awful war that, through the generations, we would not forget them, and we have not done so. Today we pay tribute to them as well.
  However, I did point out that there were certain people—306 people—whose families had suffered a stigma for eight decades. I feel that, in the light of what we know, it was the view of the House as a whole that I was expressing when I said that that stigma should be lifted, and that those people should be recognised as victims. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  May I deal with the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about not rewriting history? I did not use that expression—it was used by the previous Government—because I do not believe it. History has two meanings. One is what actually happened. Of course we cannot help what actually happened, or change it, but history has another meaning, which, as an historian, I recognise and which I thought that he, as an historian, would recognise as well. It is the interpretation of what happened.
  In all fields of life, we constantly revise our interpretation of what happened. I argue, as a human being as well as a politician, and partly as an historian, that not only is it open to us to reinterpret the events, but, in a decent civilised society, we have an obligation to reinterpret those events. That is what have I tried to do.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned various other executions throughout history. I think that there is a difference. These events occurred within living memory—this century. I think that I am right in saying that, in the period before 1914, as far back as the Napoleonic wars, there were no more than two executions under these same Acts. From 1918 until today, I do not think that there have been any more than three. In the whole of the second world war, I think that there were three executions for mutiny and one for a capital offence which was not a military offence. Therefore, these events are specific—I think that they are ring-fenced. The conditions and nature of the first world war distinguish it from all other wars.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read of the awful conditions, the extremes of cold and heat, the mud, the vermin, the lice, the cacophony of shellfire, the amazing barrage under which human beings were put, whose batteries of courage were constantly being tested to the limit. The conditions of that war do make it somewhat different.
  On the question of the individuals versus the group, I was asked to review these cases as a whole, and I have done so. I said, not only last May but in the debate in the House, which I have here, that that would not necessarily mean a legal formal pardon, but, where there are apparent or possible injustices within living memory, it is the obligation of Government, particularly when people were involved in a life-and-death struggle, to do their best to express the sentiment of the House and the will of the nation.
  If I have one wish, it is that, whatever the legal formality today, we do indeed create the conditions in which, as a nation, we can say to all those who died, including the executed soldiers and others, "May you rest in peace now." May this case also rest in peace: after all
  1378
  these decades, I believe that we have now finally done justice to the obligation to examine it and to dispense our view, and the public view, as fully as we possibly could.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay rose—
  Hon Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I sincerely thank the Minister for all his efforts in this regard, the attention that he has given to this matter, and his statement today. I couple that with thanks for the work of many people, but particularly His Honour Judge Anthony Babington, Julian Putkowski, who did research work in this regard, which has assisted all of us and promoted our interest in this issue, and, last but not least, Ernest Thurthle, who was a Labour Member of Parliament in the 1920s and 1930s and who alone raised this issue. We should remember him today, because he did a great deal in exposing the fact that the British establishment suppressed these documents for three quarters of a century.
  I hope that the Minister will understand if I reserve my position in one regard. I think that there could have been a formal legal pardon, but there may be a legislative opportunity for me or others to raise the matter in future. However, it would be churlish and unrealistic not to acknowledge that what the Minister has said is a major statement by the Government, which I deeply appreciate and which I know will be appreciated by the families of the men involved, the people who have campaigned for them and the few remaining veterans of the great war. They, late in the evening of life, will know that not only do the people support the pardons—I think that they have done so all along—but that Parliament has now reflected the fact that they should be acknowledged as victims of the great war along with the many other millions.
  In response to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), there was not an option to leave the matter alone. That is precisely what the British establishment wanted to do for 75 years. History needs to be written with clarity and precision, and I hope that the Minister feels that, with his statement, he has written a chapter of history with clarity and precision this morning.
  With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) nudged me to draw attention to the fact that, at the very moment when the Minister was expressing regret, it was 11 minutes past 11. I thought that that added to a profoundly moving statement.
  This certainly closes a chapter on a very unhappy episode. As we come to the end of a troubled century, when we teach our schoolchildren about the miscalculations and selfishness of politicians in general, we can at least take some pride this morning in the fact that the ordinary British soldier and the other victims of the great war have been given the long overdue acknowledgement that they were victims of the decisions of selfish people. I hope that we can salute them this morning.
  Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome and his kind words. I take this opportunity to thank Judge Anthony Babington, not only for his pioneering work in this generation but for the assistance that he gave me when I mets him. I also thank others, including

  1379
  Julian Putkowski for assisting me to clarify my own thoughts on this matter. Of course, I did not meet Ernest Thurthle, but I became very familiar with his thoughts and works as I worked through the review. To that list I would add my hon. Friend himself, who has played a pioneering role in the last decade. He has taken an interest in all things military in the House, as well as in the soldiers and others who were executed.
  There is not much that I can add, other than to say that, as I read the case files, I appreciated the nature of war. No one could remain unmoved who reads about the conditions endured by the soldiers who died in the first world war, who went over the top and made the sacrifice, and who had what Napoleon regarded as the main characteristic of a good soldier—not courage, but endurance. I certainly did not. Some of the words come back to haunt me. The last words of one young man who was executed were, "What will my mother say?" Such instances cannot leave us unmarked.
  I do not believe that it is a sign of fortitude or strength to ignore compassion. Compassion, as exemplified by millions of soldiers throughout the centuries and throughout this nation, is an integral part of fortitude. We are all the stronger for having compassion—defiance in defeat, certainly, but, as Churchill once said, magnanimity in victory. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to have the victory of life, and those who were fortunate enough, despite all their sacrifices, to come back, will share with the House the magnanimity and understanding of those who were executed during that terrible war.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), and thank the Minister for his courtesy in making this statement. I doubt whether a single hon. Member who heard the Minister's words could fail to be moved by what he had to say and the sincerity with which he said it. From the tone he used, I suspect that he was greatly disappointed in the words that he had to utter.
  The statement contained the phrase that "formality of pardon" was impossible. I am sure that the Minister will agree that, when he replied to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), he used the words of compassion. I am sure that most men, women and children will think that compassion could have been shown to the 300 men and their families, and that the formality of pardon was not an impossibility. They will think that a society which, with the ability to look back and say that things would have been so different today, could have shown the compassion necessary to ensure that the pardon was not an impossibility. I am sure the Minister will agree that countless millions of people will not understand why it is impossible for the House to grant the pardon.
  I am sure that every voice in the land will echo the sentiments that the Minister expressed in going over what these men went through. He recognised that the majority of them were volunteers and had been in action for a long time. He eloquently exposed the fear experienced by anyone placed in real danger, but these men were in danger day in and day out, week in and week out, for years in some instances.
  The nation owes it to those men to show the compassion that is needed. Perhaps, just perhaps, some were guilty of the offences in question, but pardoning
  1380
  them in order to pardon them all is a price that the nation would willingly pay in order, once and for all, to lift this stain from our nation's military history. I hope that, even now, the words of the hon. Member for Thurrock will be taken up by other hon. Members, and that we shall introduce legislation that will finally remove this stain from our history.
  It gives me great pleasure on behalf of my party to thank the Minister for his honest endeavours and determination in bringing us to this stage today, but please do not let this be the end of the story.
  Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman raised three points to which I shall respond. To pardon a few, or one or two—I have not said that, in my view, the evidence would have been sufficient for such a pardon; it might have been sufficient to consider it—thus in effect condemning 300, or 290, would not have been the compassionate response.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: All or none.
  Dr. Reid: As the hon. Gentleman's hon. and learned Friend says, it is all or none.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) believes that some people will not understand. I think that they will understand perfectly, and I shall explain it in simple terms to the hon. Gentleman.
  The people who died throughout this century in the British armed forces died fighting to preserve democracy. The basis of democracy is the rule of law. If any politician were to overturn not only several hundred years of precedent but the basis of that democracy by setting aside the belief that there has to be evidence for a conviction; or if he did so on a political whim or prejudice or on a suspicion, no matter how sincere, it would undermine the very basis of law and democracy for which so many millions have fought and died.
  Therefore, I do not believe that it would have been open to me, without transgressing the very values for which so many service men have fought and died, to throw aside all legal precedent and make a judgment on the basis of what I believed rather than on the evidence. I think that that will be understood—it is understood in the House, and I think that it is understood across the country. But, short of that, I believe that I have done what the House would think is right.
  The Government have not taken action and said what we said only because we thought that the House would think that it right to do so or because of this or that pressure group, but because we think it is the right thing to do. We have expressed regret and the view that—like all those who died—those people were victims of that terrible, terrible war. We have asked that the stigma of the executions be lifted and that those names be added to books of remembrance and memorials. We have also on this day announced that we will be inviting the House to abolish the death penalty. I think that those measures will be warmly welcomed by hon. Members and by the public.
  I hope—for the benefit of the families and those who were executed—that we can now genuinely say, "Let them rest in peace". If individuals wish to petition on individual cases, I have not debarred anyone from doing so. My own belief is that they would not do a service for the whole or, I suspect, for the individual case—which, because of a lack of evidence, could end up with a

  1381
  re-condemnation. Such an outcome is what I tried to avoid, and I think—and hope—that the generality of the statement of regret will be warmly welcomed by the public.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We are considering a deeply moving matter, but the House will appreciate that I must protect the main business of the House. I shall call other hon. Members, but remind them that they must put a question to the Minister. That question should be brief. I shall try to call as many hon. Members as I can before we return to the main business of the House.
  Mr. Tony Benn: May I join in thanking the Secretary of State—and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)—for the very sensitive and imaginative way in which he has dealt with the matter? However, are we not speaking about a little bit more than the victims of war? Are we not speaking about the victims of the law, passed by Parliament, that conscripted young men and women who did not wish to fight and told them—under the then military code—"If you do not kill under orders, we will execute you"? They were victims of Parliament and of war, although the two were interconnected in that case. May I ask him also to recognise that the real victims today—for those who were shot have gone—are the families who have the anguish of knowing that their fathers, grandfathers, uncles and great-uncles died as convicted of cowardice?
  In the light of Archbishop Tutu's institution of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to bring out the truth and allow the past to rest in peace, could not the word "pardon" be used to recognise that—for the benefit of the families—those people really were not guilty of the military offence for which they were sentenced to death? I ask the Secretary of State to consider that proposal in the light of the families who suffer, still to this day, for what happened to those who went before.
  Dr. Reid: I thank my right hon. Friend, especially for referring to me as the Secretary of State—but the reshuffle is not until next week.
  My right hon. Friend raised some very serious points. I did use the word "pardon"—I used it several times, both in my statement and subsequently—and explained that it is more than a legal formality: it also means compassion and forgiveness. I hope that that has been noted by the families themselves.
  Many of those who were executed were not conscripts but volunteers. I specifically drew attention to that fact. I specifically drew attention also to the House's role, by saying that it was appropriate that the Government are making the statement in the House that sanctioned the legislation—the Army Act 1914—under which the people were executed. I made that point because, ultimately, responsibility rests in this place. It is therefore appropriate that we should have made our expression of regret here.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I join, on behalf of my colleagues, in thanking the Minister for his clear
  1382
  statement and for underlining in his last reply the fact that many of those people were volunteers—among whom were the men of Ulster. I suggest that, in compassion, the House should reflect on the difference between calm debates in this place—where we sometimes use passion—and the battlefield. When we think of the victims of those days, perhaps we should remember that their officers also were victims, having to uphold military discipline in extreme circumstances. Does the Minister share my belief—it is also my plea—that those who have been so treated in the past will now be restored, even in books of remembrance and war memorials, so that, across the nation, no one may withhold recognition of the pardon that we are seeking to make?
  Dr. Reid: Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman speaks for a part of the United Kingdom that suffered and sacrificed on a par with any in our history. Ulstermen stood in the vanguard of the efforts of the British armed forces in the first world war—not only at the Somme but at other horrific events in that war. It is not in my power to direct or to dictate, but I do hope that their names will be added to war memorials and books of remembrance, as that will be a symbol of the lifting of the stigma of execution.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the officers—some of whom, too, were executed. The sentences of 89 per cent. of those who were sentenced to death were commuted by the higher chain of command—which should give pause for thought to those who claim that executions were merely a rubber-stamp process performed by a bloodthirsty officer corps. That is not borne out by reality. Although evidence from the files is missing, there are sufficient grounds for us to believe that great consideration was given to executions, and that—despite the need for discipline and to ensure that, for the benefit of the many, there were executions when such offences occurred—a great deal of compassion was shown throughout the chain of command.
  Mrs. Llin Golding: With one other hon. Member, I represent the House on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. As I walk up and down those rows of graves—many of 16, 17, 18, 19-year-olds—I try to imagine the horror that must have gone through their minds at what they saw. It is not surprising that many of them deserted. Perhaps many more did not do so only because they died so quickly that they did not have a chance to appreciate the situation from which they would never escape.
  I thank the Minister for his statement. On behalf of all those who now rest in Commonwealth war graves, I ask him whether he will now write to other Commonwealth countries and ask them to include the names of the comrades of those who died in that dreadful war on war memorials and war graves.
  Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend, and pay tribute to the work done by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Upkeep of those graves—particularly in France and Belgium, but elsewhere on the globe—is a tribute to the depth of feeling that we still have for all those who died in that war. She will know that no one who has walked through France and Belgium and seen the acres of white crosses around Arras, the Somme and the Ypres salient can come away without being profoundly affected by the experience.

  1383
  As for the wider implications for the Commonwealth, I assure my hon. Friend that we have kept in touch with our Commonwealth colleagues as this issue has progressed. It is not within my power to direct other sovereign nations, but the remarks I have made today and the sentiments I have expressed were for all those who served in the British and Empire forces, and I have no doubt that they will be noted by our Commonwealth colleagues. I am sure that the whole House would welcome it if they decided that a similar course of action was appropriate in their case.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I, too, welcome today's statement by the Minister. I note the dignified manner in which he presented it, and the sombre mood in which the whole House has responded.
  In thanking the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) for his tireless work on this case, may I say, also as an historian, that I do not believe that we can leave history alone? As an historian specialising in the history of the first world war, when teaching that history to youngsters who are far more accustomed to the virtual reality of Hollywood, I have discovered that the reality of man's inhumanity to man was something that they found extremely emotional. Perhaps in the process they recognised that we have to consider all our actions in society, and what they mean to all of us.
  On the question of names being added to books of remembrance and war memorials, is it anticipated that that will happen by Remembrance Sunday this year? As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I am sure that the Minister will be keen to ensure that action is taken in respect of the Scottish national war memorial at Edinburgh castle.
  Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Lady. I cannot add anything to her comments about the first world war. The matter of war memorials and books of remembrance is not within my power to dictate, but I hope that the sentiments expressed in the House today are shared by those who do have power in such matters. I was pleased to read recently, as no doubt did the hon. Lady, that those responsible for the book of remembrance in Edinburgh castle have already decided to take action. I hope that their action is adopted as a more widespread practice.
  I should add that, although we are concentrating on one aspect today, as I said in my statement and as I know the House feels, we remember and will never, ever forget the sacrifices made by those who died from the bullets or the bayonets of the enemy—those who found within themselves, in those awful conditions, the fortitude and courage to overcome fear, which afflicts all of us, and to go forward, sometimes into a hail of fire. We remember them today, as we shall on 11 November.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: In welcoming my hon. Friend's statement, and acknowledging the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, I should like also to recall the work of our former right hon. Friend and Member for Mansfield, Don Concannon. When he was first elected, he tried, desperately banging his head against the wall of the Ministry of Defence, to resurrect even the idea of re-examining these cases.
  The most important and significant thing that my hon. Friend the Minister said today came in those few sentences at the end of his statement, when he ensured
  1384
  that this would never happen again. May I say how much I welcome his statement that no longer will capital punishment be seen as a punishment within the British military code? By that decision, we shall never again make any of the sort of mistakes that may well have been made in the past.
  Dr. Reid: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the endurance over a long period of Don Concannon, who, if I remember correctly, was a former guardsman and who took a great personal as well as academic interest in these matters.
  I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the abolition of the death penalty. Lest there be any doubt, let me make it plain that that has not been imposed on the armed forces; they have been working on this matter and have given it their full consideration, and they are at one with Ministers on that point—indeed, the recommendation came from the armed forces themselves. I am pleased to have been able to make that announcement today. It is appropriate in the context of the subject that we are discussing and hon. Members' interest in it.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the Minister for his words today. This has been a moving time in the House. I thank him also for the tribute he paid to Ulstermen, especially those who fought at the battle of the Somme, after which there was hardly a home in the locality in which I work in which there were not victims. I thank him also for the way he put his remarks today; I want to assure him of that.
  There is one note I want to strike—that it will appear strange to many people in Northern Ireland that the House can find a way to let terrorists out of prison by law, through a political act, whereas we cannot have a political pardon for the cases being discussed today. Why can there not be complete coverage, so that all can say that those men will rest in peace? I was touched when the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) spoke of the awesomeness of visiting the cemeteries, and by the Minister's words, echoing those of a victim: "What will my mother say?" I think that we will do good to everyone if we find a political way completely to lift the stigma through a pardon.
  Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words. He has, for many years now, been a staunch supporter of the idea of the rule of law, and I believe that, when he thinks the matter through, he will not want me to dispense with the rule of law in coming to a political judgment. There is a clear distinction between the expression of regret and the sentiments that we have expressed today, and anything that has ever been expressed in respect of those convicted of terrorist offences. In addition, those men have not been pardoned in any way. The comparison is not a fair one; nor do I believe that it is one which the House would want to pursue, because it is not in accord with the sentiments expressed today.
  I have no difficulty in reiterating, and joining the hon. Gentleman in acknowledging, the vast sacrifices made by the men of Ulster—it was men—during the first world war. The loyalty they showed to the United Kingdom throughout that period should not and will not be forgotten. I am sure that it is at the back of our minds as we deal with contemporary developments, and that it

  1385
  occasionally comes to the forefront of our minds when we consider the role of Ulster and the north of Ireland within the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Bill Michie: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. I share the view that none of us can understand the trauma that those soldiers experienced. I learned of that at second hand from my father when I was a child. He was in uniform throughout the war, and lost many of his comrades and two of his brothers. I am sure that, if he were alive today, he would be overjoyed by the statement. Will the Minister explain what communication will take place between his Department and the families concerned?
  Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his words. The number of families that have been in correspondence with me is relatively small—only 12—and I am writing to them today enclosing a copy of the review and my statement to the House. I shall express the hope that, by extending our feelings of regret, by asking that the names be added to war memorials and books of remembrance, by recognising that those men were, like many others, the victims of a terrible war, and by announcing the abolition of the death penalty, we shave left to rest in peace the relatives about whom they feel so deeply, and lifted the stigma of execution.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: With considerable diffidence, I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Minister on his statement and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on raising the subject so forcefully over the past year or so. I use the word "diffidence", because, among hon. Members here this morning, only the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has served in the second world war. He may be the only person who understands to some extent what the soldiers we are discussing went through in the first world war.
  I thank the Minister for recognising the context in which the executions took place: 20,000 people were convicted of offences for which they could have been sentenced to death, but only a tiny proportion of them received the death penalty. I congratulate the Minister on recognising that the command structure were not the brutish, thoughtless, careless creature that so many people think it was.
  I ask the Minister to bear in mind what others at the time may have thought, rather than what we now think at this distance. I think of my grandfathers, both of whom were decorated in the first world war and returned wounded, and one of whom was a founder of the Royal
  1386
  British Legion. I think also of my parents, one of whom has just, thanks to the Under-Secretary, received her war medals, and their contemporaries in the last war.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be brief.
  Mr. Garnier: I shall be. Does not granting a pardon imply guilt of the offence for which someone is pardoned? Pardoning may therefore not be the answer that many people want. Will the legislation to remove the death penalty for military offences, to which the Minister referred, be a Government Bill and a discrete Bill dealing only with that measure, or a private Member's Bill for which the Government will give time?
  Dr. Reid: I do not want to test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked a list of questions, and I shall answer a couple of them.
  I made known my views on the chain of command. Like the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), I have spoken to several veterans. There are different views among those who served in the first world war, and I have tried to place them in context today. Without punishment of some nature for desertion, many more people might have died because of the collapse of military discipline. That certainly happened in the forces of some of our allies which did not use the death penalty.
  It would be normal to use the Armed Forces Bill to abolish the death penalty. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that comes before the House every five years. That is when that provision will be incorporated into military law. It has not been used in peace for many years. We have said today that Defence Ministers will be inviting the House to decide that. As it is an issue of life and death, there will presumably be a free vote, although I cannot prejudge that. All Defence Ministers will certainly vote to abolish the death penalty, and will invite our colleagues to do so.
  If legislation is required to sign protocol 6, which relates to the death penalty in peace or other than in war or the imminent threat of war, that will be introduced as an amendment to legislation that will introduced long before the Armed Forces Bill is introduced. That will allow us to ratify protocol 6.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  School Standards and Framework Act 1998

  Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998

  Northern Ireland Bill
  Again considered in Committee.
  Amendment proposed: No. 93, in clause 28, page 14, leave out lines 32 to 34.—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  12.3 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: When we were interrupted by the important announcement that has just been made, I was dealing with this matter as it relates to the views of many people in Northern Ireland.
  Hon. Members who do not know the constitution of the Irish Republic might like to know that there is a two-chamber system, made up of the Dail Eireann and the Senate. The Senate is a strange body, in that it is not purely elected. Many of its Members are nominated, and it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic to fill many of its seats.
  It has always been the custom and political strategy of the various Governments—especially when Fianna Fail has been in power—to put prominent people from Northern Ireland into the Senate. Some Members of Parliament, including nationalist Members of Parliament and various other prominent republicans, have been put into the Senate. The Deputy First Minister designate of Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), was nominated to the Irish Senate, but he was then elected to an Assembly in Northern Ireland and was removed from the Assembly because he had disqualified himself by accepting the nomination to the Irish Senate.
  We had a very short debate on that subject when we debated the first Assembly Bill that came before the House. In fact, shortage of time prevented the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh from explaining the position in which he found himself and the resultant expense that he was put to. He has said that he is grateful that, if a similar thing happened again, he would not have that problem. Perhaps, therefore, the Deputy First Minister designate has his eye on sitting in the Senate as well. That would not help the situation in Northern Ireland. Ministers and others must choose whether they want to sit in the Assembly or in the House of Commons as part of the United Kingdom, or whether they want to be a Member of a Parliament of another state.
  That leads me to the question, who will be eligible to stand for election to the Assembly? I notice that the Bill deals with that matter in such a way that those from the Irish Republic can stand for election to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I believe that those matters should not be in the Bill. It should be made plain to those who wish to take part in the Assembly that they should not be permitted to be Members of a Parliament of another state.
  It would also be wrong for a Minister of the Assembly to sit in the Senate of another state. The two roles are incompatible; such a thing should not happen. The House should realise that. I do not believe that the House would tolerate it if a Minister of the House were a Member of another Parliament, even of another European Union country.
  I wonder why the Bill allows such a thing to happen. I am sure that the Prime Minister—whoever it may be—in Dublin is just waiting for the opportunity to make use of
  1388
  the freedom that the Bill allows, because a Senate seat would be in the prerogative of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. The House should make it clear that people should give their loyalty to one place, not to two states.
  Mr. McNamara: This might be called the Seamus Mallon clause—and perhaps it should be in honour of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). The important thing about the agreement and the feature that helps it to gel is the recognition of the legitimacy of both traditions within Northern Ireland. On constitutional issues, the agreement says that the parties will
  "recognise the birthright of all people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland."
  One wonders why the limitation applies only to the Senate of Northern Ireland and not also to its lower House. Any Irish citizen should be free to be elected to represent any area.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McNamara: May I finish my little story, and then I shall give way?
  I am reminded of a similar situation when an Irish peer with a second subsidiary title came to Britain during the recent troubles and was stopped at the point of entry because he was holding an Irish passport. When asked what he was coming to this country to do, he replied, "To legislate for the likes of you". That may not have been the most polite reply, but it illustrates the free flow that has occurred between the various institutions and the elasticity of rules that apply everywhere in these islands except in the north of Ireland.
  An Irish citizen may be elected to this place and to the Dail Eireann—there is no problem with that. Therefore, why should we not recognise and welcome the lifting of the partial ban because it embodies the spirit of the agreement? It also recognises the fact that, in the past, Irish and British men and women from both communities have been members of the Senate of the Irish Republic. For example, I refer hon. Members to the late Senator Gordon Wilson and Senator John Robb—people do not have to come from the nationalist community to serve in the Senate. We should welcome the fact that that generosity has existed and resent the tardiness that resulted in the problems faced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh. We should welcome the clause overwhelmingly.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I welcome very much the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and I agree with every word he said. Although the entire Committee may not agree with him, I think that the vast majority of hon. Members do.
  Clause 28(5) is a good provision and I hope that the Government will not give way on this point. As my hon. Friend said, it is a very useful clause. It also suits the philosophy of what we are endeavouring to achieve: a cross-community, co-operative view that recognises that

  1389
  there is another side to the argument. It is in line also with the aims of the cross-border bodies to which I wish all health and strength.
  Any loss of sovereignty is surely a matter for the Republic of Ireland. In response to the claim that its acceptance of people who are not technically its own is some sort of political strategy, all I can say is that people in the Republic of Ireland have been greatly reassured by that policy. My hon. Friend mentioned the late Senator Gordon Wilson, who was a great encouragement to the people of the Republic of Ireland in terms of their attitudes to Protestants in the north of Ireland. The policy was a triumph in encouraging everyone—including many hon. Members—who had anything to do with Ireland, north and south, to continue their efforts for peace when they were discouraged for various reasons. The measure is good for the Senate and for the Assembly.
  We have an interesting example of the policy in action within this building. Ever since Irish independence, the House of Lords has contained a healthy number of Irish peers. There are a number of peers of Irish extraction, although of course they sit as United Kingdom peers. That is an excellent thing, and I am sure that members of the other place would agree. The old ones who remained after 1921 have all gone, but there are members of the House of Lords and those who aspire to membership of it who are resident in the Republic of Ireland now. The Earl of Mount Charles, whom some of us know, nearly ended up as Member of the Dail, when he could easily have been in the House of Lords were it not for his father's deserved longevity.
  We are dealing with the understanding between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
  12.15 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: I shall speak to amendment No. 21, which is a probing amendment. It would delete subsection (7), which deals with the grounds for disqualifying a person from becoming a Member of the Assembly. The purpose of the amendment is to restrict membership of the Assembly to citizens of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the Commonwealth.
  Given the importance of the concept of devolution to Northern Ireland, as well as to Scotland and Wales, and the need to transfer the democratic deficit to local political input, it seems strange that, under those devolution powers, we should not restrict membership of such an Assembly to people who belong to that community, thereby giving it maximum input.
  Subsection (7) qualifies the disqualification rules set out in section 3 of the Act of Settlement by inserting a condition that that would be negated if a person were a citizen of the European Union. Can the Minister tell us whether the proposed measure is unique to Northern Ireland? It does not seem to be contained in the original House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 or the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. It may have been added at a later date, subsequent to the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, following the Maastricht treaty.
  1390
  It would be helpful if the Minister gave the Committee some clarification of the matter, and also justified the notion of citizenship of the European Union in relation to the laws of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Öpik: I am concerned that amendment No. 93 would tie Northern Irish politics too closely to the Irish Parliament. It raises the status of a political position in the Republic of Ireland to rather more than just a job.
  When we look at Northern Ireland politics under the current circumstances and in the foreseeable future, we should not ascribe more than the status of a job such as engineer to the simple act of being a Member of the Senate. Although it can be assumed that a Senator has important responsibilities in the Republic of Ireland, those responsibilities do not extend to Northern Ireland. We would give unnecessary status to the position of Irish Senator if we decided that that was grounds for exclusion from membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) made some good points. It is up to Dublin to decide whether to have as Senators people who actively participate in Northern Ireland politics. It is up to us to decide whether we are happy with the individual's qualifications, but we should not go as far as deciding whether he is entitled to be a Member of the Assembly on the basis of what he does, if that is not directly related to the work of the United Kingdom Parliament or Northern Ireland politics. In that context, I think that the simplest approach is to regard eligibility to be a Member of the Dublin Parliament as unrelated to eligibility to be in the Northern Ireland Parliament. On that simple basis, I would be inclined not to agree to amendment No. 93. As for amendment No. 21, I, too, will be interested to hear the Minister's clarification of the issues that have been laid out.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): The amendments seek to remove the exemption from disqualification, first, of Members of the Irish Senate and, secondly, of citizens of other European Union states. I associate myself closely with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). He referred to the late Senator Gordon Wilson, and I remember going to the late Senator's funeral. I found it a moving experience to be there with representatives from both north and south. Those present were, I suppose, expressing their appreciation of what Senator Wilson's life had meant. They were saying that what happened at Eniskillen was totally unacceptable both north and south of the border. The invitation to him to be a Member of the Irish Senate was a powerful expression of such sentiments.
  The House of Commons has considered these matters recently. It had the opportunity to discuss the issues during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998, which included identical provisions. It would be very much in conflict with that Act if we were to accept the amendment, which we shall not.
  There have been many distinguished people from Northern Ireland who have sat in the Senate in the past. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)

  1391
  referred on several occasions to what he saw as a conflict of interest between a Minister being in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in the Senate as well. However, the amendment is not about Ministers but about disqualification from membership of the Assembly.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister saying that if someone got into the Assembly who was a Member of the Senate he would be blocked, if he became a Minister, from continuing in the Senate? Surely the way into the Government is by election to the Assembly. If that gets someone into the Assembly and he becomes a Minister, there is no blockage set out in the Bill to keep him from being a Member of the Senate.
  Mr. Worthington: I am simply addressing the amendment. The part of the clause that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to remove is one which permits someone who is a Member of the Irish Senate being also a Member of the Assembly. I was addressing the hon. Gentleman's debating point. He was referring to Ministers, rather than people wishing to be candidates for the Assembly.
  Amendment No. 21 stands in the name of the official Opposition. The part of the clause to which it relates is about its being all right for citizens of other European states to be candidates. Subsection (7) is identical to the provisions that were accepted by the House of Commons in agreeing to the passage of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998. As it happens, that is in line with the law in Scotland as well. I think that that is the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss).
  It is for the citizens of Northern Ireland to decide whether a particular citizen of another European Union state should represent them. We see no reason to exclude them. Accordingly, we would resist amendment No. 21 as well. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire asked specifically about provisions elsewhere. The provisions in the Bill are the same in this respect as those of the Scotland Bill.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The way into office in the Northern Ireland Assembly is to get elected to the Assembly. A person can get elected to the Assembly and also be a Member of the Senate of the south of Ireland. There is nothing in the Bill to say that a Minister cannot be a Member of the Senate. Let us be clear. If he is a Member of the Assembly and is not disqualified, there is nothing in the Bill to say that he cannot continue to be a Member of the Senate, if that is his position. A Minister could, under the terms of the Bill, be a Member of the Senate.
  On the subject of Dail Eireann, the person would have to be elected, and people in the south of Ireland do not look in too friendly a way on candidates from the north. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is popular in his constituency, but if he went across the border to Carlingford and stood for election to the Dail Eireann, I do not think that he would do well—even with all his great powers of oratory and influence.
  Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me, but I will be decent and give way to him in a minute, if he just holds on.
  The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) came out with the outrageous remark that Irish peers still sit in the other place. They do not sit there as Irish peers—they sit there because they possess an English peerage.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I said that.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman said that they were making a contribution to that House. That is the strangest thing—because someone originally had an Irish peerage, they can remain in that House. They are in that House because they are British peers. There are no Irish peers in the House of Lords. Talk about making bricks without straw—that is what the hon. Gentleman tried to do.
  Mention was made of Gordon Wilson. He was not reached out to in the north to come down to the south. He was a southern man—he was brought up in the south. Let us get identities right. The Committee must get its facts right.
  The Prime Minister of the south of Ireland can appoint various people to seats in the Senate. Under the Bill, he could now appoint the Deputy First Minister to a seat in the Senate. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) told us that this is probably the Mallon clause. I do not think that it should be in the Bill.
  The Minister said that we have had time to discuss the matter. I refer him to Hansard, where he will see how much time we had. The debate came to an abrupt end when a vote was called.
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful for the graciousness and charm of the hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that I did not reflect those virtues when he tried to intervene during my speech. First, the Irish peers sitting in the Lords with English titles were bribed with those English titles to get rid of the Irish Parliament in 1800 at the time of the Act of Union. That cost £24 million—a fair sum of money at the time. Secondly, I wish to make a more relevant point about people from the north being elected in the south. The President of the Republic of Ireland came from the north.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: That might well be, but the President of the Republic is not a Member of Dail Eireann. I challenge members of the SDLP to fight seats in the south and see how they get on.
  Mr. McNamara rose—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I never asked how those peers got into the House of Lords or what money they paid for their English titles. If that was the way in which they got into the other place, shame on them. The hon. Member for Leominster said that they made a great contribution. What contribution could they make if they got in by paying £300 for their title?
  12.30 pm
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Does the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) want to withdraw his amendment?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: No; we wish to shout no. [Laughter.]
  The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman wishes to shout no; I shall put the Question, then.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: We wish to shout yes to the amendment, Mr. Martin.
  The First Deputy Chairman: The Question is, That the amendment be made. As many as are of that opinion say, "Aye".
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Aye.
  The First Deputy Chairman: To the contrary, "No".
  Hon. Members: No.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I think the Noes have it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Northern Ireland Bill
    Clause 29

      EFFECT OF DISQUALIFICATION AND PROVISION FOR RELIEF
      Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 15, leave out lines 6 to 15.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 23, in clause 30, page 15, leave out lines 30 to 33.
      Mr. Moss: Amendment No. 22 is a probing amendment. It would delete subsections (2) and (3) of clause 29, which provides relief for those who may be disqualified from the Assembly. Amendment No. 23 is consequential on amendment No. 22.
      Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 outlines the circumstances in which a person is disqualified from Assembly membership. Disqualification is based solely on an individual holding particular office in, for example, the judiciary, the armed forces, the police, the civil service, quangos of one kind or another and non-departmental public bodies. Clause 29(2) gives the Assembly power to lay an order to direct that the original grounds for disqualifying a person can be waived in certain circumstances.
      Even assuming that that is an acceptable power to give to the Assembly, the Bill is not clear whether the order to offer relief would need a simple majority vote in the Assembly or whether such a decision would require cross-community support. As the Bill does not specifically mention the latter, it is not unreasonable to conclude that that does not apply. Assembly decisions on
      1394
      individual cases could therefore be determined by the majority group of designated nationalists or designated Unionists. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the position.
      Much has been made of the fact that the Bill must faithfully interpret and reflect the Belfast agreement, but there does not appear to be a corresponding section offering guidance in this context. Paragraph 25 of the strand 1 section refers to the removal of an individual from office, but not to removal from membership of the Assembly, disqualification from standing for election or even disqualification from being able to sit as a Member of the Assembly. Perhaps the Minister will offer some illumination. Will he confirm that this issue is not covered by a corresponding part of the Belfast agreement? If so, why was it deemed either necessary or expedient, and by whom, to incorporate powers of waiver for the Assembly?
      Clause 29(2) is taken almost verbatim from section 6(2) and (3) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, which received Royal Assent on 8 May 1975—simultaneously with the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. The Northern Ireland Act does not contain such a section, despite both Acts presumably passing through the House contemporaneously. Why was the difference deemed to be appropriate then, but not now? Do we really want to give the Assembly such a power, especially as it will be administered—if that is the right word—by order, through secondary legislation?
      We need the Minister to explain a number of matters.
      >Mr. Worthington: These two amendments would remove the Assembly's power, in certain circumstances, to provide relief from disqualification. They would remove some flexibility. I note that the hon. Gentleman said that they were probing amendments. They apply to the fairly exotic circumstances in which people stand for election while disqualified and that is not made known before they get elected. That is unusual, and we believe that it is necessary to give the Assembly some flexibility. The election of such a candidate would be invalidated. People get annoyed—Winchester comes to mind—if they feel that their will has been thwarted through a technicality or for even more serious reasons.
      This power allows the Assembly to set aside the disqualification. As the hon. Gentleman said, the disqualification is usually because the candidate holds a post or position that disqualifies him from being a representative in the Assembly. Candidates must put right the reason for which they were disqualified, so they would have to resign from their post. The cause of the disqualification would be removed, and the Assembly could set aside the disqualification if it so wished.
      The hon. Gentleman said that a section of the community could vote, perhaps on a sectarian basis, for someone to be disqualified. Other Members of the Assembly would be free to challenge any such move, and the petition of concern is a further safeguard. If 30 Members of the Assembly feel that decisions should be made on a cross-party basis, they can cause that to occur. I think that that deals with the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman.

      1395
      The provisions reflect those that applied to the previous Assembly in Northern Ireland; which apply to the House of Commons; and which are in the Scotland Bill. I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman's points.
      Mr. Moss: I am grateful for the Minister's response. Can a candidate who is deemed to be disqualified, for whatever reason, from taking his place in the Assembly appeal against that disqualification under existing law? Why does it require the Assembly to lay an order? That allows the Assembly to decide whether the disqualification should be waived.
      The Minister said that a similar measure applies to the House of Commons. As I said, it is contained in section 6 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Going through the House at the same time was the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, but this measure was not in that legislation. Do I understand from his final remarks that he is now saying that the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 has been amended to bring it into line with the measures applying to the House of Commons?
      Mr. Worthington: I regret that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's last point immediately. He raised the issue of an appeal against disqualification. Again, it is difficult to give an instant answer without knowing the grounds on which an appeal was being made. A person is disqualified from standing for the Assembly if he holds a particular position. That is usually a cut and dried case—either one holds a position or one does not. Obviously, there would be an appeal—to use the word loosely—within the Assembly by the Assembly Member concerned or his or her representatives when the Assembly could hear the case.
      We are talking here about the Assembly's ability to set aside the disqualification if the grounds for disqualification have already been resolved. It would be against the law for a person to continue to hold a specified post and become a Member of the Assembly. Although it would be grounds for disqualification for a person to stand for election to the Assembly while holding such a post, if he or she had given up the post, the Assembly would have the power to set aside the disqualification that had previously applied. The hon. Gentleman may wish to enlighten me later, but it is difficult to think of other grounds for an appeal. There could not be an appeal in respect of the merits of holding the post. That is simply the law of the United Kingdom Parliament.
      I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman. It seems fairly obvious that the Assembly requires some flexibility, as the consequences of setting aside the results of an election on what may be a technicality or a post-holding issue that has been resolved by resignation are too serious to leave the Assembly without the power to set aside that disqualification.
      Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the Minister. When I spoke about an appeal, I was asking about an appeal by a person who has been disqualified in clause 29(2)(a) who feels
      "that the grounds of disqualification or alleged disqualification which subsisted or arose at the material time have been removed".
      I wondered whether that would be possible without necessarily giving the Assembly the power to do that by order.
      1396
      The Minister said that he would write to me or speak to me at a later date, but I am still puzzled why, if the provision is already incorporated in Northern Ireland statute, I could not find it in the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975. It may have been added later, in which case it has simply been brought across and presumably will fall from the earlier legislation. I am quite happy to accept the Minister's statement that it already applies to Northern Ireland and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 30 and 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 32

      COMMISSION
      Mr. McGrady: I beg to move amendment No. 187, in clause 32, page 16, line 37, at end insert—
      'Such directions shall not be given without cross—community support.'.
      Clause 32 deals with the Commission, which is akin to the shadow business committee that currently exists to deal with the day-to-day requirements of the shadow Assembly. Subsections (1) to (4) have been substantively dealt with by the creation of the shadow committee, of which the Commission will be the successor. The committee was created under the requirement of cross-community support, and my amendment to subsection (5) would mean that special directions or requirements given by the Assembly to the Commission in connection with its functions would also require cross-community support. It may be argued that the amendment should apply to all of clause 32. If so, I should be happy to hear the Minister accept it in those terms.
      12.45 pm
      Mr. Temple-Morris: I support the amendment. The Assembly will give directions to the Commission, which will be the body on high for the whole operation. Most of clause 32 has to do with membership of the Commission, which is covered by other parts of the Bill. Subsection (5) is distinct in providing that
      "The Assembly may give special or general directions to the Commission for the purpose of or in connection with the exercise of the Commission's functions."
      That goes very wide, and the Commission's role may be altered by it. There is a clear case for adding the safeguard suggested by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), which is provided in the rest of the Bill.
      Mr. Öpik: Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman judges the amendment to be a safety measure?
      Mr. Temple-Morris: It is, and that is the spirit in which the hon. Member for South Down moved it.
      Mr. Worthington: The amendment deals with the Commission that will provide the property, staff and services of the Assembly. Clause 32(5) empowers the Assembly to give special or general directions to the Commission in relation to its functions. I appreciate the spirit of the amendment supported by the hon.

      1397
      Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). The Commission will be the servant of the Assembly, and should carry out its functions dispassionately.
      However, the Bill already contains safeguards. A motion to give directions to the Commission could, for example, be subject to the petition of concern procedure, which would require a cross-community vote. Equally, the Assembly Standing Orders could ensure that there was cross-community support: we assume that the Standing Orders under clause 32(2) on the appointment of members of the Commission itself ensure that members are representative of the Assembly as a whole.
      There could be ambiguity about the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster referred to the mystical ways in which this place is run. I have never troubled myself with that, but one sees that it runs in a fair way. No doubt, directions are given all the time; one would not want to come to the House so that they could be given all-party support. It is necessary to delegate at times, but I believe that the safeguard is there in the petition of concern. The safeguard will be there in the terms of the membership of the commission.
      Mr. McGrady: I hear what the Under-Secretary says regarding the various safeguards applying to many aspects of the running of the Assembly and the business committee, or, as it is called in the Bill, the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission, but clause 32(5) gives the Assembly statutory authority to give any
      "special or general directions to the Commission"
      without cross-community support. As a layman, that is my interpretation of what clause 32(5) does. I urge him to give this matter further consideration, if necessary. The normal mechanisms that he has described, which apply to other aspects of the clause and other aspects of the management of the Assembly per se, have the same criteria for support—that is, cross-community support—that we had anticipated.
      Mr. Worthington: If the Assembly looks like it is going to give, in a biased, partial way, special or general directions, that would, I assume from the Bill, have to come to the floor of the Assembly. It will then be open for people who object to the way in which the Commission is developing to have a petition of concern, and for 30 Members to say, "This should be on a cross-community basis." Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman seeks is there for the safeguarding of his Members or other Members.
      I fear that if one said that everything that the Commission had to do in managing matters had to be on a cross-community basis, there would be an element of paralysis about it, but, if, at any time, Members were concerned about the way in which the Commission was developing, there are safeguards in the Standing Orders, in the membership of the Commission and through the petition of concern mechanism, to ensure that things are done through cross-community support.
      We are listening to the whole debate. If there are any grounds for us to think that the safeguards in the Bill are inadequate—at the moment, I think that they are adequate—we shall contact the hon. Gentleman, or, if he
      1398
      wants to flesh out what he is saying about his concerns, we shall look at the matter again. However, at the moment, I feel that what he wants is within the framework of the Bill and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. McGrady: In view of the Under-Secretary's last remarks and his very generous offer of reconsideration and, indeed, communication on the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 6 agreed to.
      Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 7 agreed to.
      Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 35

      MEMBERS' INTERESTS
      Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 17, leave out lines 32 to 36.
      Clause 35 deals with Members' interests. The amendment would delete subsection (3), which deals with the power of the Assembly to establish Standing Orders that may prevent or restrict the participation of a Member with a registerable interest in a matter to which the Assembly's proceedings relate.
      Will the Minister enlighten the Committee on to where the proposal in subsection (3) emanates from? It has certainly been incorporated in the Scotland Bill, which recently proceeded through the House, but I could not find an earlier reference in relation to Standing Orders for this Parliament.
      The rules of this House have certainly been tightened in the year or so since the Nolan report, but, so I am led to understand by the Clerks of the House, we have nothing that goes so far as to prevent a Member from participating in our proceedings, save that a Member is not allowed to act as an advocate for a person or body for which he or she has a registerable interest.
      Subsection (3) gives the Assembly wide-ranging powers to impose severe and possibly unacceptable conditions on its Members that could inhibit debate. Significant contributions can often be made by Members with expertise and a particular interest, registerable or otherwise, in a particular subject. So long as that interest is registered and declared at the appropriate time in the Assembly's proceedings, there is nothing to be lost, and much to be gained, by exercising tolerance and reasonableness.
      Given the various other constraints placed on the operation of the Assembly, essentially through the separation of excepted and reserved matters from transferred matters, why should the Assembly be given powers that would work against the interests of openness and democracy in its proceedings? The amendment would remove the particular power from the Assembly to make such Standing Orders. In our submission, it would leave, in the remaining subsections of clause 35, considerable opportunities for the Assembly to make Standing Orders to regulate the participation of Members with a registerable interest. For example, subsection (4) deals

      1399
      adequately with advocacy and the payment for initiating a cause in the Assembly, which are quite rightly to be prohibited.
      Subsection (3) is superfluous to requirements. It is not to be found in the agreement. The amendment would help the proper and effective working of the Assembly by not placing unreasonable restrictions on the free speech afforded to its Members. That is a sentiment which I hope the Minister and the Government will find persuasive.
      Mr. Öpik: I support the amendment, as the provision not only seems over-cautious but runs the risk of being manipulated in rather dubious ways.
      I might be oversimplifying matters a little, but if one considers the operation of this Chamber, the fact is that, so long as an hon. Member declares an interest, he can participate meaningfully in a debate. Surely someone who declares an interest is more likely to want to participate in relevant debates, not always—or not usually—with evil intent. Moreover, if someone has declared an interest, is not he or she more likely to give an informed opinion and to know something about that issue?
      I should much prefer to have a debate with people who have openly declared an interest and said why they wish to participate in a debate than with those who—although they may perhaps be able to be entirely dispassionate about it—may not have the matter at heart. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the Minister's reassurances about why clause 34(3) has been included in the Bill.
      1 pm
      Mr. Worthington: We think that amendment No. 24 is a strange amendment, as it would remove the Assembly's power to provide in its Standing Orders for
      "preventing or restricting the participation in proceedings of…a member with a registerable interest…in a matter to which the proceedings relate."
      The subsection is not telling the Assembly; it is giving it the power to include such a provision in its standing orders if it wishes to do so.
      Clause 35(3) has to be read in conjunction with 35(2), which requires people to make a declaration of interest. That requirement is clear cut. However, clause 35(3) provides that the Assembly may—not "shall", which is always a point of confusion in legislation—take the power to decide that it is not sufficient for a Member simply to declare an interest, but that, in some particular instances, there should be extra powers to restrict a Member's participation.
      There is nothing unusual about such a provision. As someone who moved from UK local government to UK central Government, I thought that it was very strange that all that was necessary to carry on speaking in this place was to declare an interest, whereas in local government one would not be allowed to speak in a debate or to be part of a committee that was considering a matter in which one had a declared interest. One would not be allowed even to be in the room when a decision was made on the matter.
      We think that, in the majority of cases, it will be sufficient simply to require Members to declare an interest. However, in other cases, it may be appropriate for a Member to be prevented from voting on a matter in which he or she has a close interest. Although I do not
      1400
      want to deal with too many speculative issues, one might wish, for example, to give to the Assembly the power to introduce Standing Orders that, in some circumstances, would prevent a Member voting on an issue in which he or she has a significant financial interest—just as happens in local government.
      Mr. David Winnick: As my hon. Friend said, is not "may" the operative word and the essential point? In most cases, a financial interest will be registered if there is one, and there will be no prohibition on a person speaking. However, if an interest, for example a contract, is so blatant or commercial, such a safeguard is reasonable and wise—especially in the post-Nolan world, and bearing in mind my hon. Friend's comments on local government—but is likely to be used only very rarely.
      Mr. Worthington: I am grateful for that intervention, which very much made the point that I wanted to make. We are saying not that such a provision has to be made, but that it will be for the judgment of the Assembly to decide the matter in formulating its Standing Orders. It can include the provision in its Standing Orders if it so wishes. We believe that it must be right to enable the Assembly to restrict or prevent in certain circumstances the participation of Members from proceedings in which they may have an interest. We think that that will add very considerably to the Assembly's credibility and openness.
      Mr. William Ross: May I draw the Minister's attention to the largest industry in Northern Ireland, agriculture? A number of Members of the Assembly have agricultural interests, which are naturally financial interests. If they—the representatives of that section of the Northern Ireland community—were prevented from participating, the result might be extremely skewed decisions, because those decisions would have been taken by people who did not have a financial interest. It is for that reason that I tend to agree with the amendment rather than with the Minister.
      Mr. Worthington: My point is that we should give the Assembly the power to exercise its own good sense in respect of its Standing Orders relating to what is an interest, the level of interest that should be declared and what action is to be taken. I have no problem whatsoever with the proposition that those involved in agriculture should defend the interests of agriculture; their expertise is perfectly acceptable and should be used by the Assembly. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it would be quite inappropriate for someone who would personally benefit financially from a decision of the Assembly—someone whose farm would benefit specifically—to be required only to declare an interest. The Assembly might regard that as an inadequate disqualification of a person from participation in making decisions on that matter.
      The matter is for the Assembly to decide in its Standing Orders relating to the declaration of interests and the role to be played by special interests within the Assembly. We should give the Assembly the power to draw up Standing Orders that enhance the standing of the Assembly in the

      1401
      eyes of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why we are giving the Assembly that power, which is a sensible power.
      Mr. Moss: The Minister still has not answered the question that I put to him. Where does the clause come from? He has not told the Committee whether it appears in legislation pertaining to the proceedings of the House. He referred to local authority standing orders, so the provision might well have been lifted from local government legislation.
      Notwithstanding the support that we would give to proper constraints relating to Members' interests in the operation of the Assembly, as I have said, we believe that there are adequate safeguards in clause 35. I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) that there should be proper safeguards. The clause uses the word "may", but we would conclude that there are sufficient safeguards already in clause 35. For example, subsection (4) states:
      "Standing orders shall"
      —not may—
      "include provision prohibiting a member of the Assembly from…advocating or initiating any cause or matter on behalf of any person",
      or, indeed, on behalf of his or herself, no doubt,
      "by any means specified in standing orders, in consideration of any payment or benefit in kind".
      I should have thought that that was a catch-all provision and that subsection (3) was therefore pretty irrelevant.
      Mr. Worthington: On the question of where the provision comes from, the situation has been evolving since Nolan, so I cannot say that it is a straight copy from any specific legislation relating to the House. We are making proposals that seem appropriate to the new post-Nolan position. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the matter is not covered in the agreement, but we could not, in those miraculous few days, expect the agreement to cover all such issues.
      However, I am sure that it is obvious to everyone that there should be a provision in the Northern Ireland Bill that sets up the Assembly covering the matter of Members' interests. We have simply put forward the proposition that, in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, there should be a discretionary power for the Standing Orders of the Assembly to allow a ruling to be made as to whether, in some circumstances, the body needs to go beyond what exists in other respects. I am told that the provisions in the Scotland Bill are the same, almost word for word, and give flexibility to the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Winnick: I do not want to be controversial at this time of the afternoon. I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend agrees with me, but it would not be a bad idea if we introduced the same Standing Orders in the House of Commons.
      Mr. Worthington: It is interesting to hear what is in my hon. Friend's mind at this time on a Friday afternoon.
      The provision is sensible and it will be up to the good sense of the Assembly to decide how to use it, if it wishes to do so.
      Mr. Moss: Obviously, there must be adequate safeguards in the Assembly to deal with Members'
      1402
      interests. No one is suggesting that that should not be the case, but this may be a safeguard too far. We are in danger of over-legislating, and there are plenty of other adequate provisions in clause 35 to deal with Members with registrable interests.
      It is interesting to hear the Minister admit that it is all right to add to the agreement, but not to detract from it. The Bill makes many additions to the agreement, which was presumably cast in tablets of stone on Mount Sinai.
      As this point may be revisited in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 36 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 45

      PAYMENTS INTO THE FUND: TAXES
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Paul Murphy: I have received representations about clause 45, including representations from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), that there needs to be consistency between Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on these matters. Although I recommend that the Committee supports the clause, we may return to this matter on Report.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 46

      PAYMENTS INTO THE FUND: SECRETARY OF STATE
      Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in clause 46, page 23, line 20, at end add—
      '( ) Subject to subsection ( ) below, the Secretary of State shall make such a payment at least once every financial year.
      ( ) No such payment shall be made unless the Secretary of State has laid before the House of Commons a statement certifying that the payment recognises the needs of Northern Ireland in relation to the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole.'.
      I welcome the Minister of State's remarks about clause 45. Clauses 45 and 46 are as important as many others in the Bill. Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom to have its own Consolidated Fund, although clause 61 of the Scotland Bill will set up such a fund for Scotland. The Province has always been subject to the same taxes as the rest of the country, which are collected by UK Departments. Its share of those taxes and any other revenue collected in Northern Ireland is paid into its Consolidated Fund. Parliament then adds a further amount—the so-called subvention—to that fund each year. That consists, first, of an automatic increase, calculated under the Barnett formula and, secondly, of an additional payment negotiated in each year's spending round.
      Under the Barnett formula, any change in spending in Great Britain is also applied to Northern Ireland, but scaled down to reflect the Province's smaller population. That means that if spending on relevant Great Britain

      1403
      programmes is raised or cut by £100 million, funding for Northern Ireland increases or decreases by about £2.91 million.
      That figure is now adjusted annually to take account of population changes. I believe that the figure for last year was £2.87 million. The Minister, who is responsible for finance, will no doubt confirm that. The Barnett formula determines only the annual change in funding for Northern Ireland, not the baseline figure. Moreover, as the change is based on levels of expenditure in Great Britain, it does not even work to maintain higher per capita spending in the Province. Indeed, if an increasing amount of the Province's funding is based on the lower level of spending in Great Britain, the gap narrows.
      1.15 pm
      That has not happened in practice because, for some time, every Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has always secured an additional payment for the Province. However, it may be more difficult for Secretaries of State to do so after devolution, because the Bill says only that
      "The Secretary of State may from time to time make payments into the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland out of money provided by Parliament."
      Amendment No. 26 would add the following:
      "Subject to subsection ( ) below, the Secretary of State shall make such a payment at least once every financial year."
      The Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill say "shall"—not "may", the word used in the Bill before us. The second part of our amendment reads:
      "No such payment shall be made unless the Secretary of State has laid before the House of Commons a statement certifying that the payment recognises the needs of Northern Ireland in relation to the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole."
      In short, we believe that the amendment guarantees that the Province will continue to get the funding that it needs, based on an accurate assessment of those needs in relation to spending in the United Kingdom as a whole.
      No Minister in Northern Ireland, and I expect no Ministers of the Assembly, as and when it starts to do its work, would want a situation to arise where the Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland are left waiting for the crumbs from the Treasury table, unable to question whether the money paid into that Consolidated Fund, plus any extra moneys, is related specifically to the unique needs of Northern Ireland, which have been recognised by every Government and Secretary of State since direct rule.
      Mr. Paul Murphy: The amendment suggests that money to supplement the Consolidated Fund in Northern Ireland may be given without proper consideration to the balance of public expenditure throughout the United Kingdom. That is not the case; it is given on the same basis as money in any other part of the country. It is unusual only in being identified in statute. In Scotland, by comparison, there is no division into attributable and non-attributable payments. The Northern Ireland subvention is properly authorised annually by Parliament in the United Kingdom, in a process which, of course, takes account of the financial requirements of all parts of the United Kingdom.
      The changes proposed are unnecessary. The existing funding mechanism enables the comparison to be made—which the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) mentioned—between the needs of Northern
      1404
      Ireland and those of the United Kingdom as a whole. I believe that it reflects population and needs, as in the case of the other regions and countries of the UK, and I do not believe that we should single out Northern Ireland in the way that the amendment proposes.
      As I said earlier, there is force in the argument that the arrangements in clause 45 for attributing a share of taxation to Northern Ireland are wrong. That is why I spoke briefly a moment ago. It is only right that we should be concerned about the way in which Northern Ireland is funded—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that—and that the needs of the entire United Kingdom are taken into account. I think that the allocation is fair; it has been with us a long time and the arrangements will be similar under devolution. The measure has operated for many years, including when the hon. Gentleman was a Northern Ireland Minister. I do not think that it would be right to go further than that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Moss: I thank the Minister for that response. However, two questions remain unanswered. First, why does the clause say that the Secretary of State "may" when the word "shall" is used in the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill? Can the Minister explain why Northern Ireland is different? We should certainly firm up the wording to incorporate the word "shall" instead of the word "may". That would give a little more comfort to future Members of the Assembly and to Ministers who will take over in Northern Ireland.
      I am reassured by the Minister's comments that he believes that the future distribution of moneys to Northern Ireland will be fair and will take account of Northern Ireland's unique needs. Nowhere else in the United Kingdom has the pressure of law and order and terrorism on its budget. I hope that that is a thing of the past, but nothing on the horizon suggests that expenditure in that area will diminish in the short term.
      Perhaps the issue will be revisited in another place, but I think that we should give Assembly Members and the ministerial team further assurances that Northern Ireland's unique needs will not be left to the whim of a Secretary of State but be set down in statute. That would give them the firm reassurance that I am sure that they seek. On the basis of the Minister's response, I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Murphy: I realise that the hon. Gentleman intends to withdraw the amendment, but he may be interested in my response to his two questions. First, he referred to the use of the word "may" in the clause. That matter will be considered as a consequence of our re-examination of clause 45. As he knows, the issues to which he referred are transferred matters and do not include the law and order budget. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 47 to 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 50

      FINANCIAL ACTS OF THE ASSEMBLY
      Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 28, page 24, line 38, at end insert 'or'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 29, in page 24, line 39, leave out from 'Crown' to end of line 40 and insert—
      '(2A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act and any Order in Council made under the provisions of this Act, the Assembly shall neither impose nor vary taxes.'
      No. 30, in page 24, line 43, leave out from 'appropriated' to end of line 1 on page 25.
      Mr. Moss: Clause 50 deals with the Assembly's financial powers. Tax-raising powers in general are defined as excepted matters and are to be found in paragraph 9 of schedule 2 to the Bill. They include taxes levied across the entire United Kingdom and any existing taxes in Northern Ireland. The list includes inheritance tax, stamp duty, general betting duty, pool betting duty, duty on gaming machine licences and duty on vehicle licences. From a reading of clause 50(1), which states:
      "in pursuance of a recommendation which…is made by the Minister of Finance and Personnel; and…is signified to the Assembly by him or on his behalf',
      it would seem that the Assembly could pass a vote
      "which imposes or increases a tax".
      That is in subsection (2)(d). In addition, under subsection (3), powers are given to the Assembly to impose or increase a tax, as long as there is cross-community support. It is not clear from the Bill, however, which tax or taxes that applies to—presumably, any taxes outside the list that I enumerated.
      Those tax-raising powers seem to be new powers given to the Assembly, but the Minister may correct me. I found identical provisions in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, in terms of the definition of taxes under excepted matters. Where do tax-raising powers appear in the Belfast agreement? I could not find them. No doubt, this is one of the necessary additions to that agreement about which we spoke earlier.
      Our amendments would remove the powers of the Assembly to raise taxes. Even if the power remains on the statute, it is vital that the taxes referred to in the Bill are clearly and unequivocally defined.
      Mr. Öpik: The issue arose in regard to Wales. One of our biggest objections to the plans for the Welsh Assembly was it would not have tax-varying powers. I should be delighted if the Northern Ireland Assembly were given tax-varying powers, not least because, if there were cross-community support for varying a tax, that would imply that there was good reason to do so, but most of all because the most powerful indication of an
      1406
      autonomous decision-making Assembly is its ability to vary tax. That is one of the best aspects of the Scottish proposals, and one of the deficiencies in the Welsh ones.
      I look forward to the Minister's comments. I cannot support the Conservative amendment on this occasion.
      Mr. Paul Murphy: I have much sympathy with the point raised by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) about the misleading nature of the clause. I understand that, for various technical and legal reasons, it would be difficult to amend the clause. However, it must be read in conjunction with schedule 2, which makes it clear that the clause does not refer to general tax-raising powers, about which the hon. Gentleman was troubled.
      The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) spoke about tax-varying powers. Those were not part of the agreement and were not finalised. I have subsequently consulted parties in Northern Ireland, who are generally of the view that there should not be such powers.
      The clause refers to the regional rate in Northern Ireland, which was set up by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and which is used to discharge many functions in Northern Ireland that are normally discharged by local authorities in England and Wales. The Assembly will retain the right to raise the regional rate, but there are no plans in the Bill for a general tax-levying, tax-raising or tax-varying power. Consequently, I ask the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Moss: Perhaps the Minister and his civil service draftsmen will look again at the wording of the Bill. It might be helpful to define the tax as the general rate. That would overcome the problem quite easily. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 51 to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr. Dowd.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday next.

    ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
    That this House, at its rising on Friday 31st July, do adjourn till Monday 19th October.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Question agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Friday 31st July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Dowd.]

  Night Flights (Windsor)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  1.29 pm
  Mr. Michael Trend: The House will know from earlier debates my concern that Heathrow, while being a great asset to the country as a whole and to the south-east in particular, should be a good and responsible neighbour to those communities that surround it. Both west London and east Berkshire suffer greatly from the airport's environmental pollution, especially in terms of noise. The Government are consulting on the matter, and that exercise will take a significant move forward while the House is in recess.
  I am very grateful to be able to raise my concerns before the House rises, and before one proposal in particular develops momentum and we are told that we had left it too late to object. The particular proposal is that there might be a change in runway preferential use at night. I shall return to that later.
  My speech may seem complex, but it is necessarily so. It is not an emotional public relations exercise, but an attempt to convince the Minister and the House that we in Windsor face increased hazards to our health and well-being. First, however, I need to make a series of general but connected points.
  The Minister for Transport in London will know that I have long advocated a total ban on night flights at Heathrow, and that remains my position. My constituents—indeed, all those who live around the airport—are entitled to a good night's sleep untroubled by the planes thundering in overhead. Other countries and other airports simply do not allow their people to be subjected to such abuse. It is a matter of priorities, and mine is the people in my constituency. The Government' s priority should be the people who live all round the area, and not the carriers and the minuscule number of passengers who land at night.
  This afternoon, I want to address what can and should be done in the period, which I hope will be brief, before the Government become persuaded of a total ban on night flights. First, the Government need to be absolutely clear that the main problem nowadays with Heathrow, for the great majority of those troubled by aircraft noise, comes from landings, not from take-offs. This in some measure reflects past successes in curbing take-off noise, and that should be recognised. However, I still find people, even those who are closely associated with the airport, who do not realise that the debate has moved on. Nowadays, landings are the big problem, especially for Windsor and the surrounding area.
  Secondly, there is much misunderstanding about the effects of the process of runway alternation at Heathrow. That is also important from Windsor's point of view. I know that the Minister understands how these things work very well, but, for the benefit of those who may not, I should explain that, at any given moment, planes take off and land in the same direction. The direction of plane movement is determined by the direction of the wind. Planes both take off and land into the wind.
  Heathrow has two main runways, so when planes are taking off to the west on, say, the southern runway, they land to the west on the northern runway. At regular
  1408
  intervals, while the movement of planes remains to the west, landings switch from one runway to the other, so that planes take off on the northern runway and land on the southern. This affords the residents of west London relief from the noise of landing aircraft. I am pleased for them that they get this relief.
  However, the same is not true when the movement of flights is towards the east. That is because of the so-called "Cranford agreement," which means that planes cannot take off on the northern runway towards the east—over Cranford.
  When I last brought this matter to the attention of the House, I was able to demonstrate that there is in fact no such agreement. The Minister at the time was Steven Norris, and he had notice that I was going to raise the matter. His officials no doubt searched the former Department of Transport from the attic to the basement, and no agreement was found. The Minister told the House that there was no such agreement.
  Before the debate, I alerted the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen)—who represents Cranford—that I would mention the matter again today. Now is not the time to go into it in great detail, but I hope to return to the arrangement—which I take to be a political fix from the past—at some later time.
  The so-called Cranford agreement means that, as planes cannot take off on the northern runway towards the east, they have to use the southern runway all the time. That in turn means that all planes landing from the west have to land on the northern runway, the approach to which lines up precisely over Windsor. When aircraft movement is to the east, the planes come in low and noisy over Windsor, Datchett, Horton and other communities in my constituency and others.
  Once we have understood that, we can dispel the misunderstanding that east Berkshire somehow has it easy because fewer planes land from the west than land from over London. Roughly 30 per cent. of daytime arrivals come in over Windsor, with 70 per cent. landing over west London. However, because there is no runway alternation, when the planes are landing to the east, the whole 30 per cent. of the landings take place over Windsor. When the wind changes direction and the plans land from over London, no one area is affected for the full 70 per cent. of the time.
  Due to alternation, two communities in west London are affected roughly 35 per cent. of the time each. The difference between landing from the east and west is not really 70:30 per cent. If one thinks of the three communities involved—two on one side of the airport and on one the other—the difference is really 35:35:30 per cent. Far from being the lucky partner, Windsor's position is closely comparable to that of the two areas in west London also affected by landing noise.
  I come to my third point. I have told the House before that Windsor has done badly from the modern electronic landing system at Heathrow, which now brings in planes with monotonous precision right over our heads—although I recognise that there is a safety gain. I also recognise that, in general, marginal improvements are made year on year in reducing aircraft noise. Those of us who follow these matters closely are grateful for that—even for minor incremental improvements. However, such benefits as may have come to Windsor in the past 10 years have been more than offset by the modern inflexible landing system which I have described.

  1409
  The fourth point is that we in east Berkshire know without looking out of the window or at a weather vane when we are in for it—by that, I mean when the plans will come crashing in over our heads. In summer and winter, the same weather system that, happily, drives us out of doors infuriatingly drives the planes right over our heads. The west winds bring clouds and rain, but when the wind is in the east, the weather is usually fine and clear. On hot summer evenings—when people like to sit in their gardens or sleep with their windows wide open—and on those marvellous, clear, crisp winter days when people wish to get out of their houses and enjoy a respite from the winter gloom, we in east Berkshire get the full landing treatment, thanks to Heathrow.
  I hope that I have shown that the problems created by aircraft landing over east Berkshire are severe, and deserve to be better understood and recognised. That brings me to the pressing matter of runway preferential use at night. As part of their consultation exercise, the Government put forward the idea that current runway preferential use could be reconsidered. British Airways recently put out a press release, stating that there
  "should be a review of runway preferential use at night"
  and that that
  "should test the benefits and feasibility of a switch to 'easterly preference'."
  I find such a proposal completely unacceptable.
  I hope that the Government will not be influenced by BA, or by others, to consider a change in preferences. Windsor is not the lucky partner in daytime landing—it experiences roughly the same misery from landing noise as any other community. That has become worse due to the modern technology used for landings, and it is always bad when the weather is at its best.
  Windsor's position would become substantially worse if night preferences were changed. The percentages of flights landing from the east and west at night differ from the daytime figures, largely because of a natural difference in ambient wind levels. Recent figures from the Department show that, between 4 am and 6 am, there is a five-knot westerly preference, which means that the split is roughly 85 per cent. of flights landing over London and 15 per cent. over Windsor. Thankfully, that is better than the daytime figures.
  The Government, however, are considering options on having no preference or a five-knot easterly preference for those hours. If the no-preference option came in, my constituents would be subjected to an increase from 15 to 40 per cent. of all night flights. With a five-knot easterly preference, the current 15 per cent. would increase to 80 per cent. or more.
  We are told that only 16 flights are permitted to land between 4 am and 6 am, but I fear that the figure is often higher. The Minister will understand that I am using a rough and ready calculus, but, accepting the figure of 15 per cent. for the moment, under the present arrangement, two and a half planes-worth would land over Windsor in those two hours, when we should all be asleep. That would go up to six and a half planes-worth if there was no preference, or to 13 planes a night under the easterly preference. The Minister should think about what that would mean for my constituents.
  1410
  I cannot vouch for the figures being absolutely precise, but hon. Members should imagine what it would be like if my constituents were woken roughly half a dozen or a dozen times a night instead of twice. It would be monstrous. The present position does not suit anyone around Heathrow, but there is a rough balance of misery between west London and east Berkshire.
  Kate Hoey: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that night flights do not affect only the people in his area, but are a huge issue in other parts of London, especially south and south-west London, where large public meetings have been held about this problem? Unless there is real danger, flights should not be allowed to land during the night.
  Mr. Trend: I agree entirely—I favour a total ban on night flights. There is a balance of misery between people on my side and the hon. Lady's side of the airport, and both constituencies experience noise problems because we are so close to it, but it would be dangerous and difficult for my constituents if the balance were upset. A switch in night flight preferences would throw the balance out most appallingly; even a rise to 40 per cent. of night flights would bring uproar from the people of Windsor, and I would happily lead them.
  Many other communities on our side of the airport would also be affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has asked me to associate her with the views that I am expressing. I know how concerned she is for the interests of her constituents who are affected by aircraft noise. I have also been asked to register the great concern of the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and willingly do so. She has told me that any change in night landing preferences would be utterly unacceptable.
  I spent some time in the Department, at a more modest level than the Minister, as a parliamentary private secretary at the old Department of Transport. One lesson I learned was that the Government get no credit for improving noise conditions, whether in the air or on the roads. But when noise gets worse, the Government get it in the neck. If the noise gets substantially worse in east Berkshire as a result of any change in preferences, the Minister will have a serious problem on her hands.
  The balance of misery is a delicate one. There is nothing to be gained from destroying it, but much to lose. I accept that the airport works hard to improve conditions generally around Heathrow, and the Government can claim that there has been progressive improvement without creating such a dramatic disturbance as would follow a change in night preferences.
  The MPs of east Berkshire do not want a change in preference. Our constituents would not tolerate it. Neither do we want to have the no-preference option and then be told that we were lucky not to have had easterly preferences imposed on us. The present position is bad enough, and I implore the Minister not to make it worse. To change night preferences would be unreasonable and unjust.
  1.45 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) on securing the debate, and on the persistence

  1411
  and dedication that he has brought to this topic over the many years that he has given such doughty service to the House and to his constituents. I thank him for his generosity in allowing an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and for assuring the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) share his concerns, not least on the issue of runway preferential use and its alteration.
  The issue is noise disturbance suffered not only by the constituents of the hon. Member for Windsor, but by the many thousands, possibly millions, of people who live in and around London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said.
  As the House will be aware, a preliminary consultation paper on night restrictions on aircraft movements at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted was issued on 27 February. That consultation invited views on all aspects of the present regime, and closed on 29 May. We are now considering all the responses, and will take them into account in drawing up proposals for the next night restrictions regime. We hope to publish those proposals by the end of September. There will be a further consultation before the decisions on the next night restrictions regime for the three airports are taken.
  The present night restrictions regime for those airports was established with effect from 24 October 1993. It proved to be contentious, and was subject to lengthy judicial review proceedings. Litigation in the United Kingdom courts came to an end in 1996, but a case is now before the European Court of Human Rights. I am sure that the House will accept that it would be improper for me to comment on that.
  The present night restrictions specify a night period of 11 pm to 7 am during which the noisiest types of aircraft may not be scheduled to land or take off. In addition, from 11.30 pm to 6 am—the night quota period—aircraft movements are restricted by a movements limit and a noise quota, which are both set for a season. The noise quota is a supplementary measure designed to encourage the use of quieter aircraft. Aircraft count against the noise quota according to their noise "quota count" classification.
  The quota count system is based on aircraft noise certification data. Aircraft are classified separately for landing and taking off by reference to data that are collected according to internationally agreed conditions and standards. The movements limits and noise quotas are set for the season as a whole; they are not subdivided across the hours of the night or between types of services, and airlines may operate services as they wish within the limits and quota available.
  There are two seasons: the summer season—which equates to the period of British summer time as fixed by the Summer Time Act 1972—and the winter season, which is the rest of the year. Each summer season is about seven months long, and each winter season approximately five months. At Heathrow, last winter there were 2,446 movements which counted against the night movements limit of 2,550. In noise quota terms, they amounted to 3,858.5—a somewhat bizarre statistic—against the noise quota of 5,000.
  In the 1997 summer season, there were 2,755 movements which counted against the movements limit of 3,250, amounting to 4,274.5 against the noise quota of
  1412
  7,000. There were also some movements by aircraft that are exempt from the restrictions, because they are so small and quiet, some given dispensations in circumstances permitted under the present arrangements, and some emergencies, which are automatically exempted from the night restrictions.
  Of more immediate relevance to the hon. Gentleman is the trial of runway alternation at night for landing aircraft that has been carried out by Heathrow Airport Ltd. at the request of the airport consultative committee. The results were presented to the consultative committee in April, but no formal recommendation has yet been made to the Department. The approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions would be required before runway alternation at night could be extended into the night period on a permanent basis, and may require additional consultation by the Department. We intend to take the subject forward in our second stage consultation paper on night restrictions.
  As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, a westerly preference has been operated at Heathrow since 1962, with aircraft operating towards the west when there is a light easterly tailwind. The purpose is to reduce noise disturbance from departing aircraft taking off over the more densely populated areas to the east of the airport. It also means that landings over Windsor are reduced.
  In 1996, work commissioned by the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee confirmed that, during the day, there remains an overall environmental benefit from continued use of a westerly preference. However, at night, because almost all flights at Heathrow are arrivals in the early morning, the requirement to operate a westerly preference means that those aircraft are being routed over the more densely populated area of London than is strictly necessary, and it is right that it should be reviewed.
  Mr. John McDonnell: My hon. Friend will be aware that, as Heathrow is in my constituency, the proximity of many of my constituents to Heathrow airport means that alternation is irrelevant. During the period of disturbance between 4 and 6 am every night, the noise is of such intensity that their sleep is disturbed and their entire environment is ruined. That is why I support the call by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) for a total night ban, which is the only way to resolve the matter, as has been demonstrated in the report published this week by HACAN—the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise.
  Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend has highlighted a point that was made earlier by the hon. Member for Windsor and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall—that noise disturbance from aircraft is not limited to those who live particularly near the three airports in question, albeit I acknowledge that my hon. Friend's constituency is very close to Heathrow. The issue of bans was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall. There has never been a ban on night flights, although it has been discussed in the past.
  Initial analysis of the 4 am to 6 am period by my Department, and recently reported to the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee, shows that, with the current arrangement of a westerly preference, the airport operates on westerlies for about 87 per cent. of the time.

  1413
  With no preference, westerly operations would account for about 60 per cent. of the time on average—easterly operations accounting for the other 40 per cent.—and with an easterly preference operated, the proportion of easterly operations would rise to about 84 per cent. in the 4 am to 6 am period.
  I stress that we have not taken a view on the merits or otherwise of the different possible runway preferences, and no decisions have been reached. There will be full public consultation. More work is needed, particularly on the noise impact of the various options on local communities. We also intend to invite views on modifying the operation of westerly preference at Heathrow at night in the second-stage paper of the current night restrictions consultation.
  Mr. Trend: The Minister referred to trials in which planes are brought in at night from the west, of which I was aware. I have spoken about the need for a balance, and about hon. Members receiving no thanks for improving the balance but receiving considerable odium if it gets worse.
  If the airport went to an easterly preference, even with alternation allowing both runways to land planes from the west because of low traffic, there would, instead of 80 per cent. landing over Windsor—a rise from the current 15 per cent.—be 40 per cent. landing over Windsor, which is 25 per cent. more than now, and 40 per cent. landing over St. Leonard's Hill to the south of Windsor, which currently experiences no substantial night disturbance. That would mean two angry communities. I implore the Minister to consider the balance of misery. It is unsatisfactory at present, but to disturb it would cause more trouble.
  Ms Jackson: I can only repeat what I have said already. There has been no formal presentation to the Department on those trials, so we are not able to take a view. There is no possibility of any kind of change in the areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred without the most thorough public consultation.
  We shall invite views on the possibility of modifying the operation of westerly preference in the second-stage paper of the current night restrictions consultation. The hon. Gentleman commented on British Airways' recent announcement in a press release on night-time operations that it supported a review of runway preferential use at night—not alternation—with a clear implication that it favoured an easterly preference. BA is entitled to its views, but we shall consult on the second night restrictions paper, which is due out the end of September.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to aircraft landing at Heathrow in the very early morning, from about 4.30 am onwards. That reference is understandable, as such flights constitute the majority of night flights, at present, at Heathrow. They fly across Windsor when the wind is from the east, and they fly across central London when the wind is from the west. I am aware of complaints from both sides of the airport, as well as from all shades of the political spectrum.
  1414
  The whole pattern of scheduling movements, particularly flights from the Asia-Pacific region, is a significant factor in the present pattern of early morning arrivals. The night curfew at Hong Kong Kai Tak contributed to that, but it was far from the only reason. We do not expect the pattern of movements to change radically, now that the new airport at Chep Lap Kok has opened.
  There are very few departures at Heathrow during the night quota period, but some flights take off before our restrictions come into force, and land at sensitive times at other international airports. Any change to night restrictions at London airports that would have significant effects on intercontinental scheduling might have knock-on implications for some of our daytime traffic. We have specifically invited comments on that in our preliminary consultation paper on night restrictions.
  We fully accept that aircraft noise, both by night and by day, is a contentious subject. Unfortunately, despite the great improvements made over the past 30 years, it is likely to remain so.
  As I announced on 27 February, we are commissioning further research, initially on a trial basis, into the impact of aircraft noise at night. We are particularly interested in the scope for researching sleep prevention—that is, delay in getting to sleep at night—and the difficulties of not being able to get back to sleep again after being awakened in the early morning, However, we must not underestimate the complexities of such research, or the length of time that it may take.
  It must also be acknowledged, as the hon. Member for Windsor has stated, that Heathrow airport is a major national asset. It occupies a position of central importance in international trade and communication in Europe, and in the UK's economy.
  Heathrow is the busiest airport in Europe, and the busiest international airport in the world. In 1997, it handled nearly 58 million passengers, with 35 per cent. using the airport as an interchange point. It is used by more than 90 airlines, serving 180 destinations world wide. It is the UK's largest port in terms of value of trade handled, and it provides 56,000 direct jobs and a further 26,000 indirectly in support services: jobs that benefit people who live around the airport, as well as contributing to the prosperity of the country as a whole.
  Successive Governments have consistently recognised the need to ensure that people who live near Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are not exposed to excessive levels of aircraft at night. This Government equally recognise that need. We believe that it is both right and necessary to set restrictions on night flights at those airports, and, in doing so, to preserve a balance between environmental and aviation interests.
  I thank the hon. Member for Windsor for giving us the opportunity to consider these issues and to help us, in conjunction with all the responses that we have received to the preliminary consultation, to determine the formal proposals that we shall put to consultation in the autumn.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Two o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the ethical principles which apply to solicitors who are employed by the Crown Prosecution Service as Crown prosecutors. [52712]

  The Attorney-General
  After consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, I have today published a Statement of Ethical Principles, which applies to all solicitors who are employed by the Crown Prosecution Service as Crown Prosecutors. The Statement is made in accordance with paragraph 1(h)(v) of the Law Society's Employed Solicitor Code 1990. It meets the Law Society's requirement under the Code that such a statement should be published before solicitors employed by the Crown Prosecution Service can exercise their rights of audience in the higher courts.

  The Statement sets out:

  1. the inter-relationship between Crown Prosecutors' obligations as civil servants and as members of the legal profession;

  2. the position of Crown Prosecutors as prosecutors and Crown Prosecution Service employees; and

  3. the position of Crown Prosecutor solicitors who exercise rights of audience in the higher courts.

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

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Spending Review
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what conclusions he has reached as a result of his Department's Spending Review; and if he will make a statement. [52422]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The outcome of our Spending Review has been a recognition of the importance of all my Department's activities, economically, culturally and socially, for the quality of people's lives. I have secured an extra £290 million over the next three years, an investment which will bring obligations and responsibilities. We will have a new contract with all our funded bodies which will demand improvements in efficiency, access and quality in return for investment in support of our new objectives. To help ensure that this happens, I will establish a tough new team to monitor and improve standards throughout all our sectors.

  I have placed in the Library of the House copies of a consultation paper which I am issuing today, proposing a number of changes in the sectoral landscape for which my Department is responsible. This will create a more
  700
  efficient structure for delivering public money in pursuit of clear objectives. I will make a further announcement in the Autumn on the outcome of the consultaion.

Wales

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the education action zones designated for Wales. [51619]

  Mr. Hain
  There are no designated Education Zones in Wales at present. Under Clause 10 of the School Standards and Framework Bill provisions relating to Education Action Zones (EAZs) do not apply in Wales, though the Secretary of State may introduce them at a later date. In the Education White Paper for Wales,Building Excellent Schools Together, published in July last year, the Welsh Office pledged to consult widely before introducing EAZs. Any final decision on the introduction of EAZs in Wales is likely to be a matter for the National Assembly and will be informed by the outcome of any consultation exercise and the experience of EAZs in England.

  Urban Task Force
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to ensure that his Department receives advice from the Urban Task Force chaired by Lord Rogers. [51815]

  Mr. Hain
  The Urban Task Force has a remit to identify causes of urban decline in England. Welsh Office officials are being informed of its progress by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and will receive a copy of the completed report in due course.

  Transport Plans
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish his plans for the future of transport in Wales. [52819]

  Mr. Hain
  The Welsh Transport Policy Statement "Transporting Wales into the Future" has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Graduates
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the number of university graduates who attended Welsh secondary schools who are pursuing their careers outside Wales. [51448]

  Mr. Hain
  Information in the form requested is not available. However, information on the first destination of Welsh-domiciled students in 1995–96 indicates that 2,768 graduates were known to have taken up employment outside Wales.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the percentage of people over 65 years
  701
  of age resident in Wales who were not economically active in Wales, in the last year for which figures are available. [51449]

  Mr. Hain
  In Spring 1998, 96 per cent. of people over 65 years of age who were resident in Wales were not economically active in Wales, according to the Labour Force Survey.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of written parliamentary questions tabled for answer by the Welsh Office on a named day under S.O. No. 22 (4) have been answered substantively on the named day since 1 May 1997. [51450]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  From 1 May 1997 to 24 July 1998, 89 per cent. of written parliamentary questions tabled to my Department for answer on a named day were answered substantively.

  Gross Domestic Product, Powys
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the most recent GDP figures for Powys. [51452]

  Mr. Hain
  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has not previously published GDP figures for Powys. However, I understand that GDP figures for various areas in Wales, including Powys, will be issued this summer.

  Policy Announcements
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many policy initiatives announced by his Department since 1 May were announced(a) by means of a statement to the House prior to a press conference and (b) by a press conference. [51451]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have made no statements to the House on major policy initiatives since 1 May. I have held a number of press conferences on a variety of subjects since that date.

  Economic Indicator Data
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what economic indicator data the Welsh Office collects for each unitary authority in Wales. [51453]

  Mr. Hain
  Economic indicator data for Wales are mainly collected by Government Departments other than the Welsh Office. Rates of claimant unemployment, economic activity, and employment are published for all unitary authority areas. Unemployment rates from the Labour Force Survey are currently published for six authorities, and average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees for 15 authorities: for these indicators the estimates for other authority areas are subject to excessive sampling variation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Official Secrets Act
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to make ministers 702
  in the proposed Northern Ireland Assembly subject to the Official Secrets Act 1989 on taking office; and if she will make a statement about the security implications of Ministers from paramilitary-connected parties taking Government office. [42164]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: Paragraph 5 (3) of Schedule 13 of the Northern Ireland Bill, which is currently before Parliament, makes provision for the Official Secrets Act 1989 to apply to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland and to Northern Ireland Ministers.

  We are considering whether any further provisions are necessary to protect national security interests in the context of devolution.

  New Deal
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are participating in the New Deal in Northern Ireland. [51022]

  Mr. Worthington
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. Malcolm Moss, dated 22 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training & Employment Agency to reply to your question about the number of people participating in the Government's New Deal in Northern Ireland.
  By Friday 17 July, a total of 2,724 18–24 year old clients had entered New Deal Gateway in Northern Ireland. They will progress to the most appropriate of the four options available to them. In addition some 826 employers have signed employer agreements.
  The Chancellor's recent initiative means that additional funding is now available to extend New Deal provision for the 25+ age group from November of this year. Plans are also advanced to implement the New Deals for Lone Parents and Disabled people later this year.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to which countries Northern Ireland beef is currently exported. [51556]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since the lifting of the beef export ban on 1 June 1998 the only consignment of Northern Ireland beef to be exported went to Belgium.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Open Government
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy on open Government with reference to(a) his Department, (b) its agencies, (c) its non-departmental public bodies and (d) corporate organisations within his Department's control; and what steps he plans to take to encourage the provision of information by such bodies. [51483]
  703
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department, together with its Executive Agencies and its executive-NDPBs which come under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, are subject to the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Ordnance Survey, the Office of the Passenger Rail Franchising, the Office of the Rail Regulator and the Office of Water Services also come within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner and are subject to the Code.

  Those quasi-NDPBs, public corporations and nationalised industries which do not come within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner have their own arrangements on open government but are encouraged by the Department to follow the spirit of the Code.

  The Department, and other bodies under its control with public responsibilities, also have a statutory duty to provide information on the environment under the Environmental Information Regulations 1992.

  The Department, its Agencies, NDPBs, public corporations and nationalised industries are considering how to prepare for the requirements of the Freedom of Information legislation.

  Eurostar
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what was the cost of the seven regional Eurostar sets; what is their current location; and what proposals are being considered for their future use; [51741]

  (2) what assessment the consortiums bidding to run Eurostar have provided to his Department of the viability of running regional Eurostar rail services. [51655]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  These trainsets were purchased as part of a larger procurement contract which included the intercapital sets so it is not possible to give actual costs. However, they are currently being leased at £22 million each. The trains are based at North Pole Depot in North London and at Eurostar's Longsight facility in Manchester and they are currently undergoing tests on the UK and continental rail networks.

  The provision of regional Eurostar services are a matter for London and Continental Railways. The consortium chosen by LCR to operate Eurostar have been asked to review urgently the feasibility of regional Eurostar services, and to report to the Government before the end of the year. This report has not been received yet.

  Clinical Waste
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the Environment Agency has recently relaxed its code governing the treatment of clinical waste derived from hospitals. [51647]

  Angela Eagle
  Clinical waste is defined in Regulation 1(2) of the Controlled Waste Regulations 1992 and, as controlled waste, must be managed and disposed of in accordance with sections 33 and 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Some types of clinical waste are also classified as "Special Waste" and subject to the additional 704
  controls in the Special Waste Regulations 1996. The Environment Agency are responsible for the administration and regulation of the waste management licensing system, which is designed to ensure that waste is handled in a way which does not harm human health or pollute the environment.

  The Environment Agency has not relaxed its current codes governing the treatment of clinical waste. The Agency is, however, carrying out research into the risks associated with clinical waste. The Agency will be taking the emerging results into account in its review of guidance on the handling and management of clinical waste which is being conducted jointly with the Health and Safety Executive. Any changes in recommended practice will be the subject of consultation with interested parties.

  Huddersfield Canal
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his Department will provide assistance to ensure the completion of the Huddersfield Canal Project. [51537]

  Angela Eagle
  The Huddersfield Canal Company—a partnership of three local authorities—is seeking support from English Partnerships and the Millennium Commission in completing the restoration of a significant stretch of the Huddersfield-Rochdale Canal. The Huddersfield Narrow Canal Millennium Project is a large and very complex scheme requiring a significant level of investment from public funds. Regular discussions are taking place between English Partnerships and the Huddersfield Canal Company.

  English Partnerships are currently carrying out a full economic appraisal to ensure the project aims and costs are reasonable and; the proposal robust; and that they represent good value for money.

  Rail Companies (Complaints)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement concerning recent increases in the number of complaints made to rail companies. [51875]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 21 July 1998,Official Report, column 466. Since that answer, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced in his statement on transport policy on 20 July, our plans to set up a Strategic Rail Authority 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 any renegotiated franchises.

  Mesothelioma
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have received compensation for mesothelioma in each of the last 10 years; and what was the total amount of compensation received. [51900]

  Angela Eagle
  The table provides details of the number of claimants paid under the Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 in each of the last 10 years. A complete breakdown of which claims were
  705
  paid for mesothelioma is not available. However, virtually all claims received by DETR today under the 1979 Act are for asbestos-related diseases. An analysis of claimants in 1996–97 revealed that over 70 per cent. of all claims received were from sufferers of mesothelioma. The Department does not hold figures for civil claims.

  Pneumoconiosis Etc. (Workers Compensation) Act 1979: Statistics

  Year

  Number of sufferers paid

  Number of dependants paid

  Total number of payments

  Total amount (£)

  1988–89

  25

  30

  55

  499,098

  1989–90

  52

  53

  105

  712,184

  1990–91

  74

  73

  147

  1,380,260

  1991–92

  94

  55

  149

  1,434,072

  1992–93

  93

  69

  162

  1,954,086

  1993–94

  126

  76

  202

  2,271,666

  1994–95

  185

  122

  307

  3,474,975

  1995–96

  236

  127

  363

  4,149,087

  1996–97

  301

  152

  453

  5,463,060

  1997–98

  283

  108

  391

  4,962,659

  Chemicals in the Environment
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to carry out the review of policy on chemicals in the environment announced by the Deputy Prime Minister last year. [52544]

  Mr. Meacher
  I will be launching the first stage of the review process, a consultation paper on "Sustainable Production and Use of Chemicals", on Monday 27 July 1998. Copies of the consultation paper will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and also in the Vote Office. This consultation paper is part of the Government's family of consultation papers on sustainable development.

  The consultation paper seeks views on how the mechanisms for identifying and acting on potentially damaging chemicals in the environment can be improved.

  The views received during the consultation period will feed into the development of a White Paper on the sustainable production and use of chemicals to be published early next year.

  Local Authority Housing
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the number of households in local authority properties who are under-occupying because their household size and structure does not justify the number of bed-spaces provided. [52127]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The table shows estimates from the Survey of English Housing of the number of local authority households in England in which the number of bedrooms available exceeds the bedroom standard (i.e. the requirement under a longstanding standard for bedrooms, implied by the composition of the household). In certain cases a household may need a spare 706
  bedroom, for caring or another purpose, and any assessment of whether a property is under-occupied should take such factors into account.

  Local authority households in England, 1996–97: Difference from bedroom standard

  Thousands of household

  Percentage

  At or below bedroom standard

  1,901

  55

  One bedroom more than the Standard

  1,114

  32

  Two or more bedrooms more than the standard

  466

  13

  All households with more bedrooms than the standard

  1,580

  45

  All households

  3,481

  100

  Notes:

  Like all estimates from sample surveys, these figures are subject to sampling variability

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local housing authorities operate incentive schemes to encourage under-occupying tenants to move to smaller properties; and how many people have moved in each of the last three years via such schemes. [52126]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information about local authorities' management policies, including under-occupation strategies, was formally collected for the first time on the 1996 Housing Investment Programme questionnaire. At that time, of 357 local housing authorities, more than 230—almost two thirds—indicated that they offered direct incentives to their under-occupying tenants to encourage moves into smaller social rented accommodation.

  Between 110,000 and 114,000 council tenants have transferred to other properties owned by their local authorities in each of the last three years; around one quarter (26–27,000) have moved into homes with fewer bedrooms, although it is not known how many of these were as a result of incentives offered by the authority.

  Road Tax
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the annual cost of collecting road tax on cars; and what estimate he has made of the cost of collecting the tax through a levy on petrol. [52072]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In 1997–98, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency spent £127 million on vehicle licensing and registration, of which some £60 million is attributable to licensing. This figure relates to the collection of vehicle excise duty (VED) on all vehicles—a figure relating solely to cars is not available.

  While it would be possible to estimate the cost of collecting revenue equivalent to VED through fuel duty, this has not been carried out because much of the cost of VED collection would continue to be incurred, to maintain the vehicle register. The current system also serves other functions, such as the checking of MoT certification and insurance.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he
  707
  will take to ensure that adequate investment is made by water companies to meet European Union water quality targets by 2000. [52073]

  Angela Eagle
  Investment by water companies to meet water quality targets implied by European legislation up to the year 2000 was agreed in the 1994 Periodic Review of water company price limits. OFWAT and the Environment Agency, as the water industry regulators, are monitoring progress and have instituted procedures to ensure that companies meet the statutory deadlines.

  Tachographs
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations he has made to(a) the EC Commission and (b) his counterparts in each other EU Member state, about compliance and enforcement of legislation relating to tachographs; and if he will make a statement; [52129]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the compliance of other EU member states with legislation relating to tachographs. [52130]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have neither made nor received any representations about the enforcement of the drivers' hours regulations in other European Union Member States.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of tachographs were inspected by his Department in the latest year for which figures are available: what was the equivalent figure in each other EU member state; and if he will make a statement. [52128]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Council Directive 88/599/EEC requires Member States to check a minimum of 1 per cent. of days worked by drivers falling within the scope of the EU drivers' hours rules under Regulation 3820/85. All Member States are required to submit a biennial return on the implementation of the Regulation to the European Commission which, in turn, produces a report based on the information received. The last European Commission report covered the years 1993 and 1994. Explanatory Memorandum No. 5051/98 advised Parliament on the content of that report.

  In 1997–98 the Vehicle Inspectorate checked a total of 1,770,271 charts, which exceeds the UK target. Comparable figures from other Member States are not yet available.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the treatment of four-by-four vehicles pulling trailers carrying goods in connection with a trade or business and with a gross vehicle weight of 3.5 tonnes or more is regulated under legislation on tachographs in the same way in each EU member state; and if he will make a statement. [52131]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  European Union (EU) Regulation 3820/85, which applies to vehicles used for the carriage of goods where the maximum permissible weight of the vehicle, including any trailer, exceeds 3.5 tonnes, is directly applicable in all EU Member States. In the UK it is necessary to augment the directly applicable legislation by including in domestic legislation details of 708
  infringements and penalties that can be incurred on conviction for a drivers' hours or tachograph related offence.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received regarding the Birmingham Northern Relief Road. [51912]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our decision in July last year, that the Birmingham Northern Relief Road should proceed, concluded a lengthy statutory process. That process involved a 15-month public inquiry which provided a statutory forum for a wide range of representations. Our decision was reached after considering the Inspector's report that recommended in favour of the scheme. Although the orders for the scheme have been made we have continued to receive various representations from interested parties, including MPs and members of the public, on subjects related to the scheme—most notably the effects on the Lichfield and Hatherton Canals.

  Marine Pollution
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of polychlorinated biphenyls on the marine environment in the Irish Sea. [52193]

  Angela Eagle
  The relevant Government departments and Agencies in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and in the Republic of Ireland are jointly taking the lead in the production of a Regional Quality Status Report on the Celtic Seas, including the Irish Sea. Organic contaminants, including polychlorinated biphenyls, form part of this assessment. The final report, which is one of five regional reports on which the Quality Status Report of the North East Atlantic, which is being prepared by the Ospar Commission, will be based is due for publication by the year 2000.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the annual emissions of radioactive liquid discharges from Sellafield of(a) tritium, (b) carbon 14, (c) zinc-65, (d) strontium 89, (e) strontium 90, (f) technetium 99, (g) iodine 129, (h) europium 152, (i) europium 154, (j) total Beta and (k) uranium in each of the past 20 years. [52195]

  Angela Eagle
  Discharges from Sellafield via the Marine Pipeline, in tetrabecquerels (TBq), were as follows:

  Year

  H-3

  C-14

  Zn-65

  Sr-89

  Sr-90

  Tc-99

  1978

  1050

  NR

  0.027

  7.2

  600

  179

  1979

  1200

  NR

  10.022

  7.5

  250

  43

  1980

  1300

  NR

  0.033

  12

  352

  57

  1981

  2000

  NR

  0.034

  10.9

  277

  5.8

  1982

  1745

  NR

  10.04

  12.5

  319

  3.6

  1983

  1831

  NR

  10.04

  18.5

  204

  4.4

  1984

  1586

  0.7

  10.03

  13

  72

  4.3

  1985

  1100

  1.3

  10.06

  11.8

  52

  1.9

  1986

  2150

  2.57

  10.04

  10.2

  18

  6.6

  1987

  1375

  2.11

  10.02

  10.2

  15

  3.65

  1988

  1724

  3

  0.09

  0.21

  10

  4.16

  1989

  2144

  2.03

  0.13

  0.37

  9.2

  6.07

  709

  Year

  H-3

  C-14

  Zn-65

  Sr-89

  Sr-90

  Tc-99

  1990

  1699

  1.97

  0.12

  0.3

  4.2

  3.82

  1991

  1800

  2.44

  0.12

  0.18

  4.1

  3.86

  1992

  1200

  0.804

  0.08

  0.14

  4.2

  3.18

  1993

  2310

  2.03

  0.1

  0.22

  17.1

  6.06

  1994

  1680

  8.16

  0.11

  0.33

  28.9

  72

  1995

  2670

  12.4

  0.17

  0.38

  27.7

  192

  1996

  3009

  10.6

  0.12

  0.29

  16

  155

  1997

  2560

  4.4

  0.03

  0.33

  37.4

  84

  1Less than

  Year

  I-129

  Eu-152

  Eu-154

  Total Beta

  Uranium (Kg)

  1978

  0.074

  7.3

  27.9

  7124

  10936

  1979

  0.12

  3.7

  1.9

  4100

  6000

  1980

  0.14

  4.7

  2

  4306

  4861

  1981

  0.19

  3.5

  1.6

  3831

  4499

  1982

  0.1

  0.56

  1

  3528

  6011

  1983

  0.2

  10.2

  10.5

  2490

  2602

  1984

  0.1

  10.2

  0.3

  1190

  2037

  1985

  0.1

  10.1

  0.1

  587

  2447

  1986

  0.12

  10.1

  0.1

  118.21

  1902

  1987

  0.1

  0.19

  0.11

  89.31

  1404

  1988

  0.13

  0.08

  0.08

  81.26

  970

  1989

  0.17

  0.09

  0.1

  101.04

  1212

  1990

  0.11

  0.08

  0.05

  70.93

  853

  1991

  0.159

  0.07

  0.05

  62.2

  860

  1992

  0.068

  0.04

  0.04

  57.2

  630

  1993

  0.161

  0.05

  0.04

  97

  650

  1994

  0.157

  0.22

  0.11

  126

  1388

  1995

  0.253

  0.18

  0.14

  188

  1345

  1996

  0.412

  0.14

  0.08

  143

  1158

  1997

  0.519

  0.12

  0.16

  138

  759

  1Less than

  Source:

  Environment Agency

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the quantities of(a) synthetic chemicals, (b) mercury, (c) cadmuim, (d) lead, (e) zinc, (f) nickel and (g) arsenic released into the Irish Sea from establishments in the United Kingdom in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement on the proposed reduction targets for each. [52194]

  Angela Eagle
  The 3rd North Sea Conference in 1990 committed North Sea states to monitor substances listed in Annexe 1A of the Ministerial Declaration of the Third International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea. Monitoring has been carried out since 1991 at selected sites (rivers and direct discharges to the sea) and the UK's results have been reported to Ospar on this basis as annual load estimates for the whole of the UK. The reduction targets for Annexe 1A listed substances were agreed by North Sea Ministers in 1990 and were set at 50 per cent. between 1985–1995. The UK has a good record in achieving this target.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of tributyl tin from the hulls of ships on the marine environment in the Irish Sea. [52192]

  Angela Eagle
  The relevant Government Departments and Agencies in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and in the Republic of Ireland are jointly taking the lead in the production of a Regional Quality Status Report on the Celtic Seas, including the Irish Sea. The Marine and Land Based Inputs to Sea Research 710
  Programme of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has recently received the final report of a research contract into the effects of tributyl tin in western coastal waters. This report, which is available from the Department's library, will form part of the overall Celtic Seas assessment, one of the five regional assessments on which the Quality Status Report of the North East Atlantic, being prepared by the Ospar Commission, will be based. The Ospar report is due for publication by the year 2000.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the releases of(a) synthetic chemicals, (b) mercury, (c) cadmium, (d) lead, (e) zinc, (f) nickel and (g) arsenic into the marine environment by each EU country in each of the last 10 years. [52191]

  Angela Eagle
  Data are not available in the form requested. However, the UK has reported on inputs of 35 of the 36 substances listed in Annexe 1A of the Ministerial Declaration of the Third International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea, The Hague, 8 March 1990 for the period 1991–1995. The Annexe 1A list comprises of 36 substances of priority concern in the marine environment, including heavy metals and synthetic chemicals.

  Right to Roam
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to introduce legislation to provide greater public access to the open countryside. [52270]

  Angela Eagle
  We are considering carefully all options, both statutory and voluntary, in the light of extensive consultation. We intend to announce our conclusions later this year. If we decide that a new statutory right of access is necessary, we will introduce legislative proposals as soon as practicable, taking into account competing priorities for Parliamentary time.

PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Prime Minister which of his Ministers have been selected for assessment by civil servants under his new procedure; and if he will(a) place such assessments in the Library and (b) publish them. [51906]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: There is no such procedure. I have not required civil servants to make assessments of the performance of their Ministers.

  Young People
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has(a) to appoint a Minister for youth and (b) to set up a youth commission. [52184]

  The Prime Minister
  None at this stage. The interests of young people are effectively represented across Government by Ministers and officials working closely together and in regular meetings with those bodies representing the interests of young people.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Auction Markets
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives he is taking to protect auction markets for livestock. [52120]

  Mr. Rooker
  Livestock Auction Markets are commercial operations. As such, the future of any livestock market is a matter for market forces and not one in which the Government would wish to intervene.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on recent trends in farmers' incomes. [52119]

  Mr. Rooker
  In 1997, total income from farming in the United Kingdom was estimated at £3.36 billion, a fall of 37 per cent. in real terms compared with the previous year. The figure for 1998 will not be available until December but the indications are that it will be lower than in 1997.

  Hill Farming
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the age profile of(a) livestock and (b) hill farmers. [52116]

  Mr. Rooker
  The age profiles of holders of livestock holdings and holdings in Less Favoured Areas (LFA) for England and Wales in 1995 are given in the table.

  Age

  Livestock1 holdings % of holders2

  LFA3 holdings % of holders

  25 years4

  0.33

  0.34

  25–29 years

  1.28

  1.47

  30–34 years

  4.01

  4.41

  35–39 years

  7.18

  7.14

  40–44 years

  9.53

  9.96

  45–49 years

  12.64

  12.15

  50–54 years

  14.44

  14.59

  55–59 years

  13.55

  13.77

  60–65 years

  13.61

  13.96

  65 years and over

  23.42

  22.22

  1Livestock holdings are defined using EC farm types 41 to 44, 50 70 and 72, i.e. Cattle, Sheep, Pigs and Poultry.

  2The holder is that person in whose name the holding is operated

  3Holdings wholly or mainly in Less Favoured Areas

  4Less than

  Source:

  1995 EC Structure Survey

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of hill farming in England. [52113]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are committed to helping to secure a sustainable future for hill farming, recognising in particular the role that farmers play in maintaining the environment and social fabric of the uplands. From 2000 the system of support will be changed more closely to reflect those social and environmental aims. These changes are being considered in the context of the Agenda 2000 Rural Development proposals for the Less Favoured Areas.

  Livestock Farms
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the trends in the number of livestock farms. [52115]

  Mr. Rooker
  The trend in the number of livestock holdings in England and Wales is given in the table.

  Number of livestock holdings1,2

  Year

  England

  Wales

  Total

  1987

  87,150

  24,986

  112,136

  1988

  86,359

  24,774

  111,133

  1989

  86,453

  24,871

  111,324

  1990

  82,372

  24,160

  106,532

  1991

  81,840

  23,995

  105,835

  1992

  81,379

  23,814

  105,193

  1993

  81,707

  23,653

  105,360

  1994

  81,457

  23,311

  104,768

  1995

  77,643

  22,349

  99,992

  1996

  76,430

  22,135

  98,565

  1997

  75,547

  21,874

  97,421

  1Livestock holdings are defined using Main Farm Types (based on 1985 classification) 6 to 20 and 24, i.e. Specialist Pigs, Specialist Poultry, Mixed Pigs and Poultry, Dairy-LFA, Dairy-Lowland, Specialist Sheep-SDA, Specialist Beef-SDA, Mixed Cattle and Sheep-SDA, Cattle and Sheep-DA, Cattle and Sheep-Lowland, Cropping and Dairy, Cropping Cattle and Sheep, Cropping Pig and Poultry, Cropping and Mixed Livestock, Mixed Livestock and Specialist Goats

  2Excludes minor holdings

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census

  Farming (Young People)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives his Department has taken to attract young people to farming. [52117]

  Mr. Morley
  The farming industry offers a wide range of opportunities. Underpinned by MAFF and Sector Challenge funding, Lantra, the National Training Organisation for agriculture and commercial horticulture and other land-based and related industries, has a programme promoting career prospects and providing information on careers and training in farming. MAFF also provides a grant to the National Federation of Young Farmers Clubs to support education and training. The industry itself has developed a Rural Starters Register. There are also various schemes for building links between schools and farming.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Aid Programme
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the proportion of the aid programme that is best distributed by her Department direct and the proportion best distributed by other agencies and organisations. [51652]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development (DFID) disburses the development assistance budget through a number of channels, including multilateral organisations, civil society organisations and the Commonwealth Development Corporation, in addition
  713
  to its own programmes in developing countries. As the new White Paper indicates, the primary objective of our development assistance programme—eliminating world poverty—requires building a range of partnerships for development, covering a wide range of interventions, which will vary from country to country. For example, in many countries, it will be helpful to work with the private sector to strengthen development; we are therefore building new partnerships with business.

  New Deal
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many people her Department is committed to employing during 1998 under(a) the subsidised job option and (b) the unsubsidised job option of the New Deal programme. [52582]

  Clare Short
  We are currently examining these arrangements and have not at this stage made a formal commitment.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to support the church movement in Sudan. [52074]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We are supporting Christian Aid's efforts to provide humanitarian assistance through the church movement in Sudan. We also support an emergency relief project in South Sudan implemented by the NGO Association of Christian Resource Organisations Serving Sudan (ACROSS).

  Chagos Archipelago (Sharks)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of shark numbers in the Chagos Archipelago. [50021]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: I have been asked to reply.

  Observations made during the 1996 Chagos Expedition, compared with earlier expeditions in the 1970s, suggest a significant decline in reef shark numbers. Sharks are not a target species for the licensed inshore fisheries. But unwanted by-catches do occur, which are monitored through log-book returns and an observer programme.

  Indian Ocean Territories (Fishing)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to monitor fisheries in British Indian Ocean Territory, and to designate marine-protected areas. [50019]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: I have been asked to reply.

  The tools used to monitor the British Indian Ocean Territory fisheries include a licensing regime, enforcement via a fisheries patrol vessel, observer programmes, ad hoc research, and assessment of log book returns. The implications of designating marine protected areas, particularly for enforcement and legislation, are being considered.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Stephen Lawrence
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has submitted evidence to the inquiry into the matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence. [52869]

  Mr. Straw
  I am today placing in the Library a copy of the Home Office evidence that has been submitted to the inquiry into the matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence. The evidence is of a factual and background nature.

  The inquiry was established under section 49 of the Police Act 1996. The terms of reference of the inquiry are:
  To inquire into the matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence in order particularly to identify the lessons to be learned for the investigation and prosecution of racially motivated crimes.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will collate and publish the number of cosmetics experiments on animals carried out in the United Kingdom each year on behalf of foreign companies. [51119]

  Mr. George Howarth
  This information is not readily available for this year. It may be possible to collect if from 1999.

  Mr. Peter Bleach
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many clerical errors have been identified in the information sent to Calcutta in relation to the trial of Mr. Peter Bleach; and if he will make a statement. [51880]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: Following a complaint by Mr. Bleach that he had not been given proper access to the evidence forwarded to the Indian authorities by the British police, in the interests of fairness, North Yorkshire Police forwarded to him copies of all the evidence that had been passed to the Indians. This exposed a clerical error by the police, namely that there was a small discrepancy between one of the copy documents passed to the Indians and one forwarded to Mr. Bleach.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Temporary Classrooms
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact his spending plans will have as regards enabling temporary classrooms in the Colchester constituency to be replaced with permanent accommodation by July 2002. [51285]

  Mr. Byers
  The development of Asset Management Plans by local education authorities (LEAs) will help to identify capital funding priorities across all maintained schools. This should include an assessment of the need to replace temporary classrooms.

  The Plan to be developed by Essex LEA will cover the Colchester constituency.

  School Funding
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will formally extend the consultation period until 31 December for the "Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools" document. [51936]

  Mr. Byers
  No. An extension to 31 December would have the effect of precluding the implementation of major changes in the school funding system before April 2000.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) claimants were registered and (b) full-time equivalent staff were employed at each job centre in the East Midlands and Eastern Region of the Employment Service at the latest available date. [51841]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Harry Barnes, dated July 1998:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions concerning Jobcentre staffing and client volumes in the Employment Service East Midlands and Eastern Region. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  You requested a full list of Jobcentres in the East Midlands and Eastern Region detailing the number of full-time equivalent staff employed and jobseekers registered. The details are attached at Appendix A for your information.
  Jobcentres are resourced according to labour market conditions. In particular, the East Midlands and Eastern Region contains very diverse labour markets from rural and geographically isolated ones to industrialised conurbations. Offices with a very small register size geographically serve also isolated outlying villages where it would be very difficult for clients to visit alternative Jobcentre sites in larger centres of population.
  I hope this is helpful. Alan Read, Deputy Regional Director for the Employment Service, East Midlands and Eastern Region, would be happy to discuss any of the details further.

  Employment Service—East Midlands and Eastern Region

  Jobcentre claimants

  Number of full time equivalent ES staff employed June 1998

  1Unemployed registered June 1998

  Alfreton

  26.8

  1,201

  Arnold

  19.4

  1,370

  Bakewell

  4.5

  77

  Beccles

  17.0

  924

  Beeston

  15.4

  812

  Belper

  14.0

  432

  Bolsover

  7.6

  377

  Boston

  23.8

  740

  Bulwell

  39.7

  3,191

  Bury St. Edmunds

  22.1

  868

  Buxton

  12.2

  138

  Cambridge

  51.3

  2,834

  Chesterfield

  41.7

  2,807

  Clay Cross

  13.0

  645

  Coalville

  17.4

  893

  Corby

  26.1

  1,061

  Cromer

  13.7

  533

  Daventry

  12.5

  424

  716

  Employment Service—East Midlands and Eastern Region

  Jobcentre claimants

  Number of full time equivalent ES staff employed June 1998

  1Unemployed registered June 1998

  Derby Wardwick

  45.3

  1,730

  Derby Normanton

  38.1

  2,643

  Derby St. Peters

  36.7

  2,342

  Dereham

  17.3

  708

  Diss

  15.2

  597

  Downham Market

  5.0

  334

  Dronfield

  8.0

  318

  Eckington

  9.2

  447

  Ely

  7.9

  518

  Fakenham

  10.0

  455

  Felixstowe

  12.4

  512

  Gainsborough

  16.9

  903

  Grantham

  20.9

  954

  Great Yarmouth

  63.5

  3,095

  Haverhill

  12.3

  520

  Heanor

  22.9

  942

  Hinckley

  18.5

  811

  Horncastle

  8.2

  252

  Hucknall

  16.0

  771

  Huntingdon

  19.7

  854

  Hunstanton

  3.8

  263

  Ilkeston

  20.7

  987

  Ipswich

  58.4

  3,535

  Kettering

  23.0

  1,042

  Kings Lynn

  30.5

  1,475

  Leicester Highcross Street

  34.4

  2,548

  Leicester Charles Street

  42.5

  1,695

  Leicester Aquis Street

  39.2

  2,573

  Leiston

  8.0

  250

  Lincoln High Street

  29.7

  1,264

  Lincoln Crown House

  44.0

  2,629

  Long Eaton

  24.9

  1,079

  Loughborough

  27.3

  1,701

  Louth

  13.1

  624

  Lowestoft

  39.6

  2,572

  Lutterworth

  3.2

  81

  Mablethorpe

  10.7

  333

  Mansfield Stockwell Gate

  22.6

  1,297

  Mansfield Byron House

  31.8

  2,157

  March

  12.5

  471

  Market Harborough

  8.4

  248

  Matlock

  9.8

  443

  Melton Mowbray

  10.2

  364

  Mildenhall

  7.0

  249

  Netherfield

  15.7

  888

  Newark

  21.0

  1,056

  Newmarket

  8.4

  449

  Northampton

  66.2

  3,726

  North Walsham

  13.0

  526

  Norwich Kiln House

  106.2

  5,971

  Nottingham Castle Boulevard

  59.3

  4,509

  Nottingham Watercourt

  63.1

  4,490

  Oakham

  4.2

  110

  Peterborough

  63.7

  3,237

  Retford

  16.6

  914

  Rushden

  12.6

  529

  Shirebrook

  9.6

  449

  Skegness

  19.4

  504

  Sleaford

  10.1

  362

  Spalding

  13.4

  614

  Stamford

  12.8

  393

  Staveley

  14.2

  719

  St. Neots

  10.2

  544

  Stowmarket

  10.5

  358

  Sudbury

  13.4

  701

  Sutton in Ashfield

  33.1

  1,914

  Swadlincote

  17.5

  805

  Swaffham

  7.8

  298

  Thetford

  11.4

  548

  717

  Employment Service—East Midlands and Eastern Region

  Jobcentre claimants

  Number of full time equivalent ES staff employed June 1998

  1Unemployed registered June 1998

  Towcester

  5.4

  192

  Wellingborough

  24.9

  1,071

  Wigston

  16.0

  817

  Wisbech

  19.2

  1,136

  Woodbridge

  11.6

  352

  Worksop

  30.1

  1,692

  Wymondham

  11.4

  409

  Source:

  1Claimant count figures—Office for National Statistics (NOMIS)

  Schools (Information Technology Access)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures his Department is taking to improve IT access for disabled children and those with learning difficulties in Gloucestershire. [52100]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department is pursuing a number of initiatives to improve IT access for all children, including those with a disability or learning difficulty. These include £11 million in the Schools Access Initiative last year to help mainstream schools become more accessible to children with disabilities. The purchase of information technology equipment was part of this initiative. In addition £100 million is being invested to enable schools to buy the latest technology and educational software to access the National Grid for Learning. The Grid will ensure that children develop the skills they need to be part of an inclusive society.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures his Department is taking to support dyslexic children in Gloucestershire in respect of(a) specialist training and (b) IT projects. [52103]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have made resources available to ensure that teachers are equipped to use new technology and are able to show all young people, including those with specific learning difficulties such as dyslexia, how IT can help them. This is in addition to a new ICT curriculum for the initial training of all new teachers. We have also tasked the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (formerly known as the National Council for Education Technology) with supporting the Government's commitment to promote the development of relevant teaching and learning resources for ICT, with particular reference to provision for special educational needs.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what representations he has received concerning the(a) beneficial and (b) negative effects of the policy of the Employment Service not to accept vacancies which specified an upper age limit; [51638]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of the policy of the Employment Service not to accept vacancies specifying an upper age limit. [51639]
  718
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. David Chidgey, dated July 1998:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply direct to your questions about the effects of the Employment Service's decision not to accept vacancies from employers specifying an age limit. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Employment Service ceased to accept vacancies which include an upper age limit in late April 1998. The operation of this policy is due to be formally evaluated in the Autumn when it will have been in force for six months, the minimum period deemed appropriate to fully gauge its impact. At this stage, therefore, I am unable to provide any specific details about the beneficial or negative effects of the policy.
  However, early feedback from Employment Service staff working in Jobcentres indicates that the policy has been well received by older jobseekers, who view it as a positive step in helping them to secure employment. The number and nature of the employer queries we have received so far tends to indicate that employers who use Jobcentre services are generally content with the policy and are willing to accept it. We are only aware centrally of two employers to date who have wanted to place vacancies with upper age limits, who have withdrawn their vacancies as a result of our policy. A fuller picture will emerge once the policy has bedded in and the results of the evaluation are known.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he intends to publish (i) the report on his consultations for legislation and (ii) a code of practice to cover age discrimination. [51641]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We aim to publish the report of my consultation on age discrimination in employment within the next few weeks and a draft of the Code of Good Practice for consultation in the Autumn.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress he has made towards the publication of a non-statutory code of practice on age discrimination. [51640]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We have made good progress with a code of good practice and aim to publish a draft for consultation in the Autumn.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the Comprehensive Spending Review if he will publish the budget for Ofsted for the next three financial years. [52238]

  Mr. Byers
  Plans for Ofsted's future expenditure will be published in the Autumn.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide a breakdown of the items included within the £1 billion service development fund included in the Comprehensive Spending Review. [52252]

  Dr. Howells
  Within the provision announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review, the Government are creating a Service Development Fund of £750 million in 2000–01 and £1 billion in 2001–02. The purpose of holding such a Fund within the overall spending totals is
  719
  to ensure that the right balance of funding between the existing agenda and those areas where policy is still being developed. Consequently it is not possible at this stage to give a breakdown of allocations from the Fund in those two years.

  Skill Shortages (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to tackle skill shortages in the West Midlands. [51910]

  Dr. Howells
  In the last Budget, £6.544 million was allocated to the West Midlands for projects specifically aimed at addressing skills shortages through the Skills Challenge and Centres of Excellence for IT and High Technology prospectus.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans for performance related pay for teachers. [52253]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend's goals for higher standards in schools require a modern structure for the teaching profession and one which will provide incentives for excellence and ensure that good performance both in teaching and management is recognised and rewarded.

  Further details will be included in the Government's Green Paper on modernising the teaching profession which will be published before the end of the year.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans to issue a green paper on teachers' pay. [52239]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A Green Paper on the teaching profession will be published for consultation before the end of the year. It will not be just about teachers' pay, but is intended to launch a wide-ranging debate about modernising the teaching profession.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Rome Conference on the establishment of an international criminal court. [51745]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 20 July 1998,Official Report, columns 803–04.

  Indian Ocean Territories (Fishing)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to prevent illegal fishing in the off-shore waters of the World Heritage Site at Henderson Island. [50039]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: None. There is no capacity for monitoring fisheries in this area.

  Iran
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the EU troika visit to Iran; and if he will make a statement. [52267]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Tehran visit was for the first round of substantive talks of the new EU/Iran dialogue. The EU and Iran had earlier agreed that these should be comprehensive, addressing both issues of mutual interest and those of concern to both the EU and Iran. Both sides agreed that the talks were held in a positive atmosphere and that there was a frank exchange of views on all issues. We hope that this dialogue will continue and will lead to a more fruitful relationship between the EU and Iran.

  NATO Expansion
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates his Department has made of the likely costs to public expenditure in (i) Hungary, (ii) the Czech Republic and (iii) Poland of membership of NATO. [51886]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As a percentage of their GDP, defence expenditure in 1998 in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland is estimated at 1.8 per cent, 1.51 per cent. and 2.4 per cent. respectively. On joining NATO the Czech Republic has agreed to pay 0.9 per cent., Hungary 0.65 per cent. and Poland 2.48 per cent. of NATO's common funded budgets which currently amount to some one billion pounds per annum. As with existing members of NATO, the contributions of new Member States to the Alliance will be a relatively small element of their total defence budgets.

  OSCE
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the cost for each of the past 10 years of the United Kingdom contribution to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe; and if he will make a statement on plans for future contributions. [51892]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The costs of the United Kingdom's contribution before financial year 1991–92 could be provided only at disproportionate expense. Approximate costs from 1991–92 to 1997–98 were as follows:

  £

  Year

  Cost

  1991–92

  239,157

  1992–93

  747,414

  1993–94

  2,039,782

  1994–95

  2,773,800

  1995–96

  4,473,113

  1996–97

  3,912,353

  1997–98

  5,746,302

  721
  The total UK contribution to the OSCE in 1998–99 is likely to be around £10 million, reflecting increased OSCE operational activity in former Yugoslavia. This figure is likely to increase in the next few years as OSCE activity widens in line with the Government's conflict prevention and human rights objectives.

  Sierra Leone
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers have visited Sierra Leone since 1 May 1997; and on what dates. [52273]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I visited Sierra Leone on 31 March 1998 as a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG).

  No other British Ministers have visited Sierra Leone since 1 May 1997.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [49238]

  Mr. Field
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The information about vehicles owned by this Department is set out in the tables.

  Breakdown of fleet by fuel type and engine capacity

  Engine capacity

  Diesel

  Petrol

  Electric

  750cc

  —

  7

  —

  900cc

  —

  5

  —

  1.0

  —

  76

  —

  1.1

  —

  20

  —

  1.2

  —

  19

  —

  1.3

  —

  10

  —

  1.4

  53

  100

  —

  1.5

  97

  8

  —

  1.6

  5

  85

  —

  1.7

  1,163

  3

  —

  1.8

  343

  42

  —

  1.9

  1,204

  5

  —

  2.0

  1,191

  212

  —

  2.1

  5

  —

  —

  2.2

  4

  —

  —

  2.5

  189

  —

  —

  2.7

  3

  2

  —

  2.8

  3

  —

  —

  3.0

  2

  —

  —

  4.0

  2

  —

  —

  4.9

  1

  —

  —

  5.9

  1

  —

  —

  6.2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  722

  Vehicles due for replacements

  Tax year

  Number of replacements

  1998–99

  976

  1999–2000

  877

  2000–01

  780

  Women's Refuges
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what funding her Department has provided in the current financial year for research into improving the provision and effectiveness of women's refuges. [51147]

  Ms Ruddock
  In order to collect accurate information on the full range of accommodation and support services for women and children escaping domestic violence, this Department, in conjunction with the Women's Unit, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Health, has commissioned a comprehensive package of research.

  As part of this package, Women's Aid is undertaking a survey of refuge groups in England which will provide up to date information on refuge provision. The total cost of this element of the research, to be met in this financial year, is £49,000.

  Landlord Fraud
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many prosecutions her Department has instigated relating to landlord fraud in the Greater London area in the last 12 months. [51266]

  Mr. Field
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Total number of successful prosecutions for housing benefit/council tax benefit by local authorities in Great Britain and Greater London for 1996–97 and 1997–98

  Great Britain

  2Greater London

  1996–97

  610

  140

  1997–981

  1630

  1100

  1The 1997–98 figures are provisional and are therefore subject to change when more returns are received from Local Authorities

  2Greater London comprises the London Boroughs of Barking, Barnet, Bexley, Brent, Bromley, Camden, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith, Haringey, Harrow, Havering, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston-Upon-Thames, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton, Newham, Redbridge, Richmond-Upon-Thames, Southwark, Sutton, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth, Westminster, and City of London

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department of Social Security, Quarterly Administration forms.

  Pensions (Expatriates)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on the up-rating of frozen pensions for British citizens living overseas. [51620]
  723
  Mr. Denham
  There continue to be competing demands and constraints on Social Security spending in the UK. Therefore, we consider that it would be wrong to raise expectations that moves to unfreeze UK pensions paid abroad would be likely to attract priority in the current circumstances.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the potential saving in administration costs if the winter fuel payment were to be combined with the Christmas bonus. [51823]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 22 July 1998]: While it may appear intuitively appealing to combine the administration of Winter Fuel Payments and Christmas Bonus, there are significant difficulties in doing so. These arise because the two payments are made under different legislation, entitlement to the payments may be established in different ways, and while the Christmas Bonus is paid on an individual basis, Winter Fuel Payments are paid on a household basis to many pensioners.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the number of pension advisers to be recruited by her Department and of their total cost. [51888]

  Mr. Denham
  Plans for taking forward our strategy to help the poorest pensioners on a national basis are currently being developed, and will be informed by the results from the pilot projects and research. Therefore, it is not possible to give an indication of the numbers of personal advisers or their total cost, at this stage.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her oral statement of 17 July 1998,Official Report, columns 703–06, what estimate she has made of the loss of council tax rebate and housing benefit for persons who receive the minimum income supplement; and if she will make a statement. [51883]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There will be no loss of Council Tax Benefit or Housing Benefit resulting from the measures announced on 17 July 1998.

  From next April, Income Support rates will be increased to give the poorest pensioners a guaranteed minimum income of £75 per week for a single person. Couples, and older pensioners, will receive more. The full details are in the table.

  Pensioners currently entitled to Income Support, and those who newly qualify as a result of the increases and the implementation of our national programme to find
  724
  those pensioners who are entitled but who do not claim, will normally qualify, as now, for full eligible Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  New Income Support rates from April 1999

  £

  Age

  Single pensioners now

  Single pensioners from April 1999

  Couples now

  Couples from April 1999

  60–74

  70.45

  75.00

  109.35

  116.60

  75–79

  72.70

  77.30

  112.55

  119.85

  80+1

  77.55

  82.25

  117.90

  125.30

  1Also paid to younger pensioners with disabilities

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the current number of pensioners who(a) receive council tax benefit and housing benefit and (b) are eligible for them but do not claim. [51891]

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

  The latest available figures for pensioners entitled to, but not receiving, Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit are for 1995–96. For recipients, estimates have been provided for the same period for comparative purposes.

  Number of pensioner recipients and range of entitled-non recipients for Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit

  Recipients 1995–96

  Entitled-Non Recipients 1995–96

  Council Tax Benefit

  2,770,000

  Between 950,000 and 1,420,000

  Housing Benefit

  1,940,000

  Between 230,000 and 320,000

  Sources:

  1. For Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit recipients 1995–1996—The four quarterly 100 per cent. caseload counts from May 1995, August 1995, November 1995 and February 1996, and May 1995 1 per cent. caseload count

  2. For those entitled to but not receiving their Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit—The 1995–1996 Family Resources Survey

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate her Department has made of the number of members of the state earnings related pension scheme in each of the last 10 years. [51887]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Number of people who have contributed towards the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme from 1986–87 to 1995–96 for Great Britain

  000s

  Tax year

  Number of members

  1986–87

  10,116

  1987–88

  7,483

  1988–89

  7,493

  1989–90

  7,206

  1990–91

  7,161

  1991–92

  6,471

  1992–93

  6,327

  725

  Number of people who have contributed towards the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme from 1986–87 to 1995–96 for Great Britain

  000s

  Tax year

  Number of members

  1993–94

  6,555

  1994–95

  7,115

  1995–96

  7,496

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for Great Britain, and are rounded to the nearest thousand

  2. When a person reaches State pension age the amount of entitlement to the State Additional Pension is calculated. The formula used for this calculation means there are people with contracted-out employments, an Appropriate Personal Pension (APP) or who only pay Class 2 or Class 3 National Insurance contributions (NICs) who may receive a small amount of State Additional Pension in respect of earnings during these years. The figures quoted exclude any such cases. People who are not contracted-out, who earn over the annual lower earnings limit have been categorised as members of SERPS

  3. Married women who have retained the right to pay reduced rate NICs are not entitled to accrue SERPS while the reduced rate authority is retained

  4. The figures show a reduction in 1987–88 mainly due to the introduction of APPs

  Source:

  "Second Tier Pension Provision 1995–96", (Table 4.0, Volume 2) published February 1998. The source of data for this publication is the Lifetime Labour Market Database (LLMDB), a 1 per cent. sample of the National Insurance Recording System taken at February 1997. 1995–96 is the latest tax year for which figures are available

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of(a) the expenditure costs of the state earnings related pension scheme per member and (b) the comparative costs for members of private pension schemes and occupational schemes. [51889]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the administration costs of State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) per member is not available. The administration cost to the National Insurance Fund for awarding and paying State Retirement Pension, including SERPS, and collecting and maintaining records of National Insurance contributions was some £622 million in 1996–971.

  It is difficult to draw meaningful comparisons between the costs of running SERPS, occupational pension schemes and personal pensions. Administration costs for funded pensions include the costs of fund management as well as general administration. Occupational pensions benefit from economies of scale and may be able to reduce costs by using the employer's payroll and data systems. Personal pensions on the other hand are individual arrangements, and charges will include margins for advertising, selling and profit.

  A survey of occupational pensions scheme expenses recently published by the Government Actuary's Department2 shows very wide variations in costs, ranging from 2 per cent. to 44 per cent. of scheme contributions, with an average of 8 per cent. of annual contributions from members and employers.
  726
  Charges for personal pensions are measured differently and generally presented as a percentage of the final fund including investment return. They also vary widely. The effect of charges on an individual's accrued fund will depend on factors such as the amount of contributions made and whether the policy runs to retirement or is made paid-up after only a few years. A report3 in 1997 did, however come up with some broad conclusions. With average charges and no commission, between 15–20 per cent. of the moneys accumulated in a personal pension can be absorbed by charges. With commission, charges can rise to 20–25 per cent. of the accumulated fund. However if contributions are made for only a few years and then stop, charges can rise to absorb 40–50 per cent. of the accumulated fund.

  1Source Department Report 1998–99, CM3913

  2GAD Survey of Expenses of Occupational Pension Schemes, published June 1998

  3"Pensions—A Long Term Strategy" published by the Association of British Insurers June 1997.

  Disabled People
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she will announce the results of the second round of bids for the New Deal for Disabled People and the levels of funding allocated. [52237]

  Mr. Denham
  The New Deal for Disabled People is being funded with £195 million from the Windfall Tax. £5 million of this will be used to fund a number of Innovative Schemes which will test new ways of helping disabled people into work. The results of the first tranche of bids for Innovative Schemes was announced on 16 July and 10 schemes were successful, costing a total of £2.4 million. The closing date for second tranche bids is 9 October and we expect to announce the results in early spring 1999, depending on the volume of bids received. £2.6 million will be available for the second tranche.

  We also plan to pilot a new Personal Adviser service for disabled people, initially in twelve areas. These will cover over a quarter of a million people on incapacity benefits, and will offer advice and support on an individual basis to disabled people who want to move towards work. Pilots in the first six areas, to be run by the Employment Service, will start in October. The remainder will be put out to open tender and will start running next year. £5 million has been made available to fund the pilots during 1998–99, and a further £12 million has been set aside for 1999–2000.

  Housing Benefit (Scotland)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the amount of housing benefit expenditure in Scotland for 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98, broken down into(a) the private rented sector, (b) housing association sector and (c) the public sector. [47976]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 July 1998, c. 445]: The information available is set out in the table.
  727

  Scottish Housing Benefit expenditure

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Private rented sector

  197

  199

  Housing association sector

  78

  101

  Public sector (council and new town tenants)

  628

  661

  All housing benefit

  903

  961

  Note:

  Expenditure rounded to the nearest million

  Sources:

  1.1998–99 Social Security departmental report

  2. Housing Benefit management information system (HBMIS) 1 per cent. samples

SCOTLAND

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans his Department has to correspond electronically with(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public. [49824]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 13 July 1998]: The Scottish Office expects to participate over the summer recess, along with a number of other Departments, in the testing of a system for replying electronically to Written Parliamentary Questions which will make use of the Government Secure Intranet (GSI). The Scottish Office has been connected to the GSI since June of this year. In addition, contact points for electronic mail are given on The Scottish Office's Internet Web site, www.scotland.gov.uk. The use of electronic mail by The Scottish Office to correspond with external organisations and members of the public who have access to electronic mail services is growing and is expected to increase further as more correspondents gain access to electronic mail services.

  Average daily number of prisoners (including young offenders)

  Number of Suicides

  Ratio of the number of suicides to prisoners

  Year April-March

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1994–95

  5,449

  181

  5,630

  16

  —

  16

  1:340

  —

  1:351

  1995–96

  5,458

  174

  5,632

  5

  3

  8

  1:1092

  1:58

  1:704

  1996–97

  5,803

  189

  5,992

  14

  3

  17

  1:415

  1:63

  1:352

  1997–98

  5,873

  186

  6,059

  12

  1

  13

  1:489

  1:186

  1:466

  Consultation between my officials in the Scottish Prison Service and Home Office officials have taken place and the Task Force which has been set up to consider the circumstances surrounding recent deaths include a member from the Suicide Awareness Support Unit in HM Prison Service for England and Wales.

  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedures are in place which allow families of inmates to alert prison authorities to a risk of suicide; and if he will make a statement. [51661]

  Mr. McLeish
  If the family of a prisoner has reason to believe that a relative in prison is at risk, they can let
  728
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [50691]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 22 July 1998]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 20 July 1998, Official Report, column 363. Correspondence is handled by staff in my Department as part of their normal duties.

  Local Authorities (Auditing)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce measures to improve the internal audit procedures in Scottish local authorities. [50872]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 22 July 1998]: Internal audit is a fundamental element of the financial and management controls which local authorities are responsible for having in place. As part of their routing regulatory work, the external auditors of local authorities assess the quality of the internal audit against set CIPFA standards. Where the auditors identify weaknesses in the council's internal audit process, they will recommend action, either to council officials or members depending on the nature of the shortcoming. Any recommendations made by the auditors are checked to ensure that they have been fulfilled. Where they are not, and if there is something fundamentally wrong, the auditor can choose to report this to the Controller of Audit, which might lead to a Special Report being made to the Secretary of State.

  Prisoners (Suicide and Self-harm)
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the ratio of the number of suicides to inmates, in each of the last three years,(a) per gender and (b) in total; what discussions he has had with the Home Office concerning the prevention of suicides in prisons; and if he will make a statement. [51743]

  Mr. McLeish
  The information requested is as follows.

  the prison know by telephoning, writing or speaking to a member of management or staff. A poster and leaflet campaign will shortly be undertaken to encourage this. The Scottish Prison Service has also made available in court buildings a "Risk Identification" form which a prisoner's family can complete and which will accompany the prisoner to the prison concerned.

  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many (i) suicides and (ii) incidents of self harm have occurred(a) in each prison and (b) in total, in each of the last five years broken down by age and gender; and how many of the people concerned were (1) on suicide observation and (2) on remand. [51732]
  729
  Mr. McLeish
  The information requested on suicides for April to March years, is as follows:

  Establishments

  1993–94 Ages

  1994–95 Ages

  1995–96 Ages

  1996–97 Ages

  1997–98 Ages

  Aberdeen

  28

  —

  —

  125

  130

  35

  Barlinnie

  123

  23

  136

  125

  54

  50

  22

  125

  143

  124

  128

  126

  25

  125

  19

  24

  Cornton Vale

  —

  —

  117

  19

  24

  117

  126

  126

  22

  Edinburgh

  145

  120

  —

  —

  47

  Glenochil

  —

  —

  —

  —

  27

  Greenock

  139

  126

  122

  58

  46

  121

  20

  145

  35

  129

  130

  38

  Longriggend

  —

  119

  120

  120

  117

  120

  Perth

  28

  34

  33

  121

  47

  28

  29

  27

  24

  25

  46

  Polmont

  21

  —

  —

  —

  18

  Total

  7 (3 remands) (Includes 2 prisoners on hourly observations)

  16 (8 remands) (Includes 1 prisoner on hourly observations)

  8 (6 remands) (No prisoners on observations)

  17 (8 remands) (No prisoner on observations)

  13 (5 remands) (Includes 3 prisoners on hourly observations)

  1Those prisoners who were on remand

  Note:

  All prisoners and young offenders are male with the exception of these at Cornton Vale.

  No self harm figures are available, due to difficulties of definition.

  Prison Costs
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average annual cost of a prison place(a) in each category of prison and (b) in total. [51740]

  Mr. McLeish
  The budgeted average annual cost of a prison place in Scotland, for the current financial year (March 1998 to April 1999) is(a) £23,575 for secure prisons, £16,959 for open prisons and (b) £23,156 in total. These have been calculated as total budgeted expenditure (excluding capital, Headquarters, the SPS Training

  Lieutenancy area

  Lord-Lieutenant

  Date appointed

  Aberdeenshire

  Captain Colin A. Farquharson FRICS

  13 May 1987

  Angus

  The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Airlie KT GCVO PC LLD

  18 October 1989

  Argyll and Bute

  His Grace The Duke of Argyll

  6 February 1996

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Major Richard Y. Henderson TD

  5 April 1991

  Banffshire

  James A. S. McPherson Esq. CBE

  11 August 1987

  Berwickshire

  Major General Sir John Swinton KCVO OBE

  20 September 1989

  Caithness

  Major Graham T. Dunnett TD

  22 January 1996

  Clackmannan

  Lieutenant Colonel Robert C. Stewart CBE TD

  15 December 1994

  Dumfries

  Captain Ronald C. Cunningham-Jardine

  21 October 1991

  Dunbartonshire

  Brigadier Donald D. G. Hardie TD

  2 June 1990

  East Lothian

  Sir Hew Fleetwood Hamilton-Dalrymple Bt KCVO

  20 January 1987

  Fife

  The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine KT

  4 November 1987

  Inverness

  The Rt. Hon. The Lord Gray of Contin PC

  3 October 1996

  Kincardineshire

  The Viscount of Arbuthnott KT CBE DSC FRSE

  8 February 1977

  Lanarkshire

  Hutchison B. Sneddon Esq. CBE

  9 June 1992

  Midlothian

  Captain George W. Burnet LVO

  31 January 1992

  Moray

  Air Vice Marshal George A. Chesworth CB OBE DFC

  12 March 1994

  730
  College and other central costs) divided by the forecast prisoner places available in the year, at the time when the budgets were set.

  Lord-Lieutenants
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 17 July 1998,Official Report, column 336, if he will list the name of each of Scotland's Lord-Lieutenant and the dates each was appointed. [52011]

  Mr. McLeish
  The names of Scotland's Lord-Lieutenants and the dates each was appointed are as follows. Lord-Lieutenants may serve until their 75th birthday.
  731

  Lieutenancy area

  Lord-Lieutenant

  Date appointed

  Nairn

  The Earl of Leven and Melville

  22 July 1969

  Orkney

  George R. Marwick Esq.

  1 April 1997

  Perth and Kinross

  Sir B. H. David Montgomery Bt

  3 March 1995

  Renfrewshire

  Cameron H. Parker Esq. OBE

  25 May 1998

  Ross and Cromarty

  Captain Roderick W. K. Stirling of Fairbairn TD

  16 May 1988

  Roxburgh, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  His Grace The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry KT VRD

  110 June 1974 and 216 March 1975

  Shetland

  John H. Scott Esq.

  28 February 1994

  Stirling and Falkirk

  Lieutenant Colonel James Stirling of Garden CBE TD FRICS

  15 December 1983

  Sutherland

  Major General David Houston CBE

  24 November 1991

  The Stewartry of Kirkcudbright

  Lieutenant-General Sir J. Norman S. Arthur KCB

  22 January 1996

  Tweeddale

  Captain J. David B. Younger

  18 June 1994

  West Lothian

  The Rt. Hon. The Earl of Morton

  31 July 1985

  Western Isles

  The Viscount Dunrossil CMG

  7 December 1993

  Wigtown

  Major Edward S. Orr Ewing

  12 October 1989

  1Appointed as Lord-Lieutenant for Roxburgh

  2Appointed as Lord-Lieutenant for Selkirk (Subsumed as lieutenancy of Roxburgh, Ettrick and Lauderdale at local government reorganisation in May 1975)

  In addition, the Lord Provosts of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow are by virtue of their office Lord-Lieutenants for those cities. The relevant details are:

  City

  Lord-Lieutenant

  Date appointed

  Aberdeen City

  Mrs. Margaret B. Farquhar

  1 April 1996

  Dundee City

  Mervyn J. Rolf Esq. FRSA FSAScot

  1 April 1996

  City of Edinburgh

  Eric Milligan Esq.

  1 April 1996

  Glasgow City

  Pat Lally Esq. HRGI FRSA

  1 April 1996

  Forestry
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the consultation paper, Opportunity for Change, when he will be seeking views on how forestry can contribute to sustainable development. [52123]

  Mr. Macdonald
  We have published a supplementary consultation paper called "The Sustainable Management of Forests", and copies are available in the Library. Comments are invited on how forestry can contribute to sustainable development, and these should be sent to the Forestry Commission before 11 September.

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy for the creation of classroom assistants, indicating(a) the total amount of money made available for this purpose, (b) when the jobs will begin, (c) how such classroom assistants will be recruited, (d) what qualifications will be required and (e) the proposed rate of pay. [52121]

  Mr. Wilson
  I announced our plans for a major expansion in the employment of classroom assistants in primary schools on 14 July as part of our strategy for raising standards in schools. We are committed to achieving a ratio of one adult to every 15 pupils in the primary school system by 2002 and will employ up to 5,000 new classroom assistants to achieve this.

  In the light of the decisions taken following the Comprehensive Spending Review this programme will receive funding of £66 million over 3 years from the Excellence Fund which will provide education authorities with assistance targeted on a series of measures, including
  732
  this: £10 million will be available for assistants in 1999–2000, £20 million in 2000–01 and £36 million in 2001–02.

  We would expect recruitment under the initiative to begin as soon as the new resources become available in April 1999 and as is practical, and for the numbers of assistants to grow as more funds become available each year. Local authorities have also been invited to participate in a pilot programme commencing in August this year. There will therefore be a small number of assistants recruited during 1998–99; and a number of authorities already employ some assistants.

  Local authorities will be responsible for designing jobs, recruiting classroom assistants and providing training within general guidance which will be considered by a Scottish Office working group involving authorities, teachers, training providers and others. Recruitment methods will not be prescribed. The initiative will, however, provide opportunities for people from local communities.

  Any entry requirements for classroom assistants' posts will be for local authorities to determine. However, the working group will consider what guidance should be given and will promote the development of relevant training, leading towards a qualification for classroom assistants.

  Local authorities will also be responsible for determining rates of pay and other contractual conditions such as hours worked, in line with the nature of the posts created and local labour market conditions.

DEFENCE

  Naval Manning Agency
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Naval Manning Agency for 1998–99. [45616]

  Dr. Reid
  The Chief Executive of the Naval Manning Agency has been set the following key targets for 1998–1999:

  1. Greater than 94% of officer billets to be filled.

  2. Greater than 89% of Naval Rating billets to be filled.

  733

  3. Greater than 88% of Royal Marine Other Ranks billets to be filled.

  4. Total strength of Naval personnel to be within plus 1% to minus 2% of the set requirement.

  5. Greater than 60% of officers to receive more than 4 months notice for change of employment.

  6. Greater than 98% of Ratings/Other Ranks to receive more than the specified notice for change of employment.

  7. Greater than 99% of Ratings/Other Ranks to receive the specified levels of Minimum Time Ashore.

  8. To achieve a progressive annual 7.5% reduction in the number of manpower gaps within the scope of the Agency's control.

  9. To conduct two benchmarking exercises per year.

  10. To produce full accruals-based accounts.

  11. To operate the Naval Manning Agency within its 1998–99 cash allocation (expressed at 1997–98 prices) of £9.8 million, a reduction of £0.6 million (6%) from the 1997–98 figures.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quantity of radioactive liquid in gallons has been discharged from AWE, Aldermaston into the River Thames in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement. [51158]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: Liquid discharges from AWE, Aldermaston to the Thames are of treated effluent or trade waste of extremely low radioactivity content. All such discharges are made within the limits set by discharge authorisations from the appropriate regulatory body, most recently the Environment Agency, under the terms of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 and Part V of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Limits are set at values which are well below those which would cause environmental impact or significant public risk and are subject to periodic review. In fact, it has been calculated that in a year the radiation dose from AWE's liquid discharges into the Thames via the Pangbourne pipeline to the most exposed individual is the same as that one would receive from eating half a brazil nut.

  Discharges from AWE Aldermaston to the River Thames since 1980 are as follows:

  Year

  Discharge/gallons

  1980

  4,983,000

  1981

  3,696,000

  1982

  4,125,000

  1983

  3,498,000

  1984

  3,498,000

  1985

  3,366,000

  1986

  3,399,000

  1987

  3,315,000

  1988

  3,135,000

  1989

  3,036,000

  1990

  2,771,120

  1991

  2,970,000

  1992

  2,739,000

  1993

  2,309,340

  1994

  2,233,660

  1995

  1,698,180

  1996

  1,353,000

  1997

  1,566,840

  1998 (to end June)

  1,273,360

  734
  Details of discharges are published annually in AWE's Environment Safety and Health Report.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the metallurgy division at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, was set up; what is the purpose of this division; how many series of technical papers or reports are currently being produced by this division; and what are the names of each series. [51130]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Metallurgy Division of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston was set up in 1995. It is now part of the Metallic Materials business area in the Technology Division. Among its purposes are research and development on a range of fissile, toxic and conventional metals, production of certain components in support of research and development, and work supporting the stockpile stewardship of the UK's nuclear deterrent.

  One series of technical papers and reports is currently produced by the Metallic Materials business area, namely Director Technology Technical Reports.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer on 25 June 1998,Official Report, column 569, on AWE, Aldermaston if he will place a list of the titles of the 25 reports produced by the Weapon Diagnostic Division of the Atomic Weapons Establishment in the Library, indicating the date on which each paper was produced. [51136]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am today placing a list in the Library of the House.

  Land Contamination
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the compensation claim by Blue Circle International for contamination of their land adjacent to AWE, Aldermaston. [52159]

  Mr. Spellar
  Following an exceptionally severe storm in July 1989 water bearing low level radioactive material from ponds situated at AWE, Aldermaston overflowed onto adjacent marshland belonging to Blue Circle Industries plc. The company later sought damages for economic loss from the collapse of negotiations related to a possible sale of the Blue Circle Industries estate. The High Court awarded damages of some £6 million against the MOD.

  On legal advice, the MOD appealed against this ruling. The Appeal was heard in May and judgment handed down on 10 June with the Court finding for Blue Circle Industries plc and increasing the award by a further £600,000.

  As agreed by both sides, there was no physical damage to human or animal health, and the area affected was well away from land regularly used by the company or to which the public had access. The affected sediment was removed at MOD's expense in 1994 by suitable qualified contractors to the satisfaction of the regulatory Authorities and Blue Circle Industries.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will commission a study on a naval variant of the European Fighter Aircraft. [51868]
  735
  Mr. Spellar
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend on 20 July 1998,Official Report, column 433.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the different types of aircraft able to use the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers; and if he will assess the potential for using the Eurofighter aircraft on the carriers. [52111]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to him on 20 July 1998,Official Report, column 433, and to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 21 July 1998, Official Report, column 478.

  Stockholdings
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) market and (b) book value of stockholdings which his Department intends to dispose of over the next three years. [50956]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]: The SDR has set out a Departmental target to dispose of holdings of non munitions stores with a book value of £2.2 billion over the next three years.

  The market value of these essentially surplus and obsolescent items will amount to only a small fraction of this figure. Receipts from the sales of equipment, spares and munitions over the last three years have amounted to some £80 million per annum. This level is expected to be maintained over the next four years.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to paragraph 72 of the Strategic Defence Review, Cm. 3999, what were the reactors of origin of the 7.6 tonnes of defence plutonium; and if he will list its isotopic composition. [51418]

  Mr. Spellar
  The reactors of origin for the bulk of the stock of 7.6 tonnes of plutonium are Windscale Piles, Calder Hall and Chapelcross. We have announced, as part of the Strategic Defence Review, our intention to produce by Spring 2000 our initial report of Defence fissile material production since the start of our defence nuclear programme in the 1940s. It would be contrary to national defence and security interests to reveal the isotopic composition of this plutonium and this information is therefore being withheld under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Sir Lanka (Arms Sales)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the value to the United Kingdom of arms sales to Sri Lanka in each year since 1990. [51799]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence is currently working with the FCO and the DTI to prepare the Government's first Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls. The Report will include details of export licence applications for UK Military List items and details of such 736
  equipment exported with annual values. When the Report has been issued I will write to my hon. Friend in regard to the information requested for previous years.

  C-130
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 June 1998,Official Report, column 10, if compensation in excess of the £30 million will be sought for further delays in the delivery of the C-130. [51869]

  Mr. Spellar
  Liquidated damages will continue to be collected as they fall due. Final amounts will depend on the actual dates of deliveries, and could exceed £30 million.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the sub strategic role for Trident submarines; and if he will make a statement. [51893]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The credibility of our minimum nuclear deterrent requires that we have the option, in extreme self-defence, of deterring further aggression through a nuclear ("sub-strategic") strike which is limited in scale and nature of target so that it could not be expected automatically to lead to a full scale nuclear exchange.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals have been put to the NATO Council of Ministers for a no first use policy on the deployment of nuclear weapons. [51954]

  Mr. George Robertson
  No such proposals have been made to the NATO Council of Ministers.

  Armoured Personnel Carrier Project
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress his Department has made on the Mobility 1, Protection 1 Armoured Personnel Carrier Project. [51074]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: The programme for a Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle with a high level of mobility and protection is now known as the Armoured Battlegroup Support Vehicle programme. Studies into this requirement are in progress, looking particularly at possible commonality with the future replacement for the Warrior Infantry Fighting Vehicle, and assessing the operational effectiveness and value for money of using the same components in a number of different vehicles.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent by the United Kingdom on the Joint Strike Fighter to date. [51062]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: Payments made by the UK Government to the US Department of Defense under the Concept Demonstration Phase of the Joint Strike Fighter programme amount so far to approximately £55m.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for the future of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. [51070]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: We have said in the White Paper on the Strategic Defence Review (Cm 3999) that we will harness the opportunities offered by Public Private Partnership to strengthen the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency's ability to continue to provide world class scientific research well into the next century.

  We are keen to involve all the stakeholders in taking forward our plans and in deciding on the best practical means of achieving our objectives. We shall, therefore, be consulting widely with industry, DERA management and staff representatives, the scientific community and our key Allies before reaching decisions.

  Armed Forces
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 July 1998,Official Report, column 424, what proportion of the number of people who will have had some experience in the forces will be under the age of 35 years in 2015 and will have had experience in the Army. [52124]

  Dr. Reid
  It is not possible to make an exact calculation, but as, at present, the majority of personnel serving in the Armed Forces are under 35 years of age and, as the majority of those who leave the Forces are under 35, it would be reasonable to assume that a large proportion of those people who will have had some experience of the Armed Forces will also be under 35 years of age in 2015.

  Boeing C-17 Aircraft
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many(a) UK aerospace companies and (b) other UK companies, would directly benefit from the leasing or purchase of the Boeing C-17 aircraft; [52069]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of jobs which would be generated from the purchase or lease of the Boeing C-17 aircraft in the UK. [52070]

  Mr. Spellar
  Bids will be invited to meet the short-term and long-term air transport requirements in parallel competitions. Requests for proposals will be issued later this summer for the long-term requirement, and in the Autumn for the short-term requirement. In both cases, I can assure my hon. Friend that the procurement decision will take account of employment, industrial and all other relevant factors.

  Challenger 2 Battle Tank
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of Vickers production of the Challenger 2 battle tank. [52112]

  Mr. Spellar
  Vickers Defence Systems are contracted to provide the Ministry of Defence with 386 main battle tanks, together with associated training equipment, spares and ammunition. Under the delivery schedule, all 386 main battle tanks are to be delivered by February 2002. The company has concluded two export contracts with the 738
  Royal Army of Oman, and the Ministry of Defence will continue to provide the normal support in pursuing export prospects.

  Europe-wide Defence and Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's role in discussions relating to the creation of a unified Europe-wide defence and aerospace company. [52122]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is for the companies themselves to determine the future structure of the European aerospace and defence industry. Government's role is to facilitate the process. With this objective, the Ministers of Defence of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden signed on 6 July a Letter of Intent which sets out an approach to removing a number of practical obstacles to restructuring in a number of areas.

  Heavy Lift Capability
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that the tender specifications for the competition for the near term requirement for an outsized cargo heavy lift capability will allow as many potential bidders as possible to tender for the contract. [52068]

  Mr. Spellar
  The competition for the short-term strategic airlift requirement will be conducted under normal procurement rules which require that all competitions are as open as possible. The competition will give industry the opportunity to put forward their proposals. A notice was included in the MOD Contract Bulletin on 15 July, and I expect a range of potential bidders to express their interest as requested, before the end of August.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on United Kingdom heavy lift capacity. [49636]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: We have decided to enhance our strategic lift capacity by both air and sea. As was explained in the Supporting Essay Six on Future Military Capabilities, which was published on 8 July in conjunction with the Strategic Defence Review White Paper (Cmnd 3999), we have concluded that we cannot at present deploy Joint Rapid Reaction Forces quickly enough to meet operational requirements in the changed strategic environment. Nor is commercial shipping or airlift likely to be available in sufficient quantities to meet rapid deployment deadlines, although it will have an important place in transporting follow-on forces.

  We have therefore decided that the most effective alternative in military and resource terms is: to acquire four additional roll-on roll-off container ships to join the two now entering service (it may be possible to do so using Public Private Partnership); in the short term, to meet our strategic airlift needs with four C-17 aircraft or their equivalent; and in the longer term, we need to consider a suitable replacement for our remaining elderly transport aircraft, for which the proposed European Future Large Aircraft is a contender.
  739
  Bids will be invited to meet the short-term and long-term air transport requirements in parallel competitions. Requests for proposals will be issued later this year, and we would hope to make decisions on procurement by early 2000.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [50684]

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

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 1998,Official Report, column 180, if he will list in respect of (a) AWE Aldermaston, (b) Rosyth dockyard and (c) Devonport dockyard the quantities of all radioactive materials held on site which are not defined as low-level waste or intermediate-level wastes, giving the forms in which such material is held. [51226]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: No high level waste is held at any of the sites.

  AWE, Aldermaston holds approximately 960 cubic metres of very low level waste comprising soil contaminated with plutonium removed from around Aldermaston Court and the Pangbourne pipeline valve pits. Devonport Dockyard currently holds approximately 20 cubic metres of very low level waste, made up of protective clothing, material and equipment contaminated with activation products, principally cobalt 60. Rosyth Dockyard currently holds no very low level waste.

  Rosyth Dockyard currently hold spent fuel equivalent to one submarine reactor core and Devonport Dockyard one and three-quarters submarine reactor cores of spent fuel. In accordance with IAEA and Euratom definitions, spent fuel is not categorised as waste while reprocessing remains an option. The decision as to whether this and other spent fuel owned by the Department is to be reprocessed remains open.

  Two decommissioned submarines, HMS Valiant at Devonport and HMS Renown at Rosyth, still contain spent fuel. Plans are in place to remove this fuel at the earliest operational programmed opportunity. HMS Repulse which was referred to in the reply I gave the hon. Member on 27 January 1998, Official Report, column 180, has now been defuelled and the spent fuel transferred to BNFL Sellafield.

  TRACER Project
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the TRACER project. [51250]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) on 8 July 1998, Official Report, column 529.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 20 July 1998,Official Report, column 405, on parliamentary questions, for what reasons the text of the answer to Q25826 was not (a) printed in the relevant Hansard daily part and (b) delivered to the office of the right hon. Member for Wokingham. [52235]

  Mrs. Beckett
  An envelope containing the written answers given by my Department on Tuesday 3 February was delivered to the Hansard office during the afternoon and they were printed by Hansard in the daily part for Wednesday 4 February, columns 607–611. The answer to Q25826 was omitted due to an oversight by Hansard.

  In accordance with normal and long-standing practice, envelopes, containing the answers addressed to relevant hon. Members, including one envelope addressed to the right hon. Gentleman, were delivered by a member of staff from parliamentary branch to the letter board in the Members' Lobby.

  Drinks (Ministerial Offices)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent on the provision of drinks in ministerial offices at her Department since 1 May 1997. [25826]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 28 January 1998]: As at 27 January, the cost of drinks purchased by the seven Ministers' offices since 1 May was some £4,000. The figure for the equivalent period the previous year was some £4,400.

  Employment Agencies
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on progress in her review of the rules governing the conduct of employment agencies. [51642]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We aim to publish a consultation document seeking views on updated regulations to govern employment agency conduct in early autumn.

  Grants and Awards (Wakefield)
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the grants and awards that require bids from applicants which her 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 she will publish the deadlines for these applications; and if she will produce this list on a regular basis. [51272]

  Mrs. Roche
  There is a range and diversity of grants and awards, both departmental and through EU funding, which are available via Government. All Wakefield constituents are entitled to make application for these awards where appropriate.

  I understand that officials from the Department supplied some constituency-based information for my hon. Friend recently. The information requested is not, however, held centrally or in the form requested, and to

  741
  collate such a list would involve disproportionate cost. However, general information on grants available to the public can be obtained from local business links.

  Sombrero Island
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reasons the environmental impact assessment on Sombrero Island was not carried out during the bird nesting season. [51256]

  Mr. Battle
  Beal Aerospace is proposing to develop a rocket launch site on Sombrero island, which is part of the UK overseas territory of Anguilla. Beal Aerospace has contracted an environmental consultancy—ICF Kaiser—to perform an environmental impact assessment on the proposal. It is for Beal Aerospace to decide when and how the assessment should be conducted. The relevant authorities will then consider the adequacy of the assessment when it is submitted.

  I understand that ICF Kaiser is aware that its initial ecological survey conducted earlier this year did not coincide with the nesting season of many of the birds on Sombrero, and is expected to visit the island again this month to carry out further studies when more birds will be nesting.

  Export Licence Applications
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licence applications awaiting decisions on 24 June had been waiting for(a) 20 days, (b) 40 days, (c) 60 days and (d) more than 60 days. [48228]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: At 24 June 1998, a decision had not yet been taken on 2,110 applications for new individual export licences received since 2 May 1997. These are broken down as follows:

  Standard individual export licences

  Open individual export licences

  Applications received between

  2 May 1997 and 26 March 1998

  449

  140

  27 March 1998 and 27 April 1998

  230

  27

  28 April 1998 and 27 May 1998

  417

  16

  28 May 1998 and 24 June 1998

  817

  14

  The figures for open individual export licences do not cover amendments, extensions or OIELs for protective clothing for the media.

  However, this information should be considered in light of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) of 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 256–58.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent consultations she has had with local authorities on the negotiations regarding the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. [50759]

  Mrs. Roche
  Officials from this Department, HM Treasury, and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, have met the Local 742
  Government Association's international bureau, and my noble Friend the Minister for Trade has exchanged correspondence with them as well as with many local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment recently addressed the LGA's environment and regeneration board, and discussed the multilateral agreement on investment. In addition, there have been numerous letters to Ministers from local authorities, as well as letters and other informal contacts with officials. Our view is that no current lawful local government practice will be affected by the MAI.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research her Department has commissioned on the impact of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment on(a) restrictive trade practices and (b) consumers in the United Kingdom. [50760]

  Mrs. Roche
  We have not commissioned any such research.

  The UK already has an open and liberal economy, and has benefited greatly from the inward investment we have attracted as a result. If the multilateral agreement on investment increases inward investment even further, we would expect this to lead to increased competition and hence benefits for consumers. The UK and EU regulatory framework for competition policy exists to deal with anti-competitive behaviour.

HEALTH

  Chlamydia
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for a public education programme on the precautions necessary to exclude chlamydia infection. [42118]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department already commissions health promotion work for sexually transmitted infections including Chlamydia and has recently funded leaflets and radio advertising. We are currently considering further measures to increase public awareness of Chlamydia.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has initiated into the effects of chlamydia infection. [42117]

  Ms Jowell
  I recently announced that the Department will be setting up two pilot studies to test the feasibility of opportunistic screening for chlamydial infection later this year. In addition, the National Health Service health technology assessment programme will shortly be issuing a call for research proposals on topics identified by expert advisers as needing further work.

  Ovarian Cancer
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the results of the Intergroup Study with Taxol-cisplatin and the national Ovarian Cancer Chemotherapy Consensus Statement; and if he will make a statement. [51659]

  Mr. Boateng
  Some clinical trials on the place of "Taxol" (Paclitaxel) in the treatment of ovarian cancer have already reported results but others are still underway. An updated analysis of the survival benefit of using Taxol
  743
  in combination as a first line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer was considered earlier this year by clinicians who issued the national Ovarian Cancer Chemotherapy Consensus Statement. A full presentation of the analysis was made in May at the meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. These have undergone close scrutiny by the profession.

  Early indications are that these results are encouraging and we have asked the Trent Development and Evaluation Committee to review their earlier work on the use of Cisplatin and Paclitaxel as a first line treatment in ovarian cancer in the light of these new data. This is being considered by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee alongside guidelines being prepared by the Joint Council for Clinical Oncology and following that, advice will be issued to the National Health Service.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the United Kingdom haemophilia population receiving NHS treatment before 1986 were infected with HIV; and what plans his Department has to make financial assistance available to those who were infected with hepatitis C. [51621]

  Mr. Boateng
  Around 1,200 members of the United Kingdom haemophilia population were infected with HIV as a result of National Health Service treatment before 1986.

  We have received a number of representations on the issue of special payments for haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C through NHS treatment. The issues involved are complex and we are exploring them fully before reaching a decision.

  Psychiatric Units (Secure Beds)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the current waiting times for persons who need a secure bed in a psychiatric unit in England; [51753]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the number of secure beds available in psychiatric units in England; [51751]

  (3) how many secure beds are available in psychiatric units in England; [51752]

  (4) how many of the secure beds available in psychiatric units in England are currently occupied. [51750]

  Mr. Boateng
  In 1992 the Department carried out a "Review of Health and Social Services for Mentally Disordered Offenders and Others Requiring a Similar Service". This recognised that the provision of secure places is an important part of the strategy to meet the needs of mentally disordered offenders, and gave added impetus to the Glancy report (1974) which proposed a target of 1,000 medium secure places nationally.

  Between 1991 and 1995 the Department invested over £47 million in a capital programme with the aim of developing 1,250 purpose-built medium secure places in the National Health Service. The programme is now almost complete and the target of 1,000 places nationally has been met. This programme has also been supported by the NHS regions.
  744
  Currently there are 1,504 medium secure places and 1,070 low secure places in England, making a total of 2,574 beds. This does not include the high security hospitals. Information on the number of places occupied and on waiting times for secure beds is not available centrally.

  Mesothelioma
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) conducted and (b) evaluated into the causes of mesothelioma; how much his Department has spent on researching mesothelioma in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [51899]

  Mr. Boateng
  The main agency through which the Government support bio-medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC has not supported any research, in the last five years, specifically to evaluate the causes of mesothelioma. However, it does provide support for more basic research in related areas which may provide insights into the aetiology of mesothelioma and have an impact on treatment in the future. For example, the MRC Toxicology Unit at Leicester has been working on projects to better understand the cellular mechanisms by which the lung responds to certain toxic materials. These include many toxins that circulate throughout the body and yet cause selective injury to particular types of lung cell, as well as inhaled mineral fibres such as asbestos and zeolites.

  In addition, the MRC's Committee on Toxic Hazards in the Environment and Workplace produced a report in 1995 (ISBN 1 899110 03 8) entitled "Natural and man-made mineral fibres: UK research priorities"—this was based on workshops organised by the Institute for Environmental Health. This report considers, inter alia, mesothelioma. It is available from the Institute of Environment and Health, University of Leicester, PO Box 138, Lancaster Road, Leicester LE1 9HN (telephone 0116 252 5530 or fax 0116 252 5146).

  Medicines Commission
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the Annual report of the Medicines Commission for 1997. [52820]

  Ms Jowell
  We have received the report, and copies have been laid before both Houses of Parliament today in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.

  Bound volumes have been placed in the Library containing the 1997 reports of the Medicines Commission, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Advisory Board on the registration of Homeopathic Products, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission and the Veterinary Products Committee.
  745
  We are glad to acknowledge the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Medicines Act Advisory Bodies and thank them for the time and effort dedicated in the public interest to this important work.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to allow community health councils to represent those residents of nursing homes who are not funded by the NHS. [52240]

  Ms Jowell
  Community health councils' role is to represent the interests in the health service of the public (including the residents of nursing homes whether or not they are funded by the National Health Service) in their districts. We have no plans to extend community health councils' role to represent the public's interest in non NHS funded services or care.

  Child Migrants
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will open to public scrutiny the documents(a) 1406, 1948 to 1957, Emigration of 100 children to Fairbridge Farm School, Piryarra, Western Australia: reports on inspection of premises, 894024/28, (b) 1557, 1947, Information about Fairbridge Farm School, Western Australia, given to Home Office by a former worker, 903435/18 and (c) 1592, 1947 to 1949, Emigration of British children to Northcote Farm School in Australia: details of organisation of school, 904404/2 held in the Public Record Office. [52272]

  Mr. Boateng
  The three files referred to are all subject to closure for 75 years because they contain personal and confidential references to individual children. This is consistent with Government policy concerning all public records. In the light of this policy, and in the context of the Health Select Committee's concerns, we are considering again whether these three files and some others can be opened. Hon. Members, bona fide researchers, representatives of the Child Migrants Trust, or the sending agencies for child migration, including Fairbridge, or individual former child migrants, may see these files subject to a condition preserving the confidentiality of the personal information in them. Arrangements can be made with Departmental officials.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  People's Panel
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 20 July 1998,Official Report, column 362, if he will estimate the cost of the second wave of research planned for later in the year. [52234]

  Dr. David Clark
  The cost of the second wave of research using the People's Panel is not yet known. It will depend on the number of issues that are covered and how many other Departments take part.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio on what date the air-conditioning system for the Millennium Dome is planned to be installed. [49153]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 7 July 1998]: Installation of the air cooling system has already begun in line with the critical path for delivery of the project in time for 1 January 2000.

  Millennium Dome (Transport)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) how many park-and-ride car parking spaces will be provided for the Millennium Dome; [47822]

  (2) what plans the Government have to offer park-and-sail facilities to the Millennium Dome; [47787]

  (3) what plans he has to discourage the use of private cars by visitors to the Dome; [47812]

  (4) where the park-and-ride car parks for the Millennium Dome will be located. [47786]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 29 June 1998]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has recently produced a detailed park-and-ride strategy for Greenwich Council as part of its planning requirement. This document, which gives full and detailed answers to the questions raised, has been placed in the Library of the House.

CABINET OFFICE

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what communications have been sent to GPC Market Access through his Ministerial fax machine. [52255]

  Mr. Mandelson
  My office sends numerous faxes every day to different individuals and organisations and a record of these is not kept.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is his policy on(a) receiving representations from lobbying companies, (b) initiating meetings with lobbying companies and (c) passing on representations made by lobbying companies. [51969]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: Ministers receive deputations and representations from many groups who are concerned to press their own interests or those of their clients which Ministers take due care to consider within the wider public interest and Government policy. All contacts with outside interest groups are conducted in accordance with the principles set out in the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Code.

  Official Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio when he last travelled by train on official business. [51970]
  747
  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: I travelled from London to Newport and back by train on 10 July.

  Freedom of Information White Paper
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is the nature of the representations he has made in respect of the proposed Freedom of Information White Paper. [51968]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on

  Date

  Venue

  Event

  1998

  2–5 January

  Florida and Washington

  Official programme, including meetings at Epcot and the White House

  30 January–1 February

  Florence

  Speech to European University Institute in UK Presidency series of lectures

  2–3 February

  Brussels

  Official programme, including discussions with the European Commission, MEPs and the UK Permanent Representation

  2–4 March

  Bonn

  Official Programme, including speech to seminar on European Integration and National Sovereignty

  8–9 May

  Hague

  Speech to Congress of Europe 50th Anniversary on behalf of the UK Presidency

  8–9 June

  Paris

  Speech to Seminar at National Assembly on Blair-Jospin: One Year On

  18–22 July

  Brazil

  Official programme, including meeting with President Cardoso and speeches at University of Brasilia and British Chamber of Commerce, Sao Paulo

  Ministerial Speeches
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list the speeches he has made since 1 May, indicating their dates and audience; and if he will place copies in the Library. [51971]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: I undertake numerous speaking engagements and address many different groups in the course of my ministerial duties.

TREASURY

  BCCI Report
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the confidential sections of the Bingham report into the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International; and when he proposes to publish these clauses. [43079]

  Mr. Darling
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 23 July 1998,Official Report, column 649.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure the adaptability of the Working Families Tax Credit to recipients' changing circumstances. [50580]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The broad outline of the Working Families Tax Credit was published on Budget day and the Inland Revenue is continuing to work on the precise details of the scheme.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the details of the operation of the Working Families Tax Credit will be published; and if he will make a statement. [50579]
  748
  13 July 1998, Official Report, column 1 and 20 July 1998, Official Report column 362.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list the overseas visits he has undertaken at public expense since 1 January, indicating the purpose of each visit. [51974]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: I have undertaken the following official visits since 1 January 1998:

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The broad outline of the Working Families Tax Credit was published on Budget day in "The Working Families Tax Credit and work incentives"—number 3 in the series "The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System". We intend to bring forward the necessary legislation to implement it in detail as soon as possible.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how soon after moving into work parents will start to receive the Working Families Tax Credit. [50581]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  As the Chancellor announced in his Budget, the effective and efficient delivery of the tax credits will be key indicators of its success, and the Inland Revenue expects to maintain the current high standards of service seen in the speed of delivery of Family Credit.

  Local Authority Assets
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 11 June 1998,Official Report, columns 1195–1201, if he will make a statement on the process by which he will achieve the annual sale of £2.75 billion of local authority assets. [50834]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 16 July 1998]: It will be the responsibility of individual authorities to determine and deliver their asset disposal plans. But from 1 September 1998 they will also have the added incentive that they will be able to spend more of the proceeds, as the Government will no longer require to set aside a percentage of the proceeds from sales, other than sales of council housing and associated land.

  National Asset Register
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 11 June 1998,
  749
  Official Report, columns 1195–1201, if he will list the central Government disposals from the National Asset Register which he plans for 1998–99 in order to achieve £1 billion revenue. [50835]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 16 July 1998]: The estimates for 1998–99 were set out in the FSBR. The estimate of £1 billion a year over the next 3 years is projected from the level of sales achieved in previous years, the enhanced incentives announced at the time of the National Asset Register for Departments to dispose of assets, and discussions with Departments in the Comprehensive Spending Review on prospects for sales in the next 3 years.

  National Parliaments
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Treasury will enter into public service agreements with(a) the National Assembly for Wales and (b) the Scottish Parliament. [51464]

  Mr. Darling
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed Public Service Agreements with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. Once formally established it will be for the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament to determine what arrangements they want to introduce to ensure that public expenditure on devolved services represents best value for money.

  Income Tax
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are currently paying(a) schedule C and (b) schedule D tax. [51653]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Schedule C was abolished for income tax purposes from 6 April 1996. The tax charge was transferred to Schedule D from that date.

  It is estimated that about 21 million individual taxpayers have income taxable under Schedule D or Schedule A.

  Gas-powered Vehicles
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce duty on auto-LP gas to the European Union minimum of 6.8/kg for a period of not less than five years; and if he will make a statement. [51857]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  There are no plans to reduce the duty rate on gas used as road fuel to the EU minimum.

  The freezing of the rate since November 1996 represents a reduction in real terms which, taken in conjunction with increases in duties on other fuels, recognises the environmental benefits associated with road fuel gases.

  The widened duty differential with conventional fuels offers a clear incentive for high mileage fleets, vans and buses to convert to cleaner gas power and will help offset the cost to motorists of vehicle conversion.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what environmental requirements will be built into the 750
  public service agreements between the Treasury and other Government departments; and if he will make a statement. [51975]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: The Government are committed to taking the environment into account across all areas of policy. Public Service agreements between the Treasury and other Government Departments will be consistent with the objective of sustainable development. Where relevant, specific environmental objectives will be reflected in the aims and targets in the agreements.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his announcement on the Comprehensive Spending Review, on 14 July 1998,Official Report, columns 187–211, if he will publish a table listing expenditure on science, research and development for each Government department and the total for (a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01 and (d) 2001–02. [51846]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: Figures of Government Departments' plans for expenditure in 1998–99 on science, engineering and technology and on research and development are published in Tables 2.1 and 3.1 respectively of 'Science, engineering and technology statistics 1998' (Cm 4006 Department of Trade and Industry and Office of Science and Technology). Copies are available in the Library of the House. Provisional figures for the following three years will be available later this year.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the purpose of his most recent visit to the United States; what was the total cost to public funds; and how many people, holding what posts, accompanied him. [51885]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I travelled to the United States last week to give a speech setting out Government policy on economic reform in the UK, Europe and in the world economy. All arrangements for the visit were fully in line with the Ministerial Code.

  Ernst and Young
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the Ernst and Young ITEM Club forecast of growth for 1999 of one per cent. [52236]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury regularly monitors a wide range of independent forecasts for the UK economy. Based on the published July comparison, the Ernst and Young ITEM Club forecast for growth in 1999 is now the third most pessimistic out of the forty-five organisations surveyed by the Treasury. The Budget projections for the public finances are based on a forecast for growth of 1¾ per cent. in 1999 which, by contrast, is very much in line with the independent consensus.

  Life Offices
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's policy on the inherited estates of life offices. [52749]
  751
  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government's position on the inherited estates of life offices was set out in a statement by the then Minister for Corporate Affairs in February 1995. The DTI, which was then the responsible regulatory authority, applied the principles set out in that statement in reaching agreement with four life offices for a restructuring of their long-term funds, and a clarification of the attribution of the interests of policyholders and shareholders in the long-term fund.

  A common feature of these cases is that they involved a particular type of business known as "industrial business". Historically, there was a lack of clarity over the development of these companies' approach to dealing with surplus arising in respect of some industrial business
  752
  policies written earlier this century. Consequently, there was no clear evidence as to how surplus which had built up from these policies should be properly attributed between policyholders and shareholders. The DTI therefore reached agreement with the companies on an attribution based on reasonable assumptions, in line with the February 1995 statement.

  In considering any other proposals for clarification on unattributed assets, the Treasury will continue to be guided by the principles set out in the DTI statement of February 1995, and apply them to the particular circumstances of each case. In doing so, the Treasury will be particularly concerned to ensure that policyholders' interests are fully protected.

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

School Standards and Framework Act,

Police (Northern Ireland) Act.

Business of the House
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard)The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard) rose to move, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 29th July to give, so far as is necessary, Her Majesty's Government power to arrange the order of business.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Motion is to enable the Motion standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, which is concerned with the civil procedure rules, to be taken as the last business on Wednesday of next week. This follows an agreement through the usual channels that that would be the appropriate order for the business that day. I am advised that the Motion which I am presently moving is the appropriate way to achieve this arrangement of the business. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 29th July to give, so far as is necessary, Her Majesty's Government power to arrange the order of business.—(Lord Richard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pensions (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Morris of Manchester.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Landmines Bill
11.8 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Mines and components to which Act applies]:
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
("and which is activated either by a tripwire or other non-command device or by a pressure of between 10kg and 100kg").
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading last week we gave the Government an assurance that we are entirely in support of the Bill. Wherever it becomes appropriate I personally will demonstrate my support for the Government's stand, although I cannot of course speak for my noble friends. However, I am a little concerned that nowhere in the Bill is there an explanation of what an anti-personnel mine is. Article 2 of the convention attempts to do this, although not particularly well.
There are a number of types of anti-personnel mine. The Americans have six varieties of scatterable mines. Under my amendment, it is possible to join them all in one fairly close-knit body and describe what such a mine is. We are clear that the convention does not cover anti-tank mines and it does not cover anti-tank mines with anti-handling devices. It does not cover command mines; that is, mines which can be detonated by command by a person or machine, however distant that person or machine may be. We are talking about mines which are detonated either by trip-wire or by pressure. The figure of between 10kg and 100kg which I give in my amendment has been quoted to me as the operative figure by the Mines Advisory Group and can be considered definitive.
The Bill as it stands is full of good intentions but in a number of places it is less than specific. I believe that it should be more specific, particularly in the definitions. I suggest that my wording will stand up. I beg to move.
Lord Bramall: As someone who does know a little about landmines and their use, perhaps I may say that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, seems entirely sensible because it makes a clear distinction between the indiscriminate anti-personnel mine and the command device and the anti-tank mine. In support of it, and with your Lordships' indulgence, perhaps I may say a few general words in support of the Bill at this stage because, sadly, I have to go away for an unavoidable appointment before the Committee finishes discussing the matter.
A number of noble Lords, and even more honourable Members in another place, have supported this Bill to ratify the international banning of landmines, largely from the point of view of honouring the memory of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, and out of respect for her. That is all very touching. But, of course, there are many other reasons why the manufacture, sale and use of anti-personnel mines should be made illegal internationally other than our respect for the interest and compassion that the late Princess of Wales showed towards this subject.
In World War Two, as an armoured infantryman responsible for, among other things, maintaining our own armour's mobility and freedom of action, I had quite a lot to do with mines of all varieties, trying to detect them and to dispose of them. That experience continued to some extent throughout my service including in jungle operations in South-East Asia where mines again were very prevalent. Indeed, I might almost have to declare an interest because on one occasion in World War Two I actually stepped on an anti-personnel mine of the sort that normally blows your foot off which, luckily for me, failed to function, although two men either side of me lost their feet on similar mines.
I say all this not to bore Members of the Committee with tedious war stories but to say that from my actual experience I have come increasingly to believe that any military value of anti-personnel mines is far outweighed by the appalling legacy of pain, suffering and death which they so often leave behind, usually to the most innocent and vulnerable, when the battle has moved on.
Personally, I cannot remember a single occasion when I had call to, wanted to, was ordered to or ordered others to lay victim-activated—that is non-command devices—anti-personnel mines haphazardly in front of or to the flank of our own positions. If these mines were ever laid, it would have been around anti-tank mines in properly marked and recorded minefields, which could easily be detected and cleared afterwards; or they would not have been victim-activated mines—that is, they would have been command devices, only exploded by remote control in perhaps an ambush situation when a
1152
definite military target had been positively identified. At other times they would be completely inert and therefore no danger to an innocent civilian stumbling across them. Sadly, the same could not always be said of others, and increasingly these weapons have become terror weapons.
But the real point of all this is that no great tactical advantage is to be gained from laying anti-personnel mines. Of course, they can kill and maim the odd individual combatant, but motorised or mechanised troops can drive over them; assault lanes can easily be cleared through them and determined foot soldiers have come to take them in their stride and not be stopped by them, constituting as they do far less a threat than defensive artillery fire or accurate small arms fire. Battles are certainly not won or lost by their deployment or lack of it and, therefore, there is no overriding reason to keep them in our military arsenal. With 80 million to 110 million mines lying undetected in 61 countries, despite the helpful international programme of restricting their manufacture and sale which has done much to prevent the problem getting still worse, the sooner nations can find an effective way of banning anti-personnel mines and getting rid of them for good, the better.
However, anti-tank mines and properly controlled command devices are entirely different from anti-personnel mines. They are a different matter altogether. They are neither aggressive nor terror weapons They are purely defensive weapons around which the whole framework of a defensive battle can be built and invariably is built. They can be easily categorised and the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, has helped to clarify this. Therefore, such mines help to deter an aggressor from attacking or if he does, to canalise his movements so that our own defensive weapons can be more easily brought to bear on him.
To give up anti-tank mines would remove an important weapon in the business of deterring aggression and protecting the weak from the stronger and therefore would be a retrograde step. But as the Minister has made clear, these weapons are outside the scope of the Bill, which is why I so fully support it. I hope that Members of the Committee are quite clear about that distinction. I believe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, has helped to clarify that.
11.15 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I also do not want to delay or upset the Bill. I made my main comments on it at Second Reading. I believe that this amendment gives the Committee an opportunity to consider important points in the Bill; in this case the particular distinction between anti-personnel mines and other forms of landmine.
I referred at Second Reading to the speech by the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Robin Cook, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he introduced the Bill into the other place. In that speech he never mentioned the words

1153
"anti-personnel". The press and others therefore gave the impression that all landmines were going to be banned. For example,
"We said that stocks of landmines held by the British military would be destroyed and that we would do everything that we could to work for a wider ban. We have kept those promises: we have destroyed half the stockpile of the 1 million landmines that we inherited from the previous Government. By the end of this year we shall have destroyed three-quarters of that stockpile".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/98; col. 1347.]
Following what the noble and gallant Lord has just said, I hope that in replying to this amendment the Minister can assure us that that does not include anti-tank mines although Mr. Cook never mentioned the word "anti-personnel" in the whole of that speech in which he used the word "landmines" about 20 times. We must avoid any kind of muddle between anti-personnel and other forms of mine which, as far as I know, and particularly with regard to anti-tank mines, we shall continue to hold.
I realise that the Foreign Secretary is under considerable stress, has been over-worked and was no doubt concentrating at that time on more weighty matters. Comment has been made on that on the front page of The Times only today. I have sympathy with the right honourable gentleman, but I believe that he should have delegated the introduction of this Bill in the Commons to another Minister on that occasion. We would then have had a much clearer explanation. Of course, the Foreign Secretary cannot delegate the signing of warrants because that can be done only by the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, he could have asked another of his Ministers to introduce this Bill into another place.
It is important to know whether the Bill relates simply to anti-personnel mines, which we are already destroying, or whether our Army is being deprived of other mines, particularly anti-tank mines. The Ottawa Convention applies only to anti-personnel mines. I recognise that that may have been an extraordinary aberration, but one of the most important and difficult tasks at Ottawa and in drafting this Bill was to make a clear distinction between anti-personnel mines and the other mines which are not covered either by the convention or this Bill.
We should not deprive our own troops of any kind of mine which enemy countries might still be using. I believe that that goes for all mines. We hope that, following the Ottawa Convention, there will be signatories and ratifications and that most countries of the world (including those which might be enemies) will have got rid, or have undertaken to get rid, of their anti-personnel mines. However, other kinds of landmine are not affected. We must assume—I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm this—that the United Kingdom will keep anti-tank mines because they are needed, as the noble and gallant Lord has just told us, for important defensive purposes.
When British troops have laid mines of any kind, they have always been recorded and lifted at the first opportunity in warfare. We must remember that. As I said at Second Reading, as far as we know, none of the mines that has been lifted in Angola, Afghanistan or
1154
the other places where tribal wars have occurred, has been manufactured in Britain. We must keep that point at the forefront of our minds otherwise the press and the media will have the impression that we have been manufacturing and exporting the anti-personnel mines which have caused so much misery and so many distressing wounds to young people and civilians.
Lord Craig of Radley: I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment. I am very conscious of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has made about drawing a distinction between anti-personnel and anti-tank mines.
My only concern about the Bill is the way in which we are including details, such as references to "between 10 kg and 100 kg". I can understand the reasons for that. We are trying to write a Bill which is applicable not only to current weapons, but which will also be applicable in the future to weapons which may be introduced by some countries which are not party to the convention. I urge the Committee to think carefully about detailed wording which may be too specific. I am reminded of the Data Protection Bill in which one was trying to write in legal language provisions which would relate not only to the technology of the moment. Technology changes. Indeed, the technology of anti-personnel mines could change.
Having said that, I believe that it is right to include this provision in order to make that distinction between anti-personnel and anti-tank mines.
Lord Redesdale: I support the amendment. I believe that the Ottawa Convention is quite clear about what is an anti-personnel mine and what is an anti-tank mine. Perhaps I may raise a question, which has been brought about by my reading of the Second Reading debate in Hansard. The Minister said that the M181A Claymore fell outside the definition of an anti-personnel mine when it was not in victim-initiation mode but in command-detonation mode. In future, will such mines be designed so that they cannot be changed to victim-initiation mode? That would remove the temptation in certain situations for tampering with such mines. Is that feasible or would it be impossible?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I am afraid that the Government have some problems with this amendment. Perhaps I may first reiterate what I said to your Lordships at Second Reading. The Bill is designed to cover anti-personnel landmines. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made the pertinent and robust points that he has just made to your Lordships at Second Reading, but perhaps I may remind the Committee that Clause 1 makes it clear that an anti-personnel landmine is a landmine which is designed to be detonated by the presence, proximity, or contact of an individual and which is capable of incapacitating, injuring or killing an individual.
It is important to recall the wise words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, a moment or two ago, who was worried that the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, to redefine what is covered by the Bill may be too narrow. The definitions in the Bill are

1155
closely aligned with those of the Ottawa Convention. The Government see no reason to alter them substantively.
Concerns were expressed last week about minor differences of language between the convention and this legislation. I explained then that they were designed to bring about greater clarity over, for example, the question of components. However, this amendment goes far beyond that. Including such technical specifications in the definition would, we believe, narrow the scope of anti-personnel mines covered by the legislation. I refer again to the definitions that I tried to give your Lordships last week at Second Reading (cols. 538 and 539). I am sure that noble Lords will be able to refresh their memories.
However, perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that I believe that the point that he raised will be covered by the Army's disciplinary code. If I am wrong on that point, I shall write to the noble Lord, but I believe that he was encroaching onto the question of rules of engagement—
Lord Redesdale: My question was would it be feasible to change the M181A Claymore from one mode to the other. If that was feasible, would it not encroach on the Ottawa Convention?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: As I understand it, that weapon comes in two modes. I do not know whether it is technically possible to change from one mode to the other, but perhaps I may write to the noble Lord about that. The noble Lord's fundamental point was whether that could be done for mischievous reasons. My point is that that will be covered by the Army's rules of engagement. Such mischievous intention would be covered. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on the technical point that he has raised.
The Government believe that this amendment undermines the convention's coverage of anti-personnel landmines. We believe that to try to define the matter by technical terms rather than purpose as in the Bill now before the Committee is potentially dangerous. One cannot anticipate what technological developments in anti-personnel landmines will take place. Would the noble Lord's technical definition still be valid in five or ten years' time? The Government cannot say; nor, I suggest, can the noble Lord. The Government are legislating to stop the effects of landmines at the moment. Therefore, the definition of anti-personnel landmines in the Bill brings us absolutely alongside the Ottawa Convention. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Burnham: In response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I understand that the Claymore is an American mine which at present can be used in command mode or in free fall. Since the United States will not be signing the convention until 2006 one
1156
assumes that that mine is manufactured in either form. I am sure that the noble Minister will confirm that in due course.
I am honoured by the support of not one but two noble and gallant Lords. I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept the amendment. It is possible that I am guilty of the charge of being too specific, although this amendment is based on my best advice. Nevertheless, I am not happy with the definition given in Article 2 of the convention. I had hoped that this Bill could be more specific for the present day. The noble Baroness looks a long way into the future, possibly to a time when anti-personnel landmines will not be a valid weapon in any case and there will be alternatives. However, I am sorry that the Government cannot accept the amendment. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Prohibited conduct]:
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing in those sections shall be taken to permit active assistance to the armed forces of states not party to the Ottawa Convention engaged in any activity prohibited under that Convention.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to determine what the Government seek to achieve by the insertion of Clause 5. The amendment seeks to clarify the position so that no British soldier will ever actively assist in the laying of any form of anti-personnel landmines. No doubt the Minister will respond that that is the whole intention of the Bill. I entirely understand the reasoning behind the insertion of Clause 5. It is not my intention to do anything that puts British soldiers at risk of legal action for carrying out their duty. I believe however that Clause 5 introduces a slight dichotomy into the spirit of the Ottawa Convention. It is based on the very real assumption that the clause will be checked by the rules of engagement. Having studied the response of the Minister, I agree that I was perhaps wrong to suggest that the rules of engagement should be published. On the one hand, the Government introduce Clause 5 so that British soldiers have a defence if they inadvertently become involved in any action that is against the spirit of the convention. On the other hand, to say that a check on the use of Clause 5 will be written into the rules of engagement, which for very good reasons are not published, creates a slight problem.
The amendment seeks to put on the face of the Bill a firm statement. I hope that today the Minister will strengthen the position in her reply to this amendment. The amendment seeks to enforce the provision that no active assistance should be given. Further, we must look at what the Ottawa Convention seeks to achieve. Unless the convention encompasses the spirit of universality, which is stated in the preamble, it will fail in its intention. Many of the large producers of landmines and those who use them will carry on doing so until all countries sign the convention and anti-personnel landmines are finally counted as abhorrent weapons and banned in any conflict.
I believe that without this amendment we cannot take the moral lead in trying to persuade other countries to sign the Ottawa Convention because we have put in a safeguard which many will see as a reservation. I believe that some argue that this reservation may come within the scope of Article 19. I beg to move.
The Earl of Sandwich: I rise to support this amendment as one who has worked with aid organisations dealing with the effects of APMs, several of whom belong to the UK Working Group (on landmines). I am sure that the Government accept that that organisation has done excellent campaigning work.
I was unable to be present at Second Reading. I hope that I shall be allowed to utter a few brief sentences in support of the Bill. I need little convincing about its necessity. I have vivid memories of the lingering effects of landmines in the aftermath of Vietnam and, more recently, Mozambique. Only this week a friend who is a senior UNHCR officer in Islamabad told me with some degree of distress that he had had to cope with Afghan refugees, men, women and children, who were not only casualties of landmines but whose refugee camp was itself in a minefield—a so-called safe haven outside Jalalabad.
We all know that this Bill must be passed quickly but that this is not the end of the business. The Secretary of State for Defence and other Ministers admit to its limitations and to the continuing need for a global campaign to persuade other countries to sign and ratify the convention, especially the larger powers who have littered the poorer societies in the world with lethal weapons. I do not believe that we are sending the right signal to those other countries if we retain Clauses 2 and 5 as they stand because they clearly water down the convention. Equally, we do not want to wreck the Bill.
The Secretary of State for Defence said in another place that for some states who are not signatories,
"the quoted reasons are primarily connected with national security and the need to develop alternative capabilities".—[Official Report, Commons; 10/7/98; col. 1407.]
How about us? With these reservations how can we possibly place ourselves among the angels? Why can we not gracefully accept the Canadian declaration? Presumably, Canadian soldiers are just as liable or vulnerable on NATO exercises as our own. We have heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that there is no real tactical advantage in anti-personnel landmines. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said last week in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, (who is to speak later) that,
"the Canadian declaration, simply would not give British troops the unequivocal protection they need".—[Official Report, 17/7/98; col. 541.]
She referred rather enigmatically to
"the potential liability for a conspiracy or aiding and abetting".
This has been mainly a one-sided humanitarian debate. Very few noble and gallant Lords have spoken until today. They have been of the humanitarian variety in the case of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. That may well be because the Government's learned lawyers, to whom the noble Baroness mysteriously
1158
referred last week, received a comforting MoD briefing. But their arguments have not been brought into the discussion. May we please be told why? We want the UK to stand at the forefront of the international campaign. We are still a leading military power and arms exporter. The Scott Report is not long behind us. We can afford, politically and militarily, to stand up to the non-signatories and show the sort of moral fibre, not just over landmines but with other weapons as well, which I believe the victims of those appalling, freelance, proxy wars in the third world deserve and expect of us.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: The points raised by my noble friend Lord Redesdale and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, deserve a little more attention from this place before the Bill continues its passage. There are some serious considerations and some issues upon which we should like reassurance from the Government on the steps that they now intend to take, while I of course recognise the problems about publishing rules of engagement.
I shall start by repeating that we wholly share the Government's view that those who serve in the Armed Forces must be protected from any action that might be taken against them with respect to our subscription to the Ottawa convention. So we recognise the need for a clause similar to Clause 5. There are serious considerations about the interpretation of that clause and I want to give the Minister the opportunity to respond to and clarify the conflicts between what has been said in another place and in this place.
I shall remind the Committee of what was said in another place. The Foreign Secretary said:
"Clause 5 provides British service men with a shield against unreasonable prosecution because they took part in a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercise in which American Forces deployed landmines".
He went on to say:
"Clause 5 is wholly consistent with the Ottawa convention".
Later he said, and these are crucial words:
"The Ottawa convention does not just ban production and use of landmines, but mandates signatories to help remove landmines, and to look after victims of landmines not removed in time".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/98; cols. 1348–49.]
In other words, the Ottawa convention goes well beyond just the laying of mines. It associates the production and use of mines within those functions banned by the convention.
In response to that, and reflecting that commitment, in this place the Minister said that Clause 5:
"does not allow UK personnel to use anti-personnel mines; nor does it allow them to assist, encourage or induce anyone else to do so".—[Official Report, 17/7/98; col. 540.]
I shall repeat the words:
"to assist, encourage or induce anyone else to do so".
Our concern arises from the compatibility of the words of the Foreign Secretary and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, with the words used by the Minister for the Armed Forces in another place when he said:
"The clause enables United Kingdom service men and women to engage closely in the planning and conduct of an operation with those who may, lawfully for them, use anti-personnel mines".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/98; col. 1391.]

1159
I find that statement, to say the least, in spirit hardly compatible with the words used by the Foreign Secretary and by the Minister in this place.
We on this side of the Chamber understand the Government's reluctance to remove Clause 5 from the Bill for the reasons that they have eloquently explained: the need to protect British service men. Nonetheless, we want to ask them to reconsider the wording of the clause to bring it more closely into line with what Ministers, with the exception of the Minister for the Armed Forces, have said in both places.
I should like to ask three questions. First, the Minister has told us—we understand it—that the rules of engagement cannot be published. We want an assurance that those rules of engagement—we do not ask to see or to read them—will be so phrased as to rule out active engagement by British forces in a joint operation in the planning for or laying of landmines. I carefully used the words "planning for" as well as the "laying of landmines" because to try to draw a distinction between those two is the use of hypocrisy as an alternative to policy. It is not a right or proper thing to do. So the first assurance I should like is that the rules of engagement will reflect the issue raised by the Foreign Secretary and by the Minister in this place that we will not use or facilitate the use of landmines by other armed forces in joint operations.
Secondly, will the Minister assure us that representations will be made to other members of NATO which still use landmines to ensure that, as far as possible, they do not engage in the laying of landmines in activities which involve British troops jointly?
I understand that there is a difference between exercises and joint operations at a time of battle, but with regard to exercises will the Minister give us some assurance that British forces will not be involved in the planning of the use of landmines?
Finally, is there any discussion within NATO on the training of troops in the use of landmines and in particular the removal of landmines? Can we be assured that in training our troops and the troops of other NATO countries which are signatories to the convention there will be no training in the laying of landmines for our troops, save as a preventive and protective activity? We would be greatly encouraged if we could have some more observations, especially with regard to the rules of engagement with respect to Clause 5, because I believe—I say this with some sorrow—there has been ambivalence in what Ministers in both places have said.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, not for the first time, has quoted every one of the underlined passages of differences in interpretation that I had marked out between the debate in another place and here. I join with her in what she has said because there is a great deal still to be clarified—the point I made on Second Reading last week.
1160
I would further underline the point made by the noble Baroness on training. I have had a little to do with some TA training, as have many Members of this place, and I know how necessary it is that those young soldiers understand the use of all types of weaponry and are prepared to avoid the terrible problems that occur in minefields. Some of that has been used in the training of troops of foreign nations overseas. So the point that the noble Baroness made about training in knowledge for prevention and protection only regarding landmines cannot stop at our own troops.
I should like the Minister and her colleagues in the MoD to consider that, even if she can give the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, the assurance that she sought, and which I join her in seeking, there needs also to be an undertaking that where we have trained in the use of landmines we need also to give those armies the protective training—I cannot think of a better way to phrase it at the moment—so that the troops of other nations who have been following faithfully British Army training rules for many years are updated as to the changes that will come about. That is a specific point, I know, but we are in Committee.
As I said on Second Reading, we shall have a major job of education to do if we are to prevent people from continuing to be maimed and killed by all those landmines lying idle and sleeping but ready to awaken and blow off limbs at any time. That training point needs to be considered.
If the noble Baroness cannot give me the assurances I seek today, I hope that she will delve further and write to me. I can assure her that I shall return to the point later if we cannot get some satisfaction. I know a little about what has gone on for some years in training. It would be wrong of us to protect our own troops but not protect troops whom our troops have trained in overseas countries where landmines abound.
Lord Craig of Radley: For the avoidance of doubt on the issue of British troops who may or may not be involved in training, what would be the position for someone on an exchange posting with an American or other armed force? A number of personnel have been, are still and will be, I am certain, in the future on exchange postings. If a senior British officer is in command of troops who are not required by their government to follow this convention, what is the position of that commander?
I do not raise these issues to be difficult. We need to be very precise as we talk about what will be judged to be criminal activities. No doubt the noble Baroness the Minister will need to investigate further unless she already has the answer at her fingertips.
Viscount Slim: I apologise for not being present at the start of the debate; I was unavoidably detained. I wish to ask the Minister about one aspect of the Bill which may put our forces in danger. I think that we are all mostly in favour of the Bill.
Certain forces work deep in enemy territory. They are protected by, and protect themselves with, their own particular mine. It is, I suppose, anti-personnel. But it is

1161
a vital part of their equipment. When they are isolated, they are not likely to be attacked by armoured forces, tanks and so on. It is a very necessary weapon that they carry for their own safety.
I am a little perturbed by the Bill. On the whole we have weak forces. I know that the Minister will disagree, but they are weak in numbers. There are occasions in battle where there is no armoured threat and therefore no need to lay armoured tank destroying mines. At night time isolated forces, or those involving allies, need protection. I ask this of the noble Baroness. She does not have to answer, but she may care to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. In isolated incidents, the lives of specialist forces, by day and night, in ambush, and in various phases of their war deep in enemy territory, depend very much on the anti-personnel mines they carry. I believe that we are putting some of our forces, possibly in war or partial war, in great danger. We must consider the safety of our forces. It is a vital point that I make to the Committee today.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: In considering this amendment to Clause 2, we have inevitably and quite properly spoken largely about Clause 5. My noble friend will be dealing with the more specific points when he answers on Clause 5.
We in this House and in another place have widely recognised that providing a defence in the legislation for British service personnel is the right thing to do. That is why we have Clause 5. In the light of the increasingly global role for UK forces, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, referred, and as was foreseen in the Strategic Defence Review, we consider the protection afforded to our troops in Clause 5 an essential part of our domestic legislation. It is widely cast because of the potential difficulty in determining exactly what is meant by assistance. The amendment can only exacerbate the problem. The phrase "active assistance" is not clear enough. It is important that we understand that one of the reasons for Clause 5 is that we envisage taking part in the planning of, and in, operations alongside countries whose forces will not be bound by the convention. That is the point. The alternative would be for Britain not to engage in those operations and exercises. I do not believe that anyone has suggested that that would be the right alternative.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Will the Minister kindly give way? Perhaps I may press her on the issue. Of course we understand that British troops and their commanders must be engaged in the planning of joint operations. The issue is whether they should be engaged in the specific planning of the laying of new minefields. If the answer to that is yes, then many of us would be disturbed about compatibility with the signature of the convention.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: It is not the planning specifically of laying new minefields. But I make the point to the noble Baroness that we shall be alongside those who may be so doing. I recognise the noble Baroness's point. I shall come back in a moment to the rules of engagement and military discipline. I hope to be able to help the noble Baroness further.
1162
I must return to the example I gave at Second Reading last week. British forces may well be operating alongside American troops, Saudi Arabian troops in the Gulf, or the forces of any state not bound by the Ottawa convention. Those troops may be laying mines to defend themselves. Were they to come under enemy fire, I believe that no one suggests that our troops would do anything other than try to engage them. Would that be "active assistance" in laying mines under the definition that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, wants us to encompass? Action would have been taken, but it would be action to protect the lives of their colleagues, not to help in laying anti-personnel landmines.
I am sure that, like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, we can agree that we wish all countries to sign up to the convention. Some have not done so and until they do we shall have to ensure that our soldiers are not vulnerable to 14 years in prison merely for carrying out their duty. We cannot ask our service personnel to risk their liberty while they are also risking their lives for their country.
I repeat: there can be no question of British troops being allowed to be in breach of the convention. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that it is not just the legislation that brings this about. Standing orders and rules of engagement will ensure that British forces do not do anything that would contravene the Ottawa convention. That is entirely consistent with Article 9 of the convention. I remind the Committee that that article calls on signatories to take all appropriate measures, not only legal but administrative and in other respects, to prevent any activity prohibited under the convention. We are not just talking about the rules of engagement here; we are also talking about military discipline. The military discipline will have to take full account of the convention. As I understand it, the rules of military discipline will confer the operational rules of engagement, military directives, training—a point which your Lordships raised and which was raised most pertinently today by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker—and operating procedures.
We need to ensure that the provisions of the convention will be enforced in practice; it is not just the rules of engagement but it is also the directives, the training and the standard operating procedures. When, as I hope, we have ensured the passage of the Bill today those aspects will be engaged upon. It is not just the legislation; it is the other matters too.
Noon
Lord Redesdale: On a point of clarification, can the Minister say whether the standard operating procedures will be published, because the rules of engagement are not? That would indicate that this is the Government's aim.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I believe that what I said last week about the rules of engagement would apply also to the standard operating procedures. I believe that we should not publish material which would in any way give away the position of our Armed Forces. I can tell the noble Lord that I shall inquire of my noble friend and colleagues in the Ministry of

1163
Defence to see whether there is any material that we can publish without jeopardy to the safety of our Armed Forces. However, I am bound to say that I think it highly unlikely that anything will be published and certainly—I am sure that the noble Lord would agree—nothing which would in any way jeopardise the safety of our troops in the field.
Viscount Slim: I am sorry to interrupt, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is being a little naïve. I am beginning to wonder whether, come an engagement, he really wants us to win. We want to win a battle, a war, and having material published and interfering with military procedure is not being very patriotic.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I did not take the noble Lord's intervention in quite that spirit. I believed that he was seeking some assurances. I have told him that if I can in any way give him assurances without jeopardising the safety of our troops in the field I shall do so. I hope that in making my response I took the spirit of what he said correctly.
I turn to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. He made some pertinent points which were also raised on Second Reading. Canada made a declaration stating that Canadian forces taking part in operations alongside forces of states not party to the convention would not be considered to be legally in jeopardy. That is entirely in accordance with our position. A declaration by itself does not offer legal protection. The Canadian legislation implementing the Ottawa Convention addresses the issue by referring to active assistance. But as I have just explained, the UK Government believe that this is not sufficiently clear. In our legislation, we are determined to give proper protection to Her Majesty's forces. There are of course different approaches to these issues and they reflect our different legal and parliamentary systems. In the light of the increasingly global role of UK forces, referred to in the Strategic Defence Review, we consider that the protection afforded to our troops under Clause 5 is essential in our domestic legislation.
I turn to the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. British forces will not plan specifically for the laying of anti-personnel landmines and will not lay such mines. I give the noble Baroness that assurance, but I do so in the context of what I said earlier about the fact that we will possibly be engaged in operations and certainly in military exercises by those not so bound.
In relation to the second point she raised, the exercises have to mirror the reality of the military position. I give the same assurances as I gave on the first point.
In relation to the third point she raised, we will train only in counter-mining activities. We covered that point on Second Reading last week. We need to continue to train our forces in anti-personnel landmine techniques. However, the purpose of doing so will not be in order
1164
to lay the anti-personnel landmines but in order to ensure that British forces are able to "demine" those dreadful weapons when the need so arises.
I hope that I have been able to give your Lordships further information on these issues. I believe that the points I have made largely cover the questions that have been raised. I hope also that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, considers that the points on training have been covered. She shakes her head. I will look again at what she said. She was kind enough to say that she would accept a letter from me, so I shall read the debate to see the points which have not been covered and write to her accordingly. I hope that I have been able to give sufficient assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and he will now feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Redesdale: I thank the Minister for going slightly further than I believed she would in putting forward the Government's position. Her response reflects what will appear in the rules of engagement; rules which we will not be able to see.
I took slight offence at the suggestion that we on these Benches would in any way put the lives of British personnel at risk. I have served in the British Territorial Army for eight years and that would be the last intention. We hope, as the Minister's reply indicated, that the rules of engagement will reflect the Ottawa Convention. As we will not be able to see the rules of engagement, we are taking on trust the fact that they will encapsulate what the Minister has put forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [International military operations]:
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 26, at beginning insert ("Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 19 of the Ottawa Convention,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I wish to emphasise that it in no way attempts to impugn the Government's moral motivation in signing the convention, the spirit of which, as I have repeatedly said, we support whole-heartedly. However, in speaking to the amendment I am also speaking to the hole in the heart of this legislation. I hope that my amendment will give your Lordships' House the opportunity to debate this very important issue: namely, the relationship between Clause 5 and the Ottawa Convention about which disquiet has been expressed in many quarters, not least in this House.
The amendment tabled in my name and those of my noble friends refers Clause 5 to Article 19 of the Ottawa Convention. Article 19 serves to disallow reservations to the convention. It states explicitly that the articles of the convention shall not be subject to reservations. We have been told repeatedly that Clause 5 does not constitute a reservation. We have been told that there is no inconsistency between this Bill and the Ottawa Convention. The Foreign Secretary said so in another place. Last week in your Lordships' House the Minister repeated that assertion and once again maintained that

1165
the Bill faithfully and fully puts the Ottawa Convention into British legislation. Yet more than niggling doubts remain in my mind.
I have in front of me the two documents, one of which should be the mirror of the other. In the one hand I have the Ottawa Convention and in the other hand I have the Landmines Bill. The Ottawa Convention says categorically that no one from a signatory country, under any circumstances, anywhere at any stage, for any reason, can use, develop, produce, possess or transfer anti-personnel mines or assist, encourage or induce anyone else to do so. The convention is clear. It is explicit. It is unambiguous. That is what it says.
I also have with me the Landmines Bill which contains Clause 5. As we know, Clause 5 provides a defence to a Clause 2 offence relating to certain international military operations. In doing so, Clause 5 expressly allows conduct which is expressly denied through the convention. Can the Minister today identify and refer me to the article and paragraph within the convention which gives authority for the Clause 5 which we find in the Bill—for, in all the time that I have spent examining the convention, I have not been able to find one single mention of any exemptions, any exceptions or any exclusions permitted within its terms? Unless the Minister can do so, it means that this legislation drives a convoy of sappers straight through the convention.
Under the clause, in the context of international military operations, if such operations take place wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom, if they involve the participation both of British Armed Forces and of members of the armed forces of a state other than the UK and if, in the course of those operations there is or may be the deployment of anti-personnel mines by members of the armed forces of one or more states which are not parties to the Ottawa Convention, British forces are then permitted to procure, transfer, modify, adapt or even prime those anti-personnel mines. In summary, they can do anything short of actually laying the mines—a relatively small prohibition, given the massive contravention of the spirit of the convention.
This is no abstract, hypothetical conjecturing. The other government with whose forces we are perhaps most likely to enter into joint operations is the Government of the United States, which is not a signatory to the Ottawa Convention. Leaving aside the purpose of Clause 5, I ask the Minister to confirm that the effect of Clause 5 is that British forces in these circumstances are given full licence by the legislation to breach the Ottawa Convention. Again I ask: where does this provision in the Bill match the provisions of the convention?
Let us compare the convention and Clause 5 a little more closely. The effect of Article 1.1 of the convention is absolutely explicit, unequivocal and indisputable. I put to the Minister Article 1.1 of the convention. I put also to the noble and learned Lord Article 19, which says that there should be no reservations. Taken together, Article 1.1 and Article 19 permit no assistance to be given to any party that is not a signatory to the convention when the forces of that country are taking part in activities that are prohibited by the convention.
According to Article 1.1, if British troops find themselves together in military operations abroad with troops of, say, the United States or Turkey (both fellow members of NATO, but neither of which have signed the convention) or, indeed, of any other country which is not a signatory to the convention, they are not permitted to assist those forces in the activities which are prohibited by the convention—that is to say, anything whatever to do with the laying of landmines. That is what the convention provides.
However, Clause 5 seeks to permit certain activities which would otherwise constitute an offence; in other words; it purports to permit activities which are contrary to the convention. The relevant provisions in Clause 5 bear that out. The germane part of the clause is subsection (2), which reads:
"In proceedings for a section 2 offence in respect of any conduct"—
that is, any conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by this legislation—
"it is a defence for the accused to prove that,
the conduct was in the course of, or for the purposes of, a military operation or the planning of a military operation".
So far, so good. But the subsection continues by providing that,
"the conduct was not the laying of an anti-personnel mine".
That is the only specific conduct prohibited by the clause.
So what is the net effect of subsection (2)? It means that a range of activities categorically prohibited under the Ottawa Convention is permitted under the terms of the Bill. It means that if British forces were engaged in joint operations with a non-signatory state such as the United States, Clause 5 would enable British servicemen to procure an anti-personnel mine, to transport it to the front line, to mark out the precise position where it was to be laid and to transfer it there before handing it over to the Americans and asking them to place it in the ground. British forces could then modify or adapt the landmine and could even prime it. That is what Clause 5 would permit. In such circumstances, none of those activities—procuring, transporting, transferring, modifying, adapting and priming—is prohibited by Clause 5(2). The only activity that Clause 5 expressly prohibits in the course of such joint operations is the actual laying of the anti-personnel landmine itself.
Can the Minister explain at this Committee stage why the terms of Clause 5 have been drafted so very widely and are contrary to the language and, indeed, the spirit of the convention? It is all very well to argue, as the Foreign Secretary has done, that the purpose of Clause 5 is not to prohibit activity but to permit activity. But that is the very point at issue. Clause 5 permits a wide range of activity—in fact, everything except laying a landmine—in direct contravention of the convention. Ministers in another place indicated that such activities would not be permitted according to rules of engagement. But if Ministers would never issue rules of engagement that would take advantage of the loopholes in Clause 5, why place those loopholes in the Bill in the first place?
Perhaps I may now dispose of a potential red herring. In another place—and, indeed, in your Lordships' House last week—we heard passionate and fervent justifications for the inclusion of Clause 5 on compelling military grounds. Powerful examples were given in that respect. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces in another place gave several such examples and the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, gave an equally compelling example last week, which she repeated today. It is important to place on record that I do not believe that anyone in your Lordships' House would disagree with the obligation to defend our allies in such circumstances. But the implication of the Minister's words was that such conduct would be prohibited by the Ottawa Convention and, hence, the provisions of Clause 5 are justified. However, this is the same convention that the Government signed in its entirety. I might add that they did so with much fanfare, except for the shocked and rather angry faces of certain MoD Ministers and officials. The necessity for such provisions is not reflected in it. I say to the Minister: surely they should have been; and why were they not at the time of the negotiation of the convention? The examples that we have been given demonstrate that British forces would indeed be at risk of committing a criminal offence only if their conduct was in breach of the convention.
During the passage of the Bill, criticism of Clause 5 has been portrayed as a willingness to allow British servicemen and women who risk their lives for us to risk also their liberty; and, indeed, as a readiness to threaten the cohesion and effectiveness of NATO. Perhaps I may make this very clear. From these Benches—and I hope this applies to every Bench in both Houses—we would in no way countenance the criminalisation of members of the British Armed Forces carrying out their duties on active service in those circumstances. If British servicemen and women were in some way indirectly implicated in the use of anti-personnel mines by the forces of a state which is not a party to the convention, no one is suggesting that they should potentially be at risk of prosecution and imprisonment for up to 14 years. No one is suggesting placing the men and women of our Armed Forces in that invidious position.
But this is not an issue of the military justification for Clause 5. We on these Benches are not arguing about the merits or the necessity of Clause 5. I see considerable merit in Clause 5 as it is set out in isolation of the convention. We do not say that there is no military argument to justify the exemption from the provisions of the convention that Clause 5 seeks to provide. That is not the issue. The issue here is one of consistency; consistency which a British Government signing up to an international treaty would be expected to demonstrate.
It has always been the practice of Her Majesty's Government to honour the provisions of treaties and conventions that they have signed. But in this case it is absolutely clear that conduct permitted under Clause 5 of the Bill, to which I have referred, would be in complete contravention of Article 1 of the Ottawa Convention; the very same convention to which the
1168
Government signed to last December. On that point I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Nothing is as tedious as repetition in a House which wishes to consider this Bill urgently. Therefore I shall not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has eloquently said. I merely want to put one question and advance one other argument briefly in support of what he said.
The Ottawa Convention is, as he pointed out, extremely tightly phrased. Article 1 makes it quite clear that to engage in any activity prohibited to a state party under this convention, to assist, encourage or induce the laying of landmines or the use of landmines is contrary to the convention. Article 19 states, in terms, that no reservation of any kind is accepted to the convention. That is a tight wording and was intended so to be.
Our concern about Clause 5 is quite simple. We are concerned whether it is legally compatible with the acceptance and signature of the convention. In the other place the Foreign Secretary said,
"Clause 5 is wholly consistent with the Ottawa convention. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants proof, I can tell him that our provision for British service men is similar to that made by the Government of Canada".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/98; col. 1348.]
The real problem with this statement of similarity is that the Government of Canada are relying upon a statement and not upon primary legislation to express their concern about some aspects of the convention with respect to joint operations. The United Kingdom Government is being asked to pass primary legislation to ensure that that reservation is made.
Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has done, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, has indicated, and as I indicated on an earlier amendment, it is legitimate to ask whether Her Majesty's Government are wholly satisfied that Clause 5 is legally compatible—and not subject to challenge in the international courts—with the signature of the convention. Although we all wish to see this convention on the statute book and to accept that this Bill is a vehicle for doing that, it is reasonable to ask that question because it would be embarrassing for Her Majesty's Government if that question cannot be answered in the affirmative.
Baroness Rawlings: I welcome the opportunity now that we have moved into Committee stage to speak to our first amendment on Clause 5; to be able to scrutinise this Bill more closely; and to have the opportunity to put once again my questions that were left unanswered at Second Reading.
I have read the Minister's wind-up speech carefully in Hansard but have failed to find the answers to my three simple questions. I do not wish to question the very able Minister's competence. However, I see the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. We all have great confidence in the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and of course in the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. I wish to ask them some questions.

1169
Will this Bill, attached to the treaty—as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said—stand up in the international courts? How will our forces co-operate in manoeuvres with those of our NATO allies whose governments are not party to the convention? How have the French and Germans who have signed the treaty dealt with this problem? Have they made a declaration? Have they ratified the treaty with a similar Clause 5? If neither is the case, will their failure to have done so necessarily exclude them from participating in NATO manoeuvres? We were promised a declaration by the Minister in the other place but have not yet received it. However, I understand from the noble Baroness in her speech at Second Reading—I quote a little more at length than the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich—that,
"The Government take the view that the mere incorporation of a declaration along the lines of the Canadian declaration, simply would not give British troops the unequivocal protection they need when participating in the conduct and planning of operations with countries not bound by the convention. The spirit of Clause 5 is very close to the declaration, but the clause takes a form appropriate to our domestic law".—[Official Report, 17/7/98; col. 541.]
Why do we need a declaration then? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, could tell me.
I have a few more problems with which I hope he may be able to help me. I know that landmines have been touched on by the first amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Burnham. However, an ICRC pamphlet entitled The Ottawa Treaty Explained states,
"The definition of an anti-personnel mine laid down in the Ottawa Treaty—see Articles 2, paragraphs 1 and 2—covers all personnel-activated mines irrespective of whether they are placed in the ground, in marked minefields, or remotely delivered over large areas. It also includes the so-called Smart anti-personnel mine, mines which have the capacity to self-destruct or self-deactivate, i.e. mines that are programmed to automatically explode or become inert after a set period of time. However, owing to recent developments in landmine technology"—
which I think was mentioned earlier by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig—
"the traditional distinction between anti-personnel mines and anti-vehicle mines is becoming blurred. Several types of mine have been developed which can be considered to have dual purpose".
If this is so, how will our forces be able to guarantee their security and defensive positions when under pressure from opposing forces? The minefields that our forces deploy are, I gather, recorded in great detail and marked on the ground.
A friend of mine has just returned from one of his many trips in Afghanistan. He described to me the revolutionary type of fighting which mainly causes all these horrors which he personally witnessed. I will not go into the awful detail. The problem in Afghanistan lies with the guerrillas who lay the mines anywhere without recording their location. Some 90 per cent. of the mines used in these situations come from the old eastern bloc. It is these and similar situations that we need to address seriously too.
At Second Reading the Minister mentioned de-mining and it has been referred to by my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey. De-mining is so vitally important that I felt it should be mentioned again today. I urge the Minister to look at the most effective way to help the situation by funding non-governmental organisations
1170
such as Halo so that they have the best equipment for locating and destroying the explosive items. Given such funds, they will be able to train and organise local volunteers in the skills required for the task.
Like my noble friends Lord Burnham and Lord Moynihan, I repeat that I am in favour of the spirit of the Bill. I merely wanted to clarify the apparent conflict between the convention and Clause 5. I greatly look forward to the answer.
12.30 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: I wish to ask one or two questions in relation to Clause 5 regarding the ratification of the treaty and lodging the treaty with the UN. Have any countries indicated whether they will challenge the legality of Clause 5, with its implications in terms of Article 19? If a challenge were to be mounted, would that halt the process of lodging the treaty at the UN? I make this point because the Government have indicated that they want to show leadership—as they have done in many fields—in the implementation of work on the banning of anti-personnel landmines. In the light of the fact that 36 countries have ratified the treaty through their own legislative process—though not all have lodged the treaty with the UN—if a challenge is mounted, is it possible that the United Kingdom could fall outside the first 40 countries to ratify? It would be most unfortunate, given the Government's stated wish to be a leader in this issue, if we were to fall outside those first 40 countries. Will the Minister assure the Committee that everything possible will be done to make sure that we are among the first 40 signatories?
Lord Burnham: The three countries whose declaration is published in the convention are Mauritius, Canada and Greece. I cannot resist the thought that it will be an interesting conflict involving those three. As I understand it, the United Kingdom has signed but not ratified the declaration. For the purposes of this debate it would be extremely useful for the Committee to be given the terms of the British declaration. I should be most grateful if the Minister could do so.
Lord Craig of Radley: It helps in considering this point to take a practical example and one that was used in the other place; namely, the sapper who built a bridge over which the troops of a country, which had not signed the convention, were to haul mines. I wish to pose the idea, indeed likelihood, that Hercules or support helicopters could be used to lift personnel and/or mines of another country. The question must be: are the crews of those aircraft protected by Clause 5? From my understanding of the convention it would appear that they would be in breach of its terms.
As I understand it, we draw no distinction between peacekeeping, peace enforcing and warlike operations, whether or not a state of war has been declared. So the position needs to be clear—and I am sure that it would be the wish of all of us—that the crews of aircraft which

1171
operated in that way would not be charged with a criminal act. I hope that the Minister will help us with that example too.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): This has been a remarkable debate addressing a single amendment in that both Opposition Front Benches have found it necessary to bring such heavy fire-power to bear on it that both required two spokesmen on their feet. However, I shall do my best on my own to deal with the arguments advanced.
First, I shall deal head-on with the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and various other noble Lords as to whether or not Clause 5 is legal and whether it is legally compatible with the Ottawa Convention. All I can say to your Lordships is that the Government have taken the best legal advice available and have received assurances that there is nothing in Clause 5 that is either likely to be challenged at international law or is incompatible with the Ottawa Convention. I have the benefit of the sagacity of my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General, who is sitting beside me. I am sure that if I get any of this wrong he will be happy to intervene so that we can have two people speaking from this Front Bench, just to preserve a little symmetry in the proceedings.
So far as I know, there have been no challenges offered, suggested or mooted to this legislation. I am advised that, were any challenges so to emerge, they would not result in any delay to our ratification.
I now turn to the question put by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. As I understand the Bill, Clause 5 is pretty unambiguous. It will cover all Her Majesty's forces, including airmen engaged in the sort of activity that he described.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked three or four questions. I thought that she had received the answers to them previously, but never mind. She asked whether the Bill would stand up in international law. I have answered that question already. Secondly, she asked whether it would be the case that our forces will be free to co-operate in manoeuvres with our NATO allies. I draw the noble Baroness's attention to Clause 5(7), which states:
"'operation' includes exercises and other activities".
So the protection afforded to our forces by Clause 5 would apply to manoeuvres as well as acts of war. I believe that was the thrust of her question.
The noble Baroness also asked how the French and Germans, who have signed the treaty, have dealt with this problem. I understand the position to be that the French and German governments have put through primary legislation, as have the Canadians, in that respect. They are aware of our proposals; what they do, or do not do, is a matter for them, bearing in mind their own domestic legal arrangements and philosophies. But I know of no reason why they should not be able to continue to participate in NATO or any other combined operations or exercises. I hope that I have dealt with all the questions raised by the noble Baroness.
1172
I now turn to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I have some difficulty—and I hope I have the sympathy of the Committee—in that I was not clear whether I was invited to address the amendment standing in the noble Lord's name, or the noble Lord's speech. Their direction seemed precisely opposite. On the face of it, the amendment is intended to be helpful. It reads:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 19 of the Ottawa Convention".
It would have the effect, if anything, of strengthening Clause 5. However, the noble Lord's speech was directed almost exclusively at attacking Clause 5, and suggesting that it was not necessary or was in breach of the Ottawa Convention. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. Either he wants Clause 5 or he does not. I am glad to see from the way that the noble Lord is nodding his head that he does support Clause 5.
I should make it clear that Clause 5 does not seek to permit anything that is contrary to the convention. The noble Lord suggests that, because an activity is not criminal, it is permissible. It is not. These activities are prohibited by the convention and will be prohibited by our rules of military discipline. The Bill does all that it needs to do.
I do not seek to detain the Committee any longer on the amendment. When we come to discuss whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill, I may say a word or two about what we plan to do to make up the undoubted loss of military capability that we shall accept as a considered risk, on military advice, as a result of signing up to the Ottawa convention. I hope that, with the assurances that I have given, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Moynihan: I rise somewhat bemused. If, as the Minister informs the Committee, he sees my amendment, as I do, as vitally strengthening Clause 5, why does he not accept it? We have not heard one argument put forward in Committee against accepting such a clear, well defined and sensible amendment. My colleagues behind me call it a simple amendment; I am not sure that I would use that word in the context of this amendment.
I believe that the Minister might find himself in isolation among Members of the Committee in not understanding the point I was making. I was fully supportive of Clause 5. I see the protection in Clause 5 of the Bill as eminently sensible. I went to some length to express my concern that it does not fit with the convention which we are seeking to put into primary legislation today. That is the fundamental point. I deeply regret the fact that the Minister has not addressed that point, save in reflecting momentarily on the legal advice, he has received—admirable, learned, and excellent legal advice, I am sure—to the effect that there is no distinction between the convention and the primary legislation.
Learned lawyers in another place and in this House—but I particularly note the speeches in the other House of two notable QCs not normally at one on party political issues—have taken a totally different view. From the

1173
humble position of not being a lawyer, I hoped that the logic of my points would reinforce that view and, if nothing else, lead the Minister to put forward a clear legal analysis as to why I was incorrect. We did not hear that.
I remain very concerned that other state parties may determine that Clause 5 amounts to an exemption or reservation from the Ottawa convention, which under Article 19 allows for no reservation, and therefore must clearly be, to both lawyers and politicians alike, inconsistent with the UK's obligations under the convention or, more generally, inconsistent with the spirit of the convention. I am concerned that these state parties will take up the procedures for verification of compliance and settlement of disputes which are contained in Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the convention.
I accept that, although the Ottawa convention does not contain a jurisdictional clause explicitly conferring jurisdiction on the International Court of Justice, Article 8.19 provides for,
"The initiation of appropriate procedures in conformity with international law".
That worries me, as well. I hope it will not be the case that another signatory initiates proceedings against the United Kingdom in the ICJ if it feels that the UK is in breach of the convention. I am seriously worried that that will be the case.
I fear that what set out to be a defence initiative led and guided by the Foreign Office's ethical policy has become a muddled foreign policy, strongly rewritten at a later stage by the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, it is with some very serious reservations unallayed that I shall withdraw the amendment standing in my name. I shall do so in the hope that this primary legislation will come quickly to the statute book. It has been confirmed to me that, if we pressed an amendment to a vote and that vote led to further consideration in another place and again here, we should not be able to achieve the timetable that all Members of your Lordships' House and Members of another place hope will be achieved. If that is the case, I shall withdraw the amendment, but I do so with very serious reservations on this point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 35, after ("a") insert ("joint").
The noble Lord said: The addition of this single word is designed to strengthen and confirm the provisions of Clause 5. I had determined not to move my amendment, but I believe that, in the light of what has been said by the Minister and by my noble friend Lord Moynihan, I should move it in order to give the Minister an opportunity to reply to my noble friend. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: I wish to ask a question for clarification. I know that the Minister has agreed to write on the issue of the M181A. In the specific context of joint operations with the Americans, both parties having this form of Claymore mine, since that mine has
1174
a capability to become an anti-personnel mine, will it fall under the reference to stockpiling in Article 1 if we hold on to it?
Lord Gilbert: Despite the seductive invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, I think it would be a little odd for me to reply to one amendment while we are debating another one. However, we shall read with care what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said and, if we consider that we can help him by writing to him, we shall be happy to do so. I rely on the advice I have been given that there are no serious legal implications, and all I can do is repeat that assurance.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 4, while I do not doubt that it was intended to be helpful, as was the previous amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, it is rather restrictive and I do not believe that it would have the effect that the noble Lord intends. If we were to insert the word "joint" in the two places which the noble Lord suggests in Clause 5(2)(a), it would greatly restrict the protection available to Her Majesty's forces because it would restrict the protection to certain types of military operation and remove the general nature of the clause. In the light of that clarification, I shall be obliged if the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Burnham: I accept what the noble Lord says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Kennet: Hitherto we have been debating possible improvements to Clause 5. I intend to give the Committee an opportunity to debate a proposal to get rid of Clause 5 altogether.
I start by saying that I am a friend of the Bill; I am a friend of the Ottawa convention; and I am a friend of our Armed Forces, in one of which—although it was not the Army but the Navy—I served for the second half of the Second World War. I applaud the Government's action in this matter in every respect except only in respect of Clause 5.
I want to go back to the beginning of the clause. What is the language of the different relevant texts? It can be easily compared. Article 1 of the convention says,
"Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances"—
I repeat, "never under any circumstances"—
"to assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention".
Clause 2 of the Bill, giving effect to the convention, says that,
"no person shall assist, encourage or induce any other person",
and so forth, taking up the very words of the convention. However, Clause 5 of the Bill says that that does not apply in the case of international military operations outside the UK in which anti-personnel landmines are or may be deployed by the armed forces of a state which

1175
has not signed the Ottawa convention. In practice, that means NATO, both in and out of area, and the only two NATO members who have not signed are Turkey and the United States.
The clause in the Bill thus directly negates Article 1 of the Convention in that it specifies the circumstances in which a member of the British Armed Forces may assist, encourage or induce a member of the American or Turkish armed forces, for instance, in an activity prohibited to state parties, even if not to the United States or Turkey. Thus, with Clause 5, we try to exclude our troops from prosecution if they assist the troops of a non-signatory intent on laying mines without themselves doing the laying, which would have to be done by the non-signatory troops.
I should like to raise the question of where they might be prosecuted—we have not considered that enough. Even if Clause 5 stands part, our people would still be open to prosecution in the new International Criminal Court for breach of the convention. At least I think they would; I would welcome the opinion of the Government Front Bench on that. If the new court's prosecutor has, as many believe he should have, power to apprehend without an order from the court, then he could call on the British Armed Forces and police to help him apprehend the accused on British territory. Is that right? Will the new international court be able to send a prosecutor here and arrest a British soldier—I am taking an extreme, but it is good to take logical extremes—for assisting the Americans in laying landmines, even if Clause 5 stands part of the Bill? I believe he will be so entitled. We would not be able to nip in first and claim that the man would be properly prosecuted here in any case under national law and the court should not bother its august head with the case, because Clause 5 is intended precisely to prevent that man being prosecuted here.
The Government's interpretation of the convention as allowing a Clause 5 defence is certainly disputable. On what bit of the convention do they rely in asserting it? I cannot find any text in the convention which will permit that.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): In the light of the noble Lord's speech in relation to the inter-reaction between the convention and the Bill, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, and the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, perhaps I should briefly set out what we believe the position to be.
The convention bans certain activities, including assisting in the laying of landmines. Subject, inter alia, to Clause 5 of the Bill, anyone, either in Britain or abroad, who does such a thing is guilty of a criminal offence. Clause 5 provides a defence in special circumstances. That defence is where somebody is engaged in activity of a joint military nature. What is being said in Clause 5 is that, simply because we are engaged in a joint military operation where some other country which has not signed the convention is laying
1176
landmines, will not of itself constitute a criminal offence. It is a defence; it is not a permission to do specific things.
Even that defence excludes from it the act of laying landmines itself. That is an unequivocal act which is banned by the convention. There will be grey areas where it will not be clear precisely whether it was banned or not by the convention. I am sure we all agree that in relation to the individual soldier he must know precisely where he stands. However, it is the Government's unequivocal intention to stand by the aims of the convention. We want to do that but at the same time leave the soldier knowing where he stands.
Therefore, in relation to those cases where there may be abuses, we say that that will be dealt with by rules of engagement and standing orders. That is how we intend to comply with the convention. There is an underlying misconception in many of the questions in relation to international law. Britain could be taken to the international court—I cannot say the procedural way in which it would reach there—but the question would not be: does Clause 5 constitute a breach of international law? The question would be whether, on the facts of a specific case, it would constitute a breach of international law.
I have set out clearly our means of complying with the convention. Clause 5 is a defence to Clause 2. It is a part of the process of ratification or the process of compliance. There are other things as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said that the Canadians are only relying on the declaration. That is not right. The Canadians introduced legislation and they too dealt with this question. I cannot give the precise detail, but they have legislation that comprises a defence. It may not be on the same lines as ours, but it deals with it in the same way.
I hope that that clarifies the legal basis on which we proceeded. I cannot give anyone an assurance that we will be bound to win in an international court because I do not know what the facts of a specific case may be. However, I can assure the Committee that the Law Officers advised us on this and are perfectly content that this is an appropriate way to proceed.
Lord Kennet: I am flattered to have provoked such a lengthy and informative explanation from the Solicitor-General, which was firmer than anything we have heard so far on the point he addressed. There remains the question—I do not expect him to answer it now, but it remains unanswered—as to whether it will be possible for the prosecutor of the international court to come to this country and, using his own agents or maybe directing British police and Armed Forces, apprehend the person accused of assisting in the laying of mines contrary to the Ottawa convention. Obviously the Solicitor-General will need to take time to think about that.
It has been argued—and the argument is still rumbling around the Chamber today—that Clause 5 is not so odd or undesirable because it is only one of various other documents. It is worth running through this matter once more and comparing the language.

1177
We have been told that the Canadian Government, in a declaration made at the time it signed the Ottawa convention in Ottawa, said something comparable. Rather the contrary. The Canadian declaration states that mere participation in operations and so forth conducted in combination with the armed forces of states not party to the convention, which engage in activities prohibited under the convention,
"would not, by itself, he considered to be assistance encouragement or inducement in accordance with [the Convention]".
For Canada mere participation in the operation is all right, but assistance is not all right. For us, assistance is all right.
It is sometimes said—and my noble friend Lord Gilbert has referred to this today—that the governments of Germany or France have said or may say something like what HMG are saying in Clause 5. I have not found any trace of that and indeed, when I telephoned their military attachés in London, I was informed in both cases that the procedures for their adhesion to the convention have been concluded (including whatever parliamentary consideration was constitutionally necessary) and that no such declaration has been found necessary. So I do believe that we stand alone with the word "assist". That is the point where we part company with our allies. I think we should not, since it half aligns us with the non-signatories: Turkey, India, China, Russia and the United States prominent among them, though of course in practice we are talking overwhelmingly about the United States.
We have heard on earlier occasions (although not yet today) that the deletion of Clause 5 would cause the Bill to be lost, which we should all regret, I no less than anyone else. Well, it is true only up to a point. It will not, of course, be lost if the Government decide on second thoughts that it would be better without Clause 5, for all the reasons that others and I have given at different stages. If, for whatever reason, they decide they must still have Clause 5, it will still not be lost, only delayed by, say, four months until the spill-over. Here we encroach upon territory which is always regarded as somewhat sacrosanct for free debate in either House, and that is the work of the managers of government business. But I think it is permissible to look at that from the outside and see if we can accept the blanket assurances we get that the Bill will be lost for an indefinite time, and therefore in effect destroyed, by the disappearance of a single clause. If Clause 5 has been deleted here and the Government decide they must have it, the Bill will not be lost, but only delayed for four months until the spill-over or, if that is overbooked, by five or six months:- into the new Session.
The argument is heard that in the latter cases we may not be among the first 40 signatories, the number necessary to bring the convention into effect. Well, that is true, and it has a certain symbolic importance. It is also true that the Government put a lot of work into the negotiations and favoured the adoption of the convention in general and therefore have good reason to wish to be among the first, activating, group of 40 signatories. However, we must remember that the convention did not contain anything corresponding to Article 5 of the Bill. Article 5 of the Bill is an
1178
afterthought, suddenly tacked on after all the good work had been done by the Government. We still lack any explanation of why it was that the Government did not press for wording in the convention itself which would have made this national reservation unnecessary. Now I see that I am going to get the explanation. I suggest that one likely explanation is that after the convention was signed the non-signing United States suddenly realised that the present level of our collaboration with them in planning mine-handling was so high that a change would be inconvenient. If that is not the case, perhaps the Minister will let us know.
I do not myself propose to divide the House because I think it may be better after all if we adhere to the convention and then get taken to task within it under the machinery it includes for breaching it. The Government will not be able to plead ignorance of the objections to Clause 5, which have been thoroughly aired, and it will be interesting, if what I fear will happen does happen, to hear what arguments they do advance. I believe, even if no other noble Lord calls out in favour of deleting Clause 5, that the issue will have been well worth debating because the objections have now been fairly set forth not once but several times.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General for what was an extremely helpful statement. It has cast a great deal of light on the issue that we have been debating perhaps, some would say, to exhaustion. I shall ask him one question and then make one point. I want to ask him about the word "engage". The word "engage" to which he referred—"engage in joint operations"—I believe carries a lot of weight in terms of his statement. It deals with the issue that I raised earlier about the statement made by the Minister of the Armed Forces in another place; namely, whether being engaged in a joint operation includes actually assisting in the laying of landmines as distinct from the physical act of laying landmines. That is one of the issues that we are profoundly concerned about because it appears to be an issue where that statement and the convention were, to say the least of it, difficult to make compatible. The question I want to ask the Solicitor-General is whether he thinks we are in the clear when it comes to Article 8(18) and (19) of the Ottawa convention which allow other state parties to challenge in effect the validity of the actions of one other state party; in other words, is it his view—and I take his reservation about not being able to predict what an international court might decide—that we are not likely to be able to be challenged on that issue?
May I finally say that we take the view on this Bench that it is crucial to get this legislation through. We are not prepared to risk the possibility of it being held over to the spill-over or the following Session because we are well aware that legislation, once it goes into that mill race, may not surface again. For those reasons, while greatly respecting some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, we would not ourselves wish to support any Division of the House on this issue.
Lord Moynihan: It may be of assistance to the noble Baroness and the Solicitor-General if I add one other

1179
question to those already put by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I am extremely grateful to the Solicitor-General for coming to the Dispatch Box and giving the statement that he did. Because of, as we saw it, the need for Clause 5, and indeed for the immunity from prosecution for certain cases that may occur in the future and the importance of protecting our Armed Forces in those circumstances, it was a great pity we did not have before this House—I accept there was no desire to have an amendment or reservation—the interpretative declaration to which the Solicitor-General referred. Can he give an undertaking to this House that when that interpretative declaration is drafted it will faithfully and accurately reflect the points that he made which would have the widespread support of all Members of your Lordships' House, and that in so drafting the noble and learned Lord will also give consideration to the other legal issues that were reflected during this debate? I say that because obviously it would have been preferable to have seen a copy of the interpretative declaration in advance of this debate. I have to add that I think it might have curtailed the debate considerably had we done so. I know it has been requested in another place and it has been requested again today.
To summarise, I wish to repeat the request from this side of the House to ensure that the interpretative declaration to which the Solicitor-General referred will accurately reflect the comments that he has made during this debate and take into account some of the important legal points that have been raised both in this place and another place.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may deal first with the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. The word "engaged" was my word. It was intended to summarise what is in Clause 5. In essence, Clause 5 provides the defence to the criminal offence, which is Clause 2, if the conduct which is the subject of criminal proceedings takes place in the course of, or for the purposes of, a military operation to which this section applies. This section applies to an operation outside the United Kingdom which,
"involves the participation both of members of Her Majesty's armed forces and of members of the armed forces of a State other than the United Kingdom".
The word "engaged" is not used in the clause. Therefore, one should not waste too much time considering precisely what is meant by "engaged". The clause asks, "Are you participating, if you are the United Kingdom, in a joint operation with another state?"
The noble Baroness asked whether I am satisfied that we would win any challenge brought by another country under Article 8 that we had properly adhered to the convention.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the Solicitor-General for giving way. That was not the question I asked. That would be a foolish question. I asked whether he is satisfied that it is unlikely that we could be challenged under the terms of Article 8(18) and (19) of the Ottawa Convention. I am of course not
1180
asking him to predict what might be the outcome of any such challenge but whether he believes there is little basis—he cannot, of course, say no basis—for any such challenge.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am quite satisfied that there is little basis for a challenge. We will be putting in a declaration at the time we ratify. It will be an interpretive declaration and not a reservation of any kind. I cannot say what its precise terms will be, but it will not be that dissimilar from the Canadian declaration. There has been no suggestion that that contravenes or gives rise to a risk of challenge of the kind indicated by the noble Baroness. So I am moderately satisfied that it is unlikely that there is a real basis for such a challenge.
With regard to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, it would be wrong for me to give any undertakings in relation to the precise terms of the declaration. It will be published when it is published. It is not right to say that it should reflect what I have said in the House today. It must obviously be consistent with it but it will be doing a completely different kind of job. It will be setting out in two or three sentences the basis of interpretation on which we are ratifying the treaty. Therefore, it would be totally inappropriate for it to go through what the effect of Clause 5 is and what the effect of Clause 2 is. It is doing a completely different job. So I do not think that the question is that well made.
Lord Moynihan: Perhaps I may pursue that point. Can the noble and learned Lord make it clear that the interpretative declaration will make it clear that the convention was not intended and was not perceived to be intended by the United Kingdom to make operations with non-signatories impossible?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It will certainly make it clear that mere participation by the United Kingdom's Armed Forces in a joint operation with a non-signatory country which uses landmines will not of itself, as we construe the convention, be a breach of the convention.
Lord Gilbert: Just before we come to the end of the debate on whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill, it may be helpful if I touch on some of the points raised by noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, whose long-standing interest in and passion for this cause is well-known, has, I hope, had an answer that satisfies him on the legal questions. There is nothing I can add to what my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General said on those points. I am not sure whether my noble and learned friend mentioned that the jurisdiction of the new International Criminal Court will not extend to anti-personnel landmines.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend Lord Kennet said and I think he may have misheard my remarks. I was certainly not intending to suggest in any way that the German or French authorities had found it necessary to have the kind of declaration that we have. I was merely saying that I thought that, given their legal systems and their legal philosophies, they considered

1181
that their own procedures were adequate and that their troops would be protected and that they saw no reason why their troops could not continue to be engaged in exercises and operations with their allies.
Lord Kennet: I am grateful to my noble friend for allowing me to intervene. It is not that I misheard or misunderstood his remarks. I was referring in particular to remarks made in an earlier debate and to remarks made in general political discussions outside the Chamber.
Lord Gilbert: I am obliged. As I am sure my noble friend knows, we want to have the Bill enacted as quickly as possible not just for reasons of government business but because we want to see the convention carried into effect as soon as possible. The earlier we can go through our procedures, the earlier that will be.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about claymores. I can tell him that all our claymore mines will be used only in the command-detonated mode. They therefore fall outside the provisions of the convention.
There is only one other thing that I can say with some relish before I sit down. While I listened to my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General, who I would not dream of contradicting on any matters legal, I can correct him slightly on matters military. Wherever your Lordships read references in his remarks to "joint operations", I think you will find them more comprehensible if the word "combined" is substituted for "joint".
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 16th July), Bill read a third time.
1.17 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In moving this Motion, I should like to extend thanks to all noble Lords who have participated in our discussions. Noble Lords have expressed differences of opinion but the Bill has been considered in your Lordships' usual characteristic and constructive manner. I should like to thank the officials, particularly the officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and from the Ministry of Defence, who have so ably assisted my noble friends and myself in putting forward the Government's arguments.
Whatever the differences on the Bill, I believe that we have all pursued the same objective. We have now taken a firm step in the right direction of ensuring that, eventually, this appalling weapon—the anti-personnel landmine—which causes untold misery to countless people, men, women and children, will be removed from the face of the earth.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted for one very brief moment, before the Bill completes its passage through your Lordships' House, as one who had the privilege for some time of being the Princess of Wales' legal adviser and of being called her friend, to say that I know how gratified she would have been at the lead taken by Her Majesty's Government in this cause, which was so dear to her heart, and how grateful she would have been to the Members of your Lordships' House on all sides and of another place for expediting the passage of this measure through Parliament. It will indeed now be remembered, on the imminent anniversary of her tragic death, as having been in substantial part inspired by her deep dedication to this cause in a life which was all too short.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I would like to follow the noble Lord in his tribute to Diana's work. It is one that I am sure we all share. The last time I went to a conference on landmines the speech was made by Diana. It is a very valid point that she brought the eyes of the world to this problem.
I would like briefly to sum up the position we hold. In our objections and amendments, I hope that we have not given the impression that we do not believe that the Government will stick very closely to the spirit of the Ottawa Convention. We applaud the work that has been done by all Ministers concerned in pushing this issue forward. It is an issue that has been close to our hearts on these Benches. It is a wonderful feeling to know that this Bill is going through after numerous debates over the years in this place. A very positive step is being taken.
I understand why the Government put forward Clause 5. I thank the Solicitor-General for putting forward extremely clear and concise reasoning for Clause 5, which we can accept on the Liberal Democrat Benches. We found it unfortunate that this clause came to light so recently. That has been the cause of some of our concern. That is not the fault of the Government, but due to the fact that this legislation was announced only a few weeks ago. I thank all noble Lords for pushing forward this matter in such a rapid way. I hope that, once it is passed, it can be lodged with the UN as quickly as possible so that we are one of the first 40 to ratify the convention.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I could not echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but I believe that this is one of the best things that this House and this Government will have ever done. I thank the noble Baroness. I know what she may have faced in the Foreign Office and in the Ministry of Defence in getting this legislation through both Houses so quickly. I also thank the Solicitor-General for his wise words this morning. Oh that they had come a little earlier. We would have saved a little more time.
I do not want to detract from this very real step. As a trustee of the British Red Cross, I know that I shall now be able to encourage Red Cross and Red Crescent societies across the rest of the world that they should get on with this matter. It is a necessary step, but it is not one that we can believe is the end

1183
of our work. To ban landmines and to advise about them is but the beginning. It is to educate so that we avoid more tragedy and to make sure that landmines are cleared away as fast as possible. I believe that the noble Baroness knows full well that she will have the support of noble Lords in all parts of the House on the necessary steps that must be taken to clear away all the remaining landmines and to influence other countries to do so. That is the huge task that lies ahead. I am delighted to see the Bill go forward.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I wish to add my tribute to the tremendous work done by a number of non-governmental organisations in this field including the Red Cross and many others. They have devoted themselves to briefing all Members of this House and in another place as regards this Bill. They do their work without payment and often without recognition. It is very important that that is part of the glory of civic society in this country in making that kind of contribution.
Perhaps I may add my own words to what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. The convention makes it plain that the removal of mines is as much part of the object as the prevention of the laying of mines. In that context, I believe that many peacekeeping forces already deployed by the United Nations contain within it expertise on raising mines. I think, for example, of the Russian forces in Abkhazskaya and Georgia. I hope that the Foreign Office will give some consideration as to whether we can, together with the United Nations, ensure that people with such knowledge are used for the purpose rather than, as it were, stand to one side while minefields continue to exist. Raising landmines is as important as preventing the laying of new minefields.
I conclude with my thanks to the Ministers on the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, and the Solicitor-General for the way in which they have steered this Bill through the
1184
House. They have done so effectively and with such patience and consideration as regards the points that many of us have made.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I echo the expressions of gratitude and appreciation for the Government Ministers involved in the passage of this Bill and for the Liberal Democrat spokesmen and especially to my colleagues on the Front Bench. Seeing that the Government Chief Whip is in his seat, I am not sure that he will fully echo my next remarks. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. The reason I thank him is because, had it not been for his intervention today, we might not have had the excellent and much appreciated contribution from the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General. My colleagues and I are also very grateful.
The Landmines Bill is one of the important and humane breakthroughs of our time. It has been an honour for my colleagues and I to participate in the process of the elimination of one of the most malignant scourges of this century and to pass the relevant legislation.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am the last person left on these Benches. On behalf of the Cross-Benches, both noble and gallant, humanitarian and otherwise, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for his tribute to Princess Diana who has worked closely with many of the voluntary organisations. I add the thanks of the Cross-Benches to noble Lords of all parties who have participated in the working on and passing of the Bill.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their expressions of thanks and appreciation. The Princess of Wales has rightly been mentioned in your Lordships' remarks. I would also like to mention the many quietly dedicated and committed people around the world who have worked selflessly for the eradication of landmines either through their legislative processes or through putting their own lives at risk. Those many countless people should not be forgotten.
On Question, Bill passed.
House adjourned at twenty seven minutes past one o'clock.

  FCO: Secondments
  FCO: Secondments
  Former Soviet Republics: Dismantling of Nuclear Infrastructure
  Former Soviet Republics: Dismantling of Nuclear Infrastructure
  Higher Education Institutions: Projected Staff Requirement
  Higher Education Institutions: Projected Staff Requirement
  Postgraduate Students
  Postgraduate Students
  Scottish Office: Reviews
  Scottish Office: Reviews
  Genetically Modified Salmon
  Genetically Modified Salmon
  Scotland: Sixth Year Pupils
  Scotland: Sixth Year Pupils
  Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive: Implementation
  Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive: Implementation
  Water and Sewage Treatment: EU Requirements
  Water and Sewage Treatment: EU Requirements